ICG Case Digests

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS 2016-2017 INA CG
ELECTION AND SUFFRAGE

Case Title Facts Issue Held Doctrine
December 14, 1937 – general
elections was held. Parties
herein were contending
candidates for the office of
Mayor in Paracale, Province
of Camarines Norte. After the
canvass of the returns the
municipal council, acting as
board of canvassers,
proclaimed petitioner as the
elected mayor of said As long as popular government is an end to be achieved and
municipality (102 votes). safeguarded, suffrage must continue to be the manes by which
December 27, 1937 – the great reservoir of power must be emptied into the receptacular
respondent field a motion of agencies wrought by the people through their Constitution in the
protest in the CFI of Cam interest of good government and the common weal.
Norte, Whether or not Ballots were Republicanism (representative type of government) necessarily
Moya vs. Del Fierro July 13, 1939 – CA rendered read and appreciated points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular
69 Phil. 199 (1930) the judgment hereinbefore correctly sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the established
mentioned which is sought by authority. He has a voice in his Government and whenever called
the petitioner to be reviewed upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle
and reversed. it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots
should be read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with
MOYA’S CONTENTION: CA reasonable, liberality.
committed errors in admitting
and counting infavor of
del Fierro several ballots. (8
ballots either inadvertently or
contrary to the controlling
decisions of this Honorable
Court, 3 ballots marked "R.
del Fierro", 7 ballots marked
"Rufino del Firro", 72 ballots
marked "P. del Fierro")
Mariano Badelles and Camilo Whether the notices of YES. CA affirmed.

Badelles vs. Cabili Cabili were rival candidates appeal filed by Badelles and • Rules of court apply to election cases in a suppletory
G.R. No. L-29333 for the office of city mayor of his counsel are within the 5- character whenever practicable and convenient. As there
February 27, 1969 Iligan City. Cabili was elected day statutory period of is no provision in the Election Law regarding the manner
and assumed office. Badelles appeal. in which parties should be notified of the proceedings,
1
filed before the CFI an pleadings or decisions in election cases, Section2 rule 27
election case questioning of the ROC should apply.
Cabili’s right to hold office. He
was represented by Atty. • Under sec. 2 rules 27 of the ROC, services of the
Jose Africa. Atty. Africa decisions should be made to the lawyers on record, and
requested that all pleadings, not to parties. Service of pleadings is required to be made
notices, orders and other upon said attorney and not upon the party. A notice given
papers be served at his office to a client and not to his counsel is not a notice in law.
in Manila. Lower court Service upon counsel is mandatory.
entered judgment dismissing
the petition and it was
received at Africa’s Manila
office on Jan. 4, 160. In the
interim, Badelles, who
requested a copy of the
decision, was given a copy
on Dec. 28. A telegram was
also sent to the office of Atty.
Africa saying that a copy of
the decision was sent to
Badelles; it was received on
Jan. 4. Upon receipt of the
decision on Jan. 4, Africa
Law office sent a notice of
appeal by registered mail on
the same date. Badelles also
filed his own notice of appeal
on Jan. 5 with a
corresponding cash appeal
bond.Counsel of Cabili
objected to the appeal on the
ground that it was filed
beyond the period therefor.
The court dismissed the
appeals filed by badelles and
his counsel on the ground
2
that they were filed beyond

the five-day statutory period
of appeal.
Badelles filed a petition for

certiorari and mandamus with
the CA. Granted.Receipt by
the party of a copy of a
decision and the telegram are
not considered as service of
decision under the rules.The
five day period within which
to appeal was to begin when
the copy of the decision was
received by attorneys for
Badelles on Jan. 4 and not
Dec. 28.
In Feb 2001, a Senate seat The electorate should have been informed of the time, place &
for a term expiring on June manner of conduct of the May 14 2001 special election for the
30 2004 was vacated w/ the single senatorial seat for the unexpired term of VP Guingona. The
appointment of then Sen. cases of Tolentino, UNIDO, Blo Umpar Adiong & Hassan all
Guingona as VP of the PI. deepened the doctrine that a meaningful exercise of the right of
suffrage in a genuinely free, orderly&honest election is predicated
The Senate then adopted upon an informed electorate. The cases of Bince & Benito also
Resolution #84 certified the teach us that correct ascertainment of the will of the people is
Dissenting Opinion of Justice
existence of a vacancy in the equally necessary. In not allowing the voter to separately indicate
Puno in Tolentino vs.
Senate & 2) called the the candidate he voted for the 3yr senatorial term, the voter was
COMELEC
COMELEC to fill up the said deprived of his right to make an informed judgment based on his
G.R. No. 148334
vacancy through a special own reasons&valuations. Thus, his true will in the special election
January 21, 2004
election to be held was not ascertained.
simultaneously w/ the regular
election on May 14 2001, and It is the ponencia’s argument that RA 6645, as amended by RA
3) declared the senatorial 7166 already provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the
th
candidate garnering the 13 special election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously
highest number of votes shall w/ the next succeeding regular election. However, this is NOT the
serve only for the unexpired intention of the said laws, for they still require that the COMELEC
term of former Sen. issue an official notice of call of special elections. Likewise,
3
Guingona. Accdg to the neither RA 6645 nor RA 7166 contemplates the integration of the
Senate, this Resolutn is for special election into the regular election whereby candidates who
the “guidance” & filed certificates of candidacy for the regular elections also
“implementatn” of the automatically stand as candidates in the special election. The
COMELEC, &that it had NO Omnibus Election Code is clear that a candidate can run for only 1
discretion to alter the said position in an election.
procedure.
The ponencia likewise cites the Duquette case to lend support to
Nobody filed a certificate of its thesis that statutory notice suffices. In Duquette, it was held
candidacy to fill the position that in the absence of an official notice of the special election
of senator to serve the mandated by law to be held simultaneously w/ the regular
unexpired 3yr term in the election, there should be actual notice of the electorate, as proven
special electn. All the by the voting of a significant percentage of the electorate. In the
senatorial candidates filed the case at bar however, the number of votes cast for the special
certificates of candidacy for election cannot be ascertained as the ballot did not indicate
the 12 regular Senate seats separately the votes for special election. Thus, there is neither
w/ a 6yr term each. official notice nor proof of actual notice.
COMELEC distributed
nationwide official documents The Senate’s observation that the procedure for the special
(eg Voter Info Sheet, List of election that it adopted would be lost costly for the govt as the
Candidates, Sample Ballot). ballots need not be printed separately does not justify the manner
The List of Candidates DID of the May 14 2001 special election. We cannot bargain the
NOT provide 2 different electorate’s fundamental right to vote intelligently w/ of the coin of
categories of Senate seats to convenience. Besides, even w/ the Senate observation, the
th
be voted, namely the 12 regular ballot had to be modified anyway, to include a 13 space.
regular 6-year term seats &
the single 3-year term seat. Reliance on RA 6645 as amended by RA 7166 is ERRONEOUS,
Nor did the ballots provide a for under it, it is the COMELEC and NOT the Senate wc is
separate space for the supposed to call & hold special elections in case of vacancy. The
candidate to be voted in the Senate has NO POWER to impose on the COMELEC the
special election & instead procedure for the special election.
provided 13 spaces for 13
senatorial seats. In fine, the ponencia’s ruling will not only be a step back in time
but also constitute a fall in the nation’s rise to democracy. Free
Without any COMELEC elections does not only mean that the voter is not physically
resolution/notice on the time, restrained from going to the polling booth but also that the voter is
place & manner of the special unrestrained by the bondage of ignorance.
election, the special election
was held on the scheduled 2) 1951 & 1955 elections: In the 1951 & 1955 elections, wc were
May 14 2001 regular supposed to serve as models for special elections: a) a separate
elections. space was provided in the official ballot for senatorial candidates
running for the 2yr term, b) candidates for the single Senate term
4
A single canvassing of votes of 2 yrs filed separate & distinct certificates of candidacy, c)
for a single list of senatorial tallying & canvassing were separated for the regular&special
candidates was also done. elections.
Petitioners assailed the

manner by which the special
election was conducted for
violating the precedents set
by the 1951 & 1955 special
elections, both of wc were
held simultaneously & yet
distinctly w/ the regular
general elections.
Thus, they pray that the Court

declare that 1) NO special
elections were held & that 2)
Comelec’s Resolutions that
proclaim the Senatorial
candidate who obtained the
th
13 highest # of votes as a
duly elected be declared
NULL&VOID
5
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
A candidate aﬀected can file a petition for recount alone,
without the concurrence of the provincial board of canvassers
(Cawa vs. Del Rosario,
L-16837-40, May 30, 1960.) From the fact, therefore, that the
provincial board of
canvassers has not petitioned for a recount it cannot be
inferred that they were not
convinced, a discrepancy existed.
The Commission on Elections' copies of election returns are
authentic copies within the meaning of Section 163 of the
Revised Election Code
Where, as in the case at bar, there were patent erasures and
superimpositions in words and figures on the face of the
election returns submitted to the board of canvassers, it
was imperative for said board to stop the canvass so as to
allow time for verification
of authentic copies and recourse to the courts (Javier vs.
Purisima noted that the returns
Commission on Elections,
for some precincts showed Whether or not the motion for
Purisima vs. Salanga L-22248, January 30, 1965). A canvass or proclamation made
that votes for Cordero were recount is valid?
15 SCRA 704 (1965) notwithstanding such
erased and superimposed.
patent defects, without awaiting proper remedies, is null and
void (Ibid.).
Where a candidate was prevented by the board of
canvassers from securing the Commission on Elections'
copies of the returns to
establish a discrepancy between them and the Provincial
Treasurer's copies, the failure to submit the said copies to the
board should not prejudice his right to
petition for recount before the court.
Interpretation of election laws
should give eﬀect to the expressed will of the electorate.
Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of
the votes stated in the election returns
strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for canvass and
proclamation. A
comparison with the other copies, and, in case of discrepancy,
a recount, is the only way to remove grave doubts as to the
correctness of said returns as well as of
6
ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.

Certainly, the Commission on Elections, in the exercise of its
power, may order the opening of the ballot boxes to ascertain
whether the copy inside each ballot box is also tampered like
the three copies outside the ballot box, corresponding to each
precinct. The Commission on Elections may do this on its own
initiative, or upon petition by the proper party.
Once it is found that the copy of the election return inside the
ballot box is untampered, the Commission on Elections would
then have accomplished two things, namely: (1) secured a
basis for the prosecution for the violation of the laws relative to
Election for the Office of the elections, and (2) afforded the party aggrieved by the
Representatives was alteration of the election returns outside the ballot box a basis
held. Because of the alleged for a judicial recount of the votes as provided for in Section
irregularity in the 163 of the Revised Election Code.
Cauton vs. COMELEC canvassing of votes, The purpose of the Revised Election Code is to protect the
Whether the resolution is valid
19 SCRA 911 COMELEC issued a resolution integrity of elections and to suppress all evils that may violate
to reopen the ballot boxes to its purity and defeat the will of the voters.
obtain judicial remedies Lastly, Under section 157, the ballot boxes may be opened in
under section 163 of the case there is an election contest. They may also be opened
Revised Election Code. even if there is no election contest when their contents have to
be used as evidence in the prosecution of election
frauds.Moreover, they may be opened when they are the
subject of any official investigation which may be ordered by a
competent court or other competent authority.The "competent
authority" must include the Commission on Elections which is
charged with the administration and enforcement of the laws
relative to the conduct of elections.
The COMELEC has the power to investigate and act
on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election
returns made by the board of canvassers.
On 23 January 2007, The COMELEC did not abdicate its mandate and responsibility
Congress passed RA 9369 under Sec. 26 of RA 8436 With the view the SC takes of the
amending the first automated automation contract, the role of Smartmatic TIM Corporation is
[2]
election law, RA 8436. basically to supply the goods necessary for the automation
Roque vs. COMELEC Section 5 of RA 8436, as project, such as but not limited to the PCOS machines, PCs,
G.R. No. 188456 amended by RA 9369, which electronic transmission devices and related equipment, and
September 10, 2009 amendment took effect on 10 the like. As lessees of the goods and the back-up equipment,
February 2007, authorized the the corporation and its operators would provide assistance
COMELEC to: with respect to the machines to be used by the COMELEC
Use an automated election which, at the end of the day, will be conducting the election
system or systems in the thru its personnel and whoever it deputizes
7
same election in different Giving to the Provider (Smartmatic TIM) the access keys ―
provinces, whether paper- both the private and public access keys ― is like giving to the
based or a direct recording system administrator of Yahoo or Hotmail one's private
automated election system as password to his or her email account. The private key is
it may deem appropriate and supposed to be private to the Chair of the Board of Election
practical for the process of Inspectors, generated by him and unknown to the
voting, counting of votes and Provider. Otherwise, the Provider will have the capacity to alter
canvassing/consolidation and the election results at the precinct level. Worse, even the
transmittal of results of private keys at the canvassing level are generated by the
electoral exercises: Provided, Provider, allowing the Provider to change the election results
that for the regular national at the canvassing level.
and local election, which Clearly, the COMELEC has abdicated control
shall be held immediately over the elections to the Provider, putting the integrity and
after effectivity of this Act, outcome of the 10 May 2010 elections solely in the hands of
the AES shall be used in at the Provider
least two highly urbanized The COMELEC should be afforded ample elbow room and
cities and two provinces enough wherewithal in devising means and initiatives that
each in Luzon, Visayas and would enable it to accomplish the great objective for which it
Mindanao, to be chosen by was created – to promote free, orderly, honest and peaceful
the Commission x x x x In elections
succeeding regular national or
local elections, the AES shall
be implemented nationwide.
(Emphasis supplied)
The COMELEC did not use

any automated election
system in the 14 May 2007
elections, the national and
local elections held after RA
9369 took effect.
On 10 July 2009, the

COMELEC, on the one hand,
and TIM and Smartmatic
(Provider), on the other,
signed the Contract for the
automated tallying and
recording of votes cast
nationwide in the 10 May 2010
elections. For
P7,191,484,739.48, the
8
COMELEC leased for use in

the 10 May 2010 elections
82,200 optical scanners (and
related equipment) and hired
ancillary services of the
Provider.
On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as
taxpayers and citizens, filed
[4]
this petition to enjoin the
signing of the Contract or its
implementation and to compel
disclosure of the terms of the
Contract and other
agreements between the
Provider and its
[5]
subcontractors. Petitioners
sought the Contract's
invalidation for non-
compliance with the
requirement in Section 5 of RA
8436, as amended, mandating
the partial use of an
automated election system
before deploying it nationwide.
To further support their claim
on the Contract's invalidity,
petitioners alleged that (1) the
optical scanners leased by the
COMELEC do not satisfy the
minimum systems capabilities"
under RA 8436, as amended
and (2) the Provider not only
failed to submit relevant
documents during the bidding
but also failed to show
"community of interest" among
its constituent corporations as
required in Information
Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. COMELEC
(Infotech).
9
We are not unaware of the many doomsday scenarios peddled by doubting Thomases if the coming May 2010 elections will be
fully automated. To downgrade these scenarios, let it be emphasized that the PCOS System procured by COMELEC is a paper-
based system. It has a provision for system auditability and a voter-verified paper trail. The official ballots may be compared with
their digital images stored in the memory cards. All actions done on the machine are stored and can be printed out by the BEI
Roque vs. COMELEC
chairperson as an audit log, which includes time stamps. And in the event of problems arising from non-functioning PCOS
separate concurring opinion of
machines, the official ballots cast in the precincts, which have previously been fed into the locked ballot box, could be used for a
CJ Puno
manual recount. With these safeguards, the fear of automation failure should not overwhelm us.
For the first time, we shall be conducting our May 2010 elections through full automation. To be sure, full automation will not
completely cleanse the dirt in our electoral system. But it is a big forward step which can lead us to the gateway of real
democracy where the vote of the people is sacred and supreme
In this MR, petitioners Roque, Petitioners’ threshold argument delves on possibilities, on
et al. are again before the matters that may or may not occur.
Supreme Court asking that the Speculations and conjectures are not equivalent to proof; they
contract award be declared have little, if any, probative value and, surely, cannot be the
null and void on the stated basis of a sound judgment.
ground that it was made in While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues
violation of the Constitution, already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered—
statutes, and jurisprudence. and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration—the
Intervening petitioner also hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters
interposed a similar motion, substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant
but only to pray that the Board the desired course of action.
of Election Inspectors be Without delving on its wisdom and validity, the view of Justice
ordered to manually count the Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting opinion.
ballots after the printing and As such, it is without binding effect, a dissenting opinion being
Roque vs. COMELEC electronic transmission of the a mere expression of the individual view of a member of the
Is the motion for
MR election returns. Court or other collegial adjudicating body
reconsideration meritorious?
February 10, 2010 Petitioners Roque, et al., as Petitioners have obviously inserted, at this stage of the case,
movants herein, seek a an entirely new factual dimension to their cause. This we
reconsideration of the cannot allow for compelling reasons. For starters, the Court
September 10, 2009 Decision cannot plausibly validate this factual assertion of petitioners.
on the following issues or Moreover, as a matter of sound established practice, points of
grounds: law, theories, issues, and arguments not raised in the original
1. The Comelec’s public proceedings cannot be brought out on review. Basic
pronouncements show that considerations of fair play impel this rule. The imperatives of
there is a "high probability" orderly, if not speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal
that there will be failure of presentation of evidence and on the practice of parties of
automated elections; going to trial haphazardly.
2. Comelec abdicated its Moving still to another issue, petitioners claim that "there are
constitutional functions in favor very strong indications that Private Respondents will not be
of Smartmatic; able to provide for telecommunication facilities for areas
3. There is no legal framework without these facilities." This argument, being again highly
10
to guide the Comelec in speculative, is without evidentiary value and hardly provides a
appreciating automated ballots ground for the Court to nullify the automation contract.Surely, a
in case the PCOS machines possible breach of a contractual stipulation is not a legal
fail; reason to prematurely rescind, much less annul, the contract.
4. Respondents cannot The argument is untenable, based as it is again on news
comply with the requirements reports. Surely, petitioners cannot expect the Court to act on
of RA 8436 for a source code unverified reports foisted on it.
review;
5. Certifications submitted by
private respondents as to the
successful use of the
machines in elections abroad
do not fulfill the requirement of
Sec. 12 of RA 8436;
6. Private respondents will not
be able to provide
telecommunications facilities
that will assure 100%
communications coverage at
all times during the conduct of
the 2010 elections; and
7. Subcontracting the
manufacture of PCOS
machines to Quisdi violates
the Comelec’s bidding rules.
On August 15, 2011, the The grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ
Comelec and the DOJ issued nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order
a Joint Order creating and whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding
Whether or not the creation of
constituting a Joint Committee probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved by
the Joint Panel undermines
and Fact-Finding Team on the the Comelec in accordance with the Comelec Rules of
the decisional independence
2004 and 2007 National Procedure. With more reason, therefore, that we the the court
of the Comelec.
Arroyo vs. DOJ and Elections electoral fraud and cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an
COMELEC manipulation cases abdication of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the
Whether or not the DOJ
G.R. 199082 In its Initial Report of the Fact- 1987 Constitution
should conduct preliminary
September 18, 2012 and July Finding Team concluded that
investigation only when
23, 2013 manipulation of the results in The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the
deputized by the Comelec but
the May 14, 2007 senatorial concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by the
not exercise concurrent
elections in the provinces of amendatory law The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means
jurisdiction
North and South Cotabato, equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter.
and Maguindanao was indeed Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, there is no
perpetrated. It recommended prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power between two
that Petitioner Benjamin S. coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where
11
Abalos, GMA, and Mike one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one
Arroyo be subjected to office (such as the Comelec) for preliminary investigation
preliminary investigation for which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-
electoral sabotage and filing of substantially the same complaint with another office
manipulating the election (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction
results. by the second office over the cases filed will not be allowed.
On September 18, 2012, the Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that first
Court rendered the assailed takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to
Decision. It ruled that: the exclusion of the others.
Fact- Finding Team’s Initial
Report dated October 20,
2011, are declared VALID.
However, the Rules of
Procedure on the Conduct of
Preliminary Investigation on
the Alleged Election Fraud in
the 2004 and 2007 National
Elections is declared
INEFFECTIVE for lack of
publication.
The Joint Panel and the
proceedings having been
conducted in accordance with
Rule 112 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure and Rule
34 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, the conduct of the
preliminary investigation is
hereby declared VALID.
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of
Socorro Tan filed with the the HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a
Comelec an Amended Petition Whether or not COMELEC Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in Section
to Deny Due Course or to has jurisdiction over the 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be
Ongsiako Reyes vs. Cancel the Certificate of petitioner who is proclaimed considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there
COMELEC Candidacy of Regina as winner and who has must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1) valid
G.R. No. 207264 Ongsiako Reyes, the already taken her oath of proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
June 25, 2013 and October petitioner, on the ground that it office for the position of Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR
nd
22, 2013 contained material member of the House of yet as she has not assumed office yet. Also, the 2
representations.On March 27, Representative of Marinduque. requirement was not validly complied with as a valid oath must
2013, the COMELEC be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of
cancelled the certificate of Representatives, and (2) in open session. Here, although she
candidacy of the petitioner. made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication
12
She filed an MR on April 8, that it was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it
2013. On May 14, 2013, remains unclear whether the required oath of office was
COMELEC en banc denied indeed complied.
her MR. Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave
However, on May 18, 2013, abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. For an act to
she was proclaimed winner of be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of
the May 13, 2013 Elections. discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
On June 5, 2013, COMELEC Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and
declared the May 14, 2013 substantially show that grave abuse of discretion exists.
Resolution final and
Executory. On the same day,
petitioner took her oath of
office before Feliciano
Belmonte, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
She has yet to assume office
at that time, as her term
officially starts at noon of June
30, 2013.According to
petitioner, the COMELEC was
ousted of its jurisdiction when
she was duly
20
proclaimed because
pursuant to Section 17, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution,
the HRET has the exclusive
jurisdiction to be the “sole
judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and
qualifications” of the Members
of the House of
Representatives
13
VOTERS
Romulo Macalintal, as a
lawyer and a taxpayer,
questions the validity of the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He
questions the validity of the
said act on the following
grounds, among others:
1 That the provision that
a Filipino already No.
considered an There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are
immigrant abroad can required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period
be allowed to required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in
participate in absentee election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used.
voting provided he Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election
executes an affidavit laws is concerned). The domicile is the place where one has
stating his intent to the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an
return to the affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is
Macalintal vs. COMELEC Philippines is void considered a resident of the Philippines for purposes of being
Whether or not Macalintal’s
G.R. No. 157013 because it dispenses qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If the
arguments are correct.
July 1, 2003 of the requirement that immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not
a voter must be a qualified as an absentee voter.
resident of the The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the
Philippines for at least intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the
one year and in the proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and
place where he presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that
intends to vote for at Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The
least 6 months canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice
immediately preceding presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no
the election; way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
2 That the provision
allowing the
Commission on
Elections (COMELEC)
to proclaim winning
candidates insofar as
it affects the canvass
of votes and
proclamation of
14
winning candidates for

president and vice-
president, is
unconstitutional
because it violates the
Constitution for it is
Congress which is
empowered to do so.
Appellant was charged having
voted illegally at the general
elections held on June 5,
1934. After due trial, he was
convicted on the ground that
he had voted while laboring
under a legal disqualification. Yes. The right of the State to deprive persons to the right of
The judgment of conviction suffrage by reason of their having been convicted of crime, is
was based on section 2642, in beyond question. "The manifest purpose of such restrictions
connection with section 432 of upon this right is to preserve the purity of elections. The
the Revised Administrative presumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of
Code. Appellant was felony, or other base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is
sentenced by final judgment of unfit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The
1. W/N the state has the right
this court promulgated on exclusion must for this reason be adjudged a mere
to deprive a person’s right
March 3, 1910 to suffer eight disqualification, imposed for protection and not for punishment,
to suffrage
years and one day of presidio the withholding of a privilege and not the denial of a personal
2. W/N the appellant’s
People vs. Corral mayor. No evidence was right.
contention that the end of
62 Phil. 945 (1936) presented to show that prior to No. Neither is there any merit in the contention advanced by
his punishment thus ends
June 5, 1934, he had been counsel for the appellant that the disqualification imposed on
of his disqualification for
granted a plenary pardon. the latter must be considered as having been removed at the
election has merit.
It is likewise undisputed that expiration of his sentence. This claim is based upon an
at the general elections held erroneous theory of the nature of the disqualification. It
on June 5, 1934, the voted in regards it as a punishment when, as already indicated, the
election precinct No. 18 of the correct view is that it is imposed, "for protection and not for
municipality of Davao, punishment,. the withholding of a privilege and not the denial
Province of Davao. of a personal right." Judicial interpretation and long
Counsel for the appellant established administrative practice are against such a view.
contend that inasmuch as the
latter voted in 1928 his offense
had already prescribed, and
he could no longer be
prosecuted for illegal voting at
the general election held on
June 5, 1934.
15
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Respondent Maximo Abano is
a native of Meycauayan,
Bulacan. At the proper age, he
transferred to Manila to study. No. One of the qualifications required by law of a person who
While temporarily residing in announces his candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified
Manila, Abano registered as a elector. The Executive Bureau has held that the term
voter there. Shortly after "qualified" when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean
qualifying as a member of the that a person must be a registered voter. To become a
bar and after the death of his qualified candidate a person does not need to register as an
father, Abano returned to elector. It is sufficient that he possesses all the qualifications
Meycauayan to live there. prescribed in section 431 and none of the disqualifications
From May 10, 1927, up to prescribed in section 432. The fact that a candidate failed to
present, Abano has register as an elector in the municipality does not deprive him
considered himself a resident of the right to become a candidate to be voted for.
Is the non-eligibility of the
of Meycauayan. When the Furthermore, the law of Kentucky provides that "No person
respondent to hold a municipal
1928 elections were shall be eligible to any office who is not at time of his election a
office for the reason that he
approaching, he made an qualified voter of the city and who has not resided therein
Yra vs. Abano was not a “qualified voter in
application for cancellation of three years preceding his election." It was said that "The act of
G.R. No. 30187 his municipality”, connoting
registration in Manila dated registering is only one step towards voting, and it is not one of
15 November 15, 1928 that he was not a “qualified
April 3, 1928, but this the elements that makes the citizen a qualified voter. . . . One
elector therein”, sufficient to
application was rejected by the may be a qualified voter without exercising the right to vote.
nullify his election?
city officials for the reason that Registering does not confer the right; it is but a condition
it was not deposited in the precedent to the exercise of the right."
mails on or before April 4, The distinction is between a qualified elector and the
1928. Nevertheless Abano respondent is such, and a registered qualified elector and the
presented himself as a respondent is such although not in his home municipality.
candidate for municipal Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is
president of Meycauayan in not a qualification for such right.It should not be forgotten that
the 1928 elections and was the people of Meycauayan have spoken and their choice to be
elected by popular vote to that their local chief executive is the respondent. The will of the
office. Petitioner Marcos Yra electorate should be respected.
assails the eligibility of Abano
on the ground that he had not
been a resident of
Meycauayan for at least one
year previous to the election
Akbayan Youth vs. COMELEC On January 25, 2001, Whether or not the COMELEC No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant
G.R. 147066 AKBAYAN-Youth, together exercised grave abuse of to the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides
16
March 26, 2001 with other youth movements discretion when it denied the that no voters registration shall be conducted within 120 days
sought the extension of the extension of the voters before the regular election. The right of suffrage is not
registration of voters for the registration. absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration
May 2001 elections. The which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the
voters registration has already exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to
ended on December 27, 2000. safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration for the
AKBAYAN-Youth asks that ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
persons aged 18-21 be election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that
allowed a special 2-day even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly
registration. The Commission constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner – one
on Elections (COMELEC) which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing
denied the petition. order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times.
AKBAYAN-Youth the sued RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189’s provision is
COMELEC for alleged grave explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-
abuse of discretion for denying election act that cannot be reset.
the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special
alleged that there are about 4 registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is
million youth who were not allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre-
able to register and are now election matters because the additional voters from the special
disenfranchised. COMELEC two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the
invoked Section 8 of Republic book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed,
Act 8189 which provides that then entered into the computerized voter’s list; and then they
no registration shall be will have to reprint the voters information sheet for the update
conducted 120 days before and distribute it – by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections
the regular election. would have been overshot because of the lengthy processes
AKBAYAN-Youth however after the special registration. In short, it will cost more
counters that under Section 28 inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that youth
of Republic Act 8436, the voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in
COMELEC in the exercise of AKBAYAN-Youth’s pleading was attached any actual
its residual and stand-by complaint from an individual youth voter about any
powers, can reset the periods inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration
of pre-election acts including has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et
voters registration if the al admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension
original period is not observed. because they failed to register on time for some reasons,
which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant
and not those who slumber on their rights.
In the instant case, the The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
Whether or not the COMELEC
Kabataan Party-list vs. petitioners, Kabataan Party- It held that the right of every Filipino to choose its leaders and
has the authority to fix the
COMELEC List, seeks to extend the participate to the fullest extent in every national or local
voter's registration beyond the
G.R. No. 221318 voters registration for the May election is so zealously guarded by Article V of the 1987
prohibitive period set forth by
December 16, 2015 10, 2010 national and local Constitution.
R.A. 8189.
elections from October 31, The Court explained that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 decrees that
17
2009, as fixed by COMELEC voters be allowed to register daily during office hours, except
Resolution No. 8514, to during the period starting 120 days before a regular election
January 9, 2010 which is the and 90 days before a special election. The Court is bound to
day before the 120-day respect the determination of Congress that the 120 day or 90
prohibitive period starting on day period, as the case may be, was enough to make the
January 10, 2010. necessary preparations with respect to the coming elections
The petitioners anchor its and COMELEC's rule making power should be exercised in
ground on the provision of accordance with the prevailing law.
Section 8 of R.A. 8189 which R.A. 6646 and R.A. 8436 is not in conflict with the mandate of
reads: "The personal filing of continuing voter's registration under R.A. 8189. R.A. 6646 and
application of registration of R.A. 8436 both grant COMELEC the power to fix other period
voters shall be conducted daily for pre-election activities only if the same cannot be
in the office of the Election reasonable held within the period provided by law. However,
Officer during regular office this grant of power, is for the purpose of enabling the people to
hours. No registration shall, exercise the right of suffrage -- the common underlying policy
however, be conducted during under R.A. 8189, R.A. 6646 and R.A. 8436.
the period starting one In the case at bar, the Court did not find any ground to hold
hundred twenty (120) days that continuing voter's registration cannot be reasonably held
before a regular election and within the period provided by R.A. 8189.
ninety (90) days before a With regard to the Court's ruling in Akbayan-Youth v.
special election." COMELEC, The court explained that if the petitioners had only
On the other hand, COMELEC filed their petition, and sought extension, before the 120 day
maintains that the Constitution prohibitive period, the prayer would have been granted
and the Omnibus Election pursuant to the mandate of R.A. 8189.
Code confer upon it the power As a result, the petition was granted and the COMELEC
to promulgate rules and resolution fixing voters registration for the May 10, 2010
regulations in order to ensure national and local elections on October 31, 2009 was declared
free, orderly and honest null and void.
elections; that Section 29 of
R.A. 6646 and Section 28 of
R.A. 8436 authorize it to fix
other dates for pre-election
acts which include voters
registration; and that the
October 31, 2009 deadline
was impelled by operational
and pragmatic considerations,
citing Akbayan-Youth v.
COMELEC.
18
CANDIDATES
Grace Poe was found
Poe is qualified to be a candidate for President in the National
abandoned as a newborn
and Local Election on May 9, 2016.
infant in the Parish Church of
Jaro, Iloilo by Edgardo Militar
Poe, a foundling, a natural-born citizen? Yes, based on:
in 1968. Parental care and
• Circumstantial evidence
custody over her was passed
• Legislation
on by Edgardo to his relatives,
• Generally accepted principles of international law
Emiliano Militar and his wife.
Emiliano reported and
registered Grace Poe as a
Circumstantial evidence
foundling with the Office of the
There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino
Civil Registrar of Iloilo City.
parents and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. xxx. [T]here is
Fenando Poe, Jr. and Susan
a high probability that her parents are Filipinos. The Solicitor
Roces adopted Grace Poe.
General offered official Statistics from the Philippine Statistics
1991 – Poe went to the US to
office that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners
be a permanent resident
born in the Philippines was 15,985. While the Filipinos born in
therein
the country were more than 10 Million. On this basis, there is a
Poe-Llamanzares vs. 2001 – She became a
99% chance that the child born in the Philippines would be a
COMELEC naturalized US citizen
Filipino which in turn, would indicate more than ample
G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698- First quarter of 2005 – she
probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos.
700 came back to the Philippines
March 8, 2016 to permanently reside herein
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of Poe’s
February 14, 2006- she went
parents are the fact that:
back to the US to dispose
1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
family belongings
2. She has typical Filipino features.
July 18, 2006 – she re-
acquired Filipino citizenship
There are disputable presumptions that things have happened
According to Poe in her 2013
according to the ordinary course of nature. On this basis, it is
COC for Senator, before the
safer to assume that Poe’s parents are Filipinos. To assume
May 13, 2013 election, she
otherwise is to accept the absurd.
has been a resident of the
Philippines for 6 years and 6
months (reckoned from year
Legislation
2006 when she re-acquired
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens.
her Filipino citizenship under
[if !supportLists]Ø [endif]The amendment to the Constitution
RA 9225).
proposed by constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as
]Poe filed her COC for
natural born citizens was not carried out, not because there
Presidency for the May 9,
was any objection to the notion that persons of unknown
2016 elections (hence,
19
computing from May, 2013, parentage are not citizens, but only because their number was
she has been a resident in the not enough to merit specific mention. There was no intent or
Philippines for 9 years and 6 language that would permit discrimination against foundlings.
months only) On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the basic
However, in her COC, Poe right to equal protection of the laws.
declared that she is a natural [if !supportLists]Ø [endif]Likewise, domestic laws on
born and her residence in the adoption support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos.
Philippine up to the day before These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship
election would be 10 years upon the adoptee, rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the
and 11 months counted from first place to be adopted.
May 24, 2005 (when she [if !supportLists]Ø [endif]Recent legislation all expressly
returned from the US to the refer to “Filipino children” and include foundlings as among
Philippines for good). Filipino children who may be adopted.
Generally accepted principles of international law

The common thread of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights
obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and to
ensure that no child is stateless. The principles stated in the:
[if !supportLists]1. [endif]Hague Convention on Certain
Questions Relation to the Conflict of Nationality laws (that a
foundling is presumed to have the nationality of the country of
birth)
[if !supportLists]2. [endif]Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness (foundling is presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found)
bind the Philippines although we are not signatory to these
conventions.
Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North

and South America and Europe have passed legislation
recognizing foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of 189 countries
accept that foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence,
there is a generally accepted principle of international law to
presume foundlings as having been born and a national of the
country in which it is found.
[if !supportLists]2) [endif]After renouncing her American

citizenship and after having taken her Oath of Allegiance to the
20
Republic of the Philippines, has Poe re-acquired her status as

a natural-born Filipino citizen? Yes, Poe’s repatriation
resulted to reacquisition of natural born citizenship.
A natural born citizen before he lost his Philippine nationality

will be restored to his former status as natural born Filipino
after repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on
Audit etc).
[if !supportLists]3) [endif]Has Poe satisfied the 10 year

residency requirement? Yes, she will have been a resident
for 10 years and 11 months on the day of the election.
[T]here is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other

conclusion that Poe decided to permanently abandon her US
residence and reside in the Philippines as early as May 24,
2005.
Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her

family abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the
Philippines for good. These evidence include former US
passport showing her arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return
to the Philippines every time she travelled abroad, email
correspondences with freight company to arrange for the
shipment of household items as well as with the pet Bureau;
school records of her children showing enrolment in the
Philippine to the Philippine schools starting on June 2005 etc.
xxx These evidence, coupled with her eventual application to
reacquire Philippine citizenship is clear that when she returned
in May 2005, it was for good.
Poe was able to prove that her statement in her 2013 COC
was only a mistake in good faith. As explained by Grace Poe,
she misunderstood the date required in the 2013 COC as the
period of residence as of the day she submitted that COC in
2012. She said that she reckoned residency from April-May
2006 which was the period when the U.S. house was sold and
her husband returned to the Philippines. In that regard, she
was advised by her lawyers in 2015 that residence could be
counted from 25 May 2005. Such a mistake could be given in
evidence against her but it was by no means conclusive
21
considering the overwhelming evidence submitted by Poe.

Rommel Arnado is a natural Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign
born Filipino citizen. However, citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC,
as a consequence of his he used his US passport four times, actions that run counter to
subsequent naturalization as a the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By using
citizen of the United States of his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily
America, he lost his Filipino represented himself as an American, in effect declaring before
citizenship. Arnado applied for immigration authorities of both countries that he is an
repatriation under Republic American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges
Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the granted by the United States of America. The renunciation of
Consulate General of the foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be
Philippines in San Franciso, professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It
USA and took the Oath of requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign
Allegiance to the Republic of citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights
the Philippines on 10 July granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
2008. On the same day an While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts
Order of Approval of his enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting
Citizenship Retention and Re- renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship, it is
acquisition was issued in his nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of
favor. On 3 April 2009 Arnado Whether or not the use of a renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a
Maquiling vs. COMELEC again took his Oath of foreign passport after citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local
G.R. No. 195649 Allegiance to the Republic and renouncing foreign citizenship elective position.
April 16, 2013 executed an Affidavit of affects one’s qualifications to
Renunciation of his foreign run for public office. We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using
citizenship. a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino
On 28 April 2010, respondent citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by
Linog C. Balua (Balua), representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado
another mayoralty candidate, voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a
filed a petition to disqualify dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it took place
Arnado and/or to cancel his the instant Arnado represented himself as an American citizen
certificate of candidacy for by using his US passport. This act of using a foreign passport
municipal mayor of after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnado’s
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte bid for public office, as it effectively imposed on him a
in connection with the 10 May disqualification to run for an elective local position. The
2010 local and national citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing
elections. Respondent Balua one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the
contended that Arnado is not a renunciation of the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any
resident of Kauswagan, Lanao act which violates the oath of renunciation opens the
del Norte and that he is a citizenship issue to attack.
foreigner, attaching thereto a
certification issued by the We therefore hold that Arnado, by using his US passport after
Bureau of Immigration dated renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same
22
23 April 2010 indicating the Oath of Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local
nationality of Arnado as “USA- Government Code applies to his situation. He is disqualified
American.” The COMELEC not only from holding the public office but even from becoming
First Division ruled that the a candidate in the May 2010 elections.
petition for disqualification be
granted because he is still
using his US passport after his
renunciation of his US
citizenship which negates his
Affidavit of Renunciation.
Arnado filed a Motion for
Reconsideration before the
COMELEC En Banc.
Petitioner Casan Macode
Maquiling (Maquiling), another
candidate for mayor of
Kauswagan, and who
garnered the second highest
number of votes in the 2010
elections, intervened in the
case and filed before the
COMELEC En Banc a Motion
for Reconsideration together
with an Opposition to Arnado’s
Amended Motion for
Reconsideration.
The COMELEC En Banc
granted the Motion for
Reconsideration of Arnado on
the ground that the use of a
US passport……. does not
operate to revert back his
status as a dual citizen prior to
his renunciation as there is no
law saying such. More
succinctly, the use of a US
passport does not operate to
“unrenounce” what he has
earlier on renounced.
Maquiling files a petition
before the Supreme Court to
assail the decision of the
23
COMELEC En Banc.
Rommel Arnado was a
natural-born Filipino. Later, No.
however, he became an 1. Firstly, the fact that he obtained a landslide victory does not
American citizen. override the requirements set by law. The fact that he
On July 10, 2008, he re- garnered 84% of the total votes cast in Kauswagan cannot
acquired his Filipino override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
citizenship by executing an qualifications and disqualifications. Election victory cannot be
oath of allegiance to the used as a magic formula to bypass election eligibility
Philippines. requirements; otherwise, certain provisions of laws pertaining
On April 3, 2009, he executed to elections will become toothless.
an affidavit renouncing his 2. The COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
American citizenship. when it disqualified Arnado. Arnado failed to comply with the
On November 30, 2009, he requirements of RA 9225. Although he did swear allegiance to
filed a certificate of candidacy the Philippines and renounced his US citizenship prior to filing
(COC) for mayor of his COC in November 2009, such acts were deemed recanted
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte or withdrawn when he again used his US passport.
for the May 10, 2010 elections. In fact, Arnado did not controvert the allegations that he used
A rival candidate (Linog Balua) his US passport in January 2010 and March 2010. As such,
then filed a disqualification he remained a US citizen and is therefore disqualified to run
Arnado vs. COMELEC case against Arnado on the for public office.
Whether or not the arguments
G.R. No. 210164 ground that Arnado used his What Arnado could have done, for the purposes of running in
raised by Arnado are tenable.
August 18, 2015 US passport after renouncing the 2013 elections, was to renounce again (for the third time)
his US citizenship in April his US citizenship. But he never did that hence he was
2009. It was argued that such rightfully disqualified in the 2013 elections too.
act of using a US passport Note also that assuming that Arnado never used his US
constitutes dual allegiance and passport in January 2010 and March 2010, he is still
that is a ground for disqualified.
disqualification under the Arnado averred that his use of his US passport prior to
Local Government Code. In November 2009 was cured when he again made a second
short, it was argued that renunciation of his US citizenship on November 30, 2009.
Arnado remained a US citizen. However, the Affidavit of Renunciation he offered in court
In his defense, Arnado argued during trial was a mere photocopy of the original. Under the
that he is qualified to run for Best Evidence Rule (Section 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of
public office because he Court), the original must be presented unless the same is lost.
complied with the In this case, the original was never alleged to have been lost.
requirements of Republic Act Further, the said Affidavit was being used belatedly by Arnado.
No. 9225 which provides that In fact, it was never formally offered. Under Section 34, Rule
a former Filipino citizen may 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, “The court shall consider
run for elective public office if no evidence which has not been formally offered.”
(1) they meet the qualifications
for the elective office they
24
desire, and (2) make a

personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenships – which
must be done before the filing
of the COC.
Arnado explained that his use
of his US passport after April
2009 was because of the fact
that he did not know yet that
he had been issued already a
Philippine passport; that when
he received said Philippine
passport, he used it since
then; that at any rate, Arnado,
on November 30, 2009, again
executed an Affirmation of
Renunciation with Oath of
Allegiance before a notary
public.
Balua however presented
proof that Arnado again used
his US passport in January
2010 and in March 2010.
Eventually, the Commission
on Elections disqualified
Arnado, who won the 2010
elections, and declared
another rival candidate as the
rightful mayor. This was
affirmed by the Supreme Court
(G.R. No. 195649).
Later, on October 1, 2012,
Arnado filed his COC for
mayor for the May 2013
elections. Another rival
candidate (Casan Maquiling)
filed a petition to disqualify
Arnado based on the ruling in
G.R. No. 195649. While the
case was pending,
Arnado won the 2013
25
elections as he even acquired

84% of the votes cast for
mayor in Kauswagan.
Later however, the COMELEC
disqualified Arnado from
running in the May 2013
Elections and his declaration
as Mayor of Kauswagan was
voided. Arnado sued the
COMELEC as he argued that
the COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion. He
averred that he was able to
comply with the requirements
of RA 9225; and that his
disqualification only
disenfranchised 84% of the
Kauswagan voters.
The Comelec cancelled
Caballero’s certificate of
candidacy (COC) on May 3,
2013, or 10 days before the NO.
2013 midterm elections. The court argued that the period from September 13, 2012 –
While he renounced his when Caballero re-acquired his Filipino citizenship – to May
Canadian citizenship and took 12, 2013 "was even less than the one-year residency required
the Oath of Allegiance to the by law."
Philippines, the Comelec The court also did not agree with Caballero, who claimed that
found that he was unable to his 9-month actual stay in Uyugan was substantially compliant
Whether or not COMELEC
"re-establish his domicile [of with the residency requirement.
Caballero vs. COMELEC committed grave abuse of
origin] in Uyugan" – a He even claimed that the requirement is not strictly based on
G.R. No. 209835 discretion is cancelling
requirement to be eligible to the period of residence in the place where he is seeking an
September 22, 2015 petitioner’s COC.
run for elective office. elective office, but based on how familiar he is with the needs
He still won, however, against of his constituents.
Jonathan Nanud and was the "The Comelec found that petitioner failed to present competent
first proclaimed mayor on May evidence to prove that he was able to reestablish his
14, 2013. He asked the residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately
Comelec to reconsider the preceding the May 13, 2013 elections," the SC said in its
cancellation of his COC on decision.
May 16, 2013, but, on the next
day, his opponent Nanud filed
a petition to annul his
proclamation.
26
The Comelec denied

Caballero’s petition on
November 6, 2013, after which
he brought the case to the SC.
In 1988, Juan Frivaldo won as

governor of Sorsogon.
Salvador Estuye, President of No. He has not regained Filipino citizenship. As far as
the League of Municipalities of Philippine law is concerned, he is not a Filipino. He lost his
Sorsogon, filed with the citizenship when he declared allegiance to the United States.
COMELEC a petition for Even if he did lose his US citizenship, that did not restore his
annulment of Frivaldo’s being a Filipino because he did not undergo naturalization or
election and proclamation repatriation proceedings. Neither did his participation in the
because apparently, Frivaldo, 1988 elections restore his Philippine citizenship. At best, he is
in 1983, was naturalized as an a stateless person. He cannot serve as governor when he
American. In his defense, owes allegiance to a foreign state. The fact that he was
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC Frivaldo said that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent
Whether or not Frivaldo can
G.R. No. 120295 forced to be naturalized violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and
validly serve as a governor.
June 28, 1996 because the then President employment only to the citizens of this country. The
Marcos was after him; but that qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased
participating in the Philippine by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed
elections, he has effectively through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility,
lost his American citizenship especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the
pursuant to American laws. He candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict
also assailed the petition as he application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a
claimed that it is in the nature person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he
of a quo warranto which is must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and
already filed out of time, the renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
same not being filed ten days
after his proclamation.
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160
and Eduardo Manzano were Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as
both candidates for Vice- referring to dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from
Mayor of Makati in the May 11, dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
Whether or not a dual citizen
1998 elections. application of the different laws of two or more states, a person
Mercado vs. Manzano is disqualified to hold public
Based on the results of the is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
G.R. No. 135083 elective office in the
election, Manzano garnered Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation in
May 26, 1999 Philippines.
the highest number of votes. which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
However, his proclamation loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
was suspended due to the involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's
pending petition for volition. Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual
disqualification filed by allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
27
Ernesto Mercado on the shall be dealt with by law."

ground that he was not a Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall
citizen of the Philippines but of under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance,
the United States. who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect
From the facts presented, it to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual
appears that Manzano is both citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their
a Filipino and a US citizen. certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
The Commission on Elections terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship
declared Manzano disqualified considering that their condition is the unavoidable
as candidate for said elective consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
position. By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same
However, in a subsequent time forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are
resolution of the COMELEC also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual
en banc, the disqualification of citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign
the respondent was reversed. state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively
Respondent was held to have renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.
renounced his US citizenship When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes
when he attained the age of an oath that he renounces his loyalty to any other country or
majority and registered himself government and solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance
as a voter in the elections of to the Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by
1992, 1995 and 1998. law is satisfied and complied with. The determination whether
Manzano was eventually such renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions
proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of our Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an
of Makati City on August 31, exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply
1998. the law duly enacted by the legislative department of the
Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere with its
operation and application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of
respondent sufficed to renounce his American citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a
dual citizen. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he
is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support
the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental
reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this
country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American
citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a
dual citizen.
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to
the Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has
spent his youth and adulthood, received his education,
28
practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past

elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of
Philippine citizenship.
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill
his undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust,
there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his
Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate
proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained
the denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the ground
that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied
for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in
commercial documents executed abroad that he was a
Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against
any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his
foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act
constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
Both petitioner Villaber and

respondent Douglas R. Cagas
were rival candidates for a
congressional seat in the First
District of Davao del Sur
COMELEC believed it is, applying Section 12 of the Omnibus
during the May 14, 2001
Election Code that any person who has been sentenced by
elections.
final judgment for any offense for which he has been
sentenced for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
Cagas filed with the
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office.
COMELEC, a consolidated
Whether or not violation of Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in
petition to disqualify Villaber
B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to
Villaber vs. COMELEC and to cancel the latter’s
turpitude, which would society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
G.R. No. 148326 certificate of candidacy,
disqualify Villaber as a rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct
November 15, 2001 alleging that Villaber was
candidate for and from holding contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
convicted for violation of Batas
any public office. In the case at bar, petitioner does not assail the facts and
Pambansa Blg. 22. Cagas
circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. In
further alleged that this crime
effect, he admits all the elements of the crime for which he
involves moral turpitude;
was convicted. There was no grave abuse of discretion
hence, under Section 12 of the
committed by respondent COMELEC in issuing the assailed
Omnibus Election Code, he is
Resolutions.
disqualified to run for any
public office.
COMELEC issued the

resolution declaring Villaber
29
disqualified as a candidate.
The latter filed a motion for
reconsideration but was
denied.
Hence, this petition.

Petitioner Lonzanida was duly
elected and served two
consecutive terms as
municipal mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales prior to the
May 1995 elections. In the
May 1995 elections Lonzanida
ran for mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales and was again
proclaimed winner. He
assumed office and The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot be considered a full
discharged the duties thereof. Whether petitioner’s term of office for two reasons, he cannot be considered
His proclamation was assumption of office from May elected as the proclamation was void and he also did not
Lonzanida vs. COMELEC
contested and resulted to 1995 to March 1, 1998 is voluntary renounce office, but was involuntary severance from
G.R. No. 135150
declaring his opponent considered full term of office office.
July 28, 1999
winning the election and for the purpose of three-term The petition is granted and the resolution of the COMELEC
ordered Lonzanida to vacate rule declaring petitioner Lonzanida disqualified to run for mayor in
the office. In the May 11, 1998 the 1998 mayoral elections are hereby set aside.
elections Lonzanida again filed
his certificate of candidacy.
His opponent filed a petition
for disqualification on the
grounds that it is a violation of
the three-term rule.
COMELEC granted the
petition. Petitioner filed a
petition challenging the validity
of the COMELEC resolution.
Abundo vied for the position of ISSUE #1: Is the service of a RULING 1: No. Abundo cannot plausibly claim,even if he
municipal mayor of Viga, term less than the full three wanted to, that he could hold office of the mayor as a matterof
Catanduanes. In both the years by Mayor Abundo, in right during the period of one year and ten months, or from
Abundo vs. COMELEC
2001 and 2007 runs, he view of an election protest, June 30, 2004 until May 8, 2006. Neither can heassert title to
G.R. No. 201716
emerged and was proclaimed considered as full service of the same nor serve the functions ofthe said elective office. The
January 8, 2013
as the winning mayoralty the term for purposes of the reason is that during that period, title to hold such office and
candidate and accordingly application of the three the corresponding right to assume the functions thereof still
served the corresponding consecutive term limit for belonged to his opponent, as proclaimed election winner.
30
terms as mayor. elective local officials? Accordingly, Abundo actually held the office and exercised the
ISSUE #2: Under what functions as mayor only upon his declaration, following the
In the 2004 electoral derby, instances are the consecutive resolution of the protest, as duly elected candidate in the May
however, the Viga municipal terms not “involuntary broken 2004 elections or for only a little over one year and one month.
board of canvassers initially or interrupted”? Consequently, since the legally contemplated full term for local
proclaimed as winner one elected officials is three (3) years, it cannot be said that
Jose Torres (Torres), who, in Abundo fully served the term 2004-2007.
due time, performed the RULING 2: The instances wherein such consecutive terms are
functions of the office of not considered as having been “involuntarily interrupted or
mayor. Abundo protested broken” are as follows:
Torres’ election and
proclamation. Abundo was (1) Assumption of Office by Operation of Law;
eventually declared the winner (2) Recall Election;
of the 2004 mayoralty electoral (3) Conversion of a Municipality into a City;
contest, paving the way for his (4) Period of Preventive Suspension; and
assumption of office starting (5) Election Protest
May 9, 2006 until the end of
the 2004-2007 term on June
30, 2007, or for a period of a
little over one year and one
month.
Then came the May 10, 2010

elections where Abundo and
Torres again opposed each
other. When Abundo filed his
certificate of candidacy for the
mayoralty seat relative to this
electoral contest, Torres lost
no time in seeking the former’s
disqualification to run, the
corresponding petition,
predicated on the three-
consecutive term limit rule.
Marquez, a candidate for an Whether or not private No. Although it is provided in Article 73 of the Rules and
elective position in Quezon respondent, who at the time of Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of
Province during the 1998 the filing of his COC is said to 1991 that for a person to be considered a fugitive from justice,
Marquez vs. COMELEC
elections, filed a petition be facing criminal charges he or she has to be convicted by final judgment, but such
243 SCRA 538
praying for the cancellation of before a foreign court and definition is an ordinate and under circumscription of the law.
the certificate of candidacy of evading a warrant of arrest For the term fugitive from justice includes not only those who
Rodriguez on the ground of comes within the term “fugitive after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who,
31
disqualification under section from justice”. after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. This definition
40 of the Local Government truly finds support from jurisprudence, and it may be conceded
Code Section 40. as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the
Disqualification. term.
The following persons are
disqualified from running for
any local elective position…
(e) Fugitive from justice in
criminal or non-political cases
here or abroad.
Rodriguez is allegedly
criminally charged with
insurance fraud or grand theft
of personal property in the
United States and that his
arrest is yet to be served
because of his flight from the
country. The COMELEC
dismissed Marquez’s Petition.
Rodriguez was proclaimed the
Governor-elect of Quezon.
Petitioner Casimira Dela cruz Sections 211 (24) and 72 applies to all disqualification cases
ran for and was elected and not to petitions to cancel or deny due course to a
member of the Sangguniang certificate of candidacy such as Sections 69 (nuisance
Bayan of Bugasong, Antique candidates) and 78 (material representation shown to be
in the 2001, 2004 and 2007 false).
elections. On November 28,
2009, petitioner files her COC Clearly, a petition to cancel or deny due course to a COC
for the postion of Vice-Mayor under Section 69 as in Section 78 cannot be treated in the
of the Municipality of Whether or not votes cast for same manner as a petition to disqualify under Section 68 as
Dela Cruz vs. COMELEC
Bugasong, Antique. the candidate whose COC what COMELEC did when it applied the rule provided in
G.R. No. 192221
Subsequently, Aurelio Dela was cancelled or denied due Section 72 that the votes cast for a disqualified candidate be
November 13, 2012
Cruz also filed COC for the course be considered stray? considered stray, to those registered candidates whose COC's
same position. had been cancelled or denied due course. Strictly speaking, a
Petitioner filed a petition to cancelled certificate cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and
declare Aurelio a nuisance much less to valid votes. Said votes cannot be counted in
candidate on the ground that favor of the candidate whose COC was cancelled as he/she is
he filed his COC to put the not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a
election process in mockery COC.
and to cause confusion among
voters due to the similarity of COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 issued in relation to the
32
his surname with petitioner’s finality of resolutions or decisions in special action cases,
surname. provides:
COMELEC First Division (5)the decision or resolution of a DIVISION on nuisance
declared Aurelio as a nuisance candidate, particularly where the nuisance candidate has the
candidate and cancelling his same name as the bona fide candidate shall be immediately
COC for the vice-mayoralty executory after the lapse of five (5) days unless a motion for
position in Bugasong.Despite reconsideration is seasonably filed. In which case, the votes
the declaration, however, his cast shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and
name was not deleted in the tallied for the bona fide candidate.
Certified List of Candidates
and Official Sample Ballot Here, Aurelio was declared a nuisance candidate long before
issued by the COMELEC. the May 10, 2010 elections. As shown in this case, COMELEC
COMELEC EN Banc issued issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, nine days before
Resolution No. 8844 listing the elections, with sufficient time to delete the names of
the names of disqualified disqualified candidates not just from the Certified List of
candidates, including Aurelio Candidates but also from the Official Ballot. Indeed, what use
and to delete the names of the will it serve if COMELEC orders the names of disqualified
said candidates from the candidates to be deleted from list of official candidates if the
certified list of candidates and official ballots still carry their names? We hold that the rule in
to consider stray the votes of Resolution No. 4116 considering the votes cast for a nuisance
said candidates, if voted upon. candidate declared as such in a final judgment, particularly
On May 10, 2010, the first where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that
automated national and local of the legitimate candidate, not stray but counted in favor of
elections proceeded as the latter, remains a good law. As earlier discussed, a petition
scheduled. Aurelio's name to cancel or deny a COC under Section 69 of the OEC should
remained in the official ballots. be distinguished from a petition to disqualify under Section 68.
Consequently, on May 13, Hence, the legal effect of such cancellation of a COC of a
2010, private respondent John nuisance candidate cannot be equated with a candidate
Lloyd M. Pacete was disqualified on grounds provided in the OEC and Local
proclaimed Vice-Mayor of Government Code. EcTCAD Moreover, private respondent
Bugasong by the MBOC of admits that the voters were properly informed of the
Bugasong. cancellation of COC of Aurelio because COMELEC published
On May 21, 2010, petitioner the same before election day. As we pronounced in Bautista,
filed with the Regional Trial the voters' constructive knowledge of such cancelled
Court of the Province of candidacy made their will more determinable, as it is then
Antique an election protest more logical to conclude that the votes cast for Aurelio could
praying for (1) the tallying in have been intended only for the legitimate candidate,
her favor of the 532 votes cast petitioner. The possibility of confusion in names of candidates
for Aurelio; (2) the annulment if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots
of respondent Pacete's on election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even
proclamation as Vice-Mayor of under the automated voting system especially considering that
Bugasong; and (3) her voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the
33
proclamation as winning nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide candidate they
candidate for the position of intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement
Vice-Mayor of Bugasong ballots to correct the same.
Private respondent thus
suggests that regardless of the COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 dated May 1, 2010 insofar
ground for disqualification, the as it orders that the votes cast for candidates listed
votes cast for the disqualified therein, who were declared nuisance candidates and
candidate should result in whose certificates of candidacy have been either
considering the votes cast for cancelled or set aside, be considered stray, is hereby
him as stray as explicitly declared NULL and VOID. Consequently, the 532 votes
mandated by Section 211 (24) cast for Aurelio N. Dela Cruz during the elections of May
in relation to Section 72 of the 10, 2010 should have been counted in favor of Casimira S.
OEC. Dela Cruz and not considered stray votes, making her
total garnered votes 6,921 as against the 6,428 votes of
private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete who was the
declared winner. Petitioner Casimira S. Dela Cruz is
hereby DECLARED the duly elected Vice-Mayor of the
Municipality of Bugasong, Province of Antique in the May
10, 2010 elections.
In September 12, 2007, the Yes. Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully
Sandiganbayan convicted restored all his civil and political rights, which naturally
former President Estrada for includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point
the crime of plunder and was of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to
sentenced to suffer the penalty former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and
of Reclusion Perpetua and the unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of
accessory penalties of civil the Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable, objective, and
interdiction during the period May former President Joseph constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon is
of sentence and perpetual Estrada run for public office that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the
Atty. Risos-Vidal vs.
absolute disqualification. On despite having been convicted Revised Penal Code.
COMELEC and Estrada
October 25, 2007, however, of the crime of plunder which
G.R. No. 206666
former President Gloria carried an accessory penalty It is insisted that, since a textual examination of the pardon
January 21, 2015
Macapagal Arroyo extended of perpetual disqualification to given to and accepted by former President Estrada does not
executive clemency, by way of hold public office? actually specify which political right is restored, it could be
pardon, to former President inferred that former President Arroyo did not deliberately
Estrada, explicitly stating that intend to restore former President Estrada’s rights of suffrage
he is restored to his civil and and to hold public office, orto otherwise remit the penalty of
political rights. perpetual absolute disqualification. Even if her intention was
the contrary, the same cannot be upheld based on the
In 2009, Estrada filed a pardon’s text.
Certificate of Candidacy for
34
the position of President. None The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited
of the disqualification cases by legislative action.
against him prospered but he
only placed second in the The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and
results. Section 5 of Article IX-C, provides that the President of the
Philippines possesses the power to grant pardons, along with
In 2012, Estrada once more other acts of executive clemency, to wit:
ventured into the political Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
arena, and filed a Certificate of provided in this Constitution, the President may grant
Candidacy, this time vying for reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
a local elective post, that of forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
the Mayor of the City of
Manila. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a
Petition for Disqualification xxxx
against Estrada before
the Comelec stating Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
that Estrada is disqualified to sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations
run for public office because of shall be granted by the President without the favorable
his conviction for plunder recommendation of the Commission.
sentencing him to suffer the It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that
penalty of reclusion perpetua the only instances in which the President may not extend
with perpetual absolute pardon remain to be in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that
disqualification. Petitioner have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases
relied on Section 40 of the involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in
Local Government Code which there was no favorable recommendation coming from
(LGC), in relation to Section the COMELEC. Therefore, it can be argued that any act of
12 of the Omnibus Election Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the
Code (OEC). pardoning power of the President.
The Comelec dismissed the The proper interpretation of Articles 36 and 41 of the
petition for disqualification Revised Penal Code.
holding that President
Estrada’s right to seek public A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former
office has been effectively President Estrada shows that both the principal penalty of
restored by the pardon vested reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are included in
upon him by former President the pardon. The sentence which states that “(h)e is hereby
Gloria M. Arroyo. restored to his civil and political rights,” expressly remitted the
accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of
Estrada won the mayoralty reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41
race in May 13, 2013 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the
35
elections. Alfredo Lim, who pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and
garnered the second highest perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted
votes, intervened and sought together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
to disqualify Estrada for the
same ground as the The disqualification of former President Estrada under
contention of Risos-Vidal and Section 40 of the LGC in relation to Section 12 of the OEC
praying that he be proclaimed was removed by his acceptance of the absolute pardon
as Mayor of Manila. granted to him
While it may be apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a)

of the LGC is worded in absolute terms, Section 12 of the OEC
provides a legal escape from the prohibition – a plenary
pardon or amnesty. In other words, the latter provision allows
any person who has been granted plenary pardon or amnesty
after conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude, inter alia, to run for and hold any public office,
whether local or national position.
The third preambular clause of the pardon did not operate

to make the pardon conditional.
Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the third preambular

clause of the pardon, i.e., "[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada
has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position
or office," neither makes the pardon conditional, nor militate
against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s rights
to suffrage and to seek public elective office have been
restored.
This is especially true as the pardon itself does not explicitly

impose a condition or limitation, considering the unqualified
use of the term "civil and political rights"as being restored.
Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential
part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that
explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by
the word "whereas." Whereas clauses do not form part of a
statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the
operative language of the statute. In this case, the whereas
clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the
pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to
make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity
contingent upon the fulfilment of the aforementioned
36
commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.
Besides, a preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is

merely an introduction to show its intent or purposes. It cannot
be the origin of rights and obligations. Where the meaning of a
statute is clear and unambiguous, the preamble can neither
expand nor restrict its operation much less prevail over its text.
If former President Arroyo intended for the pardon to be

conditional on Respondent’s promise never to seek a public
office again, the former ought to have explicitly stated the
same in the text of the pardon itself. Since former President
Arroyo did not make this an integral part of the decree of
pardon, the Commission is constrained to rule that the 3rd
preambular clause cannot be interpreted as a condition to the
pardon extended to former President Estrada.
Romeo D. Lonzanida Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed

(Lonzanida) and Estela D. Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy was
Antipolo (Antipolo) were void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all.
candidates for Mayor of San All votes for Lonzanida were stray votes. Thus, Antipolo, the
Antonio, Zambales in the May only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number
2010 National and Local of votes for the position of Mayor.
Elections. Dra. Sigrid S. The grounds for disqualification for a petition under Section 68
Rodolfo (Rodolfo) filed a of the Omnibus Election Code are specifically enumerated.
petition under Section 78 of A petition for disqualification under Section 68 clearly refers to
the Omnibus Election Code to "the commission of prohibited acts and possession of a
disqualify Lonzanida and to permanent resident status in a foreign country." All the
deny due course or to cancel offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election
Aratea vs. COMELEC
Lonzanida’s certificate of offenses under the Omnibus Election Code, not to
683 SCRA 1 (2012)
candidacy on the ground that violations of other penal laws. There is absolutely nothing in
Lonzanida was elected, and the language of Section 68 that would justify including violation
had served, as mayor of San of the three-term limit rule, or conviction by final judgment of
Antonio, Zambales for four (4) the crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, as
consecutive terms immediately one of the grounds or offenses covered under Section 68.
prior to the term for the May On the other hand, Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code
2010 elections. states that a certificate of candidacy may be denied or
Rodolfo asserted that cancelled when there is false material representation of the
Lonzanida made a false contents of the certificate of candidacy:
material representation in his Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code details the contents
certificate of candidacy when of the certificate of candidacy:
Lonzanida certified under oath Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. ‒ The certificate
37
that he was eligible for the of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is
office he sought election. announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that
Section 8, Article X of the he is eligible for said office x x x
1987 Constitution and Section The conviction of Lonzanida by final judgment, with the penalty
43(b) of the Local Government of prisión mayor, disqualifies him perpetually from holding
Code both prohibit a local any public office, or from being elected to any public
elective official from being office. This perpetual disqualification took effect upon the
elected and serving for more finality of the judgment of conviction, before Lonzanida
than three consecutive terms filed his certificate of candidacy.
for the same position. The penalty of prisión mayor automatically carries with it, by
elections. Lonzanida and operation of law, the accessory penalties of temporary
Efren Racel Aratea (Aratea) absolute disqualification and perpetual special
garnered the highest number disqualification. Under Article 30 of the Revised Penal Code,
of votes and were respectively temporary absolute disqualification produces the effect of
proclaimed Mayor and Vice- "deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular
Mayor. elective office or to be elected to such office.” The duration of
Aratea took his oath of office temporary absolute disqualification is the same as that of the
as Acting Mayor before principal penalty of prisión mayor.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) On the other hand, under Article 32 of the Revised Penal
Judge of Olongapo. On the Code, perpetual special disqualification means that "the
same date, Aratea wrote the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office
DILG and requested for an during the period of his disqualification,” which is
opinion on whether, as Vice- perpetually. Both temporary absolute disqualification and
Mayor, he was legally required perpetual special disqualification constitute ineligibilities to
to assume the Office of the hold elective public office.
Mayor in view of Lonzanida’s A person suffering from these ineligibilities is ineligible to
disqualification. run for elective public office, and commits a false material
DILG stated that Lonzanida representation if he states in his certificate of candidacy
was disqualified to hold office that he is eligible to so run.
by reason of his criminal Effect of a Void Certificate of Candidacy
conviction, and as a A cancelled certificate of candidacy void ab initio cannot give
consequence, his office was rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes.
deemed permanently vacant, As the Comelec stated in their February 2011 Resolution:
and thus, Aratea should Since Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of
assume the Office of the Mayor [of] San Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him
Mayor in an acting capacity should be considered stray votes. Consequently, Intervenor
without prejudice to the Antipolo, who remains as the sole qualified candidate for the
COMELEC’s resolution of mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes,
Lonzanida’s motion for should now be proclaimed as the duly elected Mayor of San
reconsideration. Antonio, Zambales.
The manner of filling up the Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was cancelled because he
permanent vacancy in the was ineligible or not qualified to run for
38
Office of the Mayor of San Mayor.1âwphi1Whether his certificate of candidacy is

Antonio, Zambales is cancelled before or after the elections is immaterial because
dependent upon the the cancellation on such ground means he was never a
determination of Lonzanida’s candidate from the very beginning, his certificate of candidacy
removal. Whether Lonzanida being void ab initio. There was only one qualified candidate for
was disqualified under Section Mayor in the May 2010 elections - Antipolo, who therefore
68 of the Omnibus Election received the highest number of votes.
Code, or made a false material Petition dismissed.
representation under Section
78 of the same Code that
resulted in his certificate of
candidacy being void ab
initio, is determinative of
whether Aratea or Antipolo is
the rightful occupant to the
Office of the Mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales.
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the
was born in Quezon City. He position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province
Migrated to Australia and for at least one year before the election. For purposes of the
acquired Australian election laws, the requirement of residence is synonymous
citizenship. On November 22, with domicile, meaning that a person must not only intend to
2008, at age 35, he returned reside in a particular place but must also have personal
to the Philippines and lived presence in such place coupled with conduct indicative of such
with his brother in Barangay Whether or not the COMELEC intention.
Veterans Village, Ipil, acted with grave abuse of
Zamboanga Sibugay. Upon discretion amounting to lack or The question of residence is a question of intention.
his return, he took an oath of excess of jurisdiction in ruling Jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines: (a) every
Jalsosjos vs. COMELEC
allegiance to the Republic of that Jalosjos failed to present person has a domicile or residence somewhere; (b) where
683 SCRA 1 (2012)
the Philippines and was ample proof of a bona fide once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a
issued a Certificate of intention to establish his new one; and (c) a person can have but one domicile at a
Reacquisition of Philippine domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga time.
Citizenship. He then Sibugay.
renounced his Australian It is inevitable under these guidelines and the precedents
citizenship in September 2009. applying them that Jalosjos has met the residency requirement
for provincial governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.
He acquired residential
property where he lived and Quezon City was Jalosjos’ domicile of origin, the place of his
applied for registration as birth. It may be taken for granted that he effectively changed
voter in the Municipality of Ipil. his domicile from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated
39
His application was opposed there at the age of eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and
by the Barangay Captain of lived in that country for 26 years. Australia became his
Veterans Village, Dan Erasmo, domicile by operation of law and by choice.
sr. but was eventually granted
by the ERB. When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live
with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that
A petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile for good. He
Jalosjos' name in the voter's left Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship, and
list was then filed by Erasmo renounced his allegiance to that country. In addition, he
before the MCTC. Said reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
petition was denied. It was the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being issued a
then appealed to the RTC who Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the
also affirmed the lower court's Bureau of Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal
decision. right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his
domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in
On November 8, 2009, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
Jalosjos filed a Certificate of
Candidacy for Governor of To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile in
Zamboanga Sibugay Province. Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin
Erasmo filed a petition to deny (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by operation of
or cancel said COC on the law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man
ground of failure to comply must have a domicile or residence somewhere.
with R.A. 9225 and the one
year residency requirement of The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle
the local government code. his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his
brother’s house. But this circumstance alone cannot support
COMELEC ruled that Jalosjos such conclusion. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a
failed to comply with the candidate is not required to have a house in a community to
residency requirement of a establish his residence or domicile in a particular place. It is
gubernatorial candidate and sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a rented
failed to show ample proof of a house or in the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the
bona fide intention to establish candidate own the house where he lives would make property
his domicile in Ipil. COMELEC a qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos
en banc affirmed the decision. has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
intention of making it his domicile.
Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought a residential lot

in the same village where he lived and a fish pond in San
Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He showed
correspondences with political leaders, including local and
national party-mates, from where he lived. Moreover, Jalosjos
is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment of the Regional
40
Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.
While the Court ordinarily respects the factual findings of

administrative bodies like the COMELEC, this does not
prevent it from exercising its review powers to correct palpable
misappreciation of evidence or wrong or irrelevant
considerations. The evidence Jalosjos presented is sufficient
to establish Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, as his domicile. The
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in holding otherwise.
Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the 2010

gubernatorial race for Zamboanga Sibugay. The Court will
respect the decision of the people of that province and resolve
all doubts regarding his qualification in his favor to breathe life
to their manifest will.
Congress enacted RA 8436 on The Court, nevertheless, finds that, while petitioners are not
December 22, 1997. On yet candidates, they have the standing to raise the
January 23, 2007. it enacted constitutional challenge, simply because they are qualified
RA 9369, amending the voters. A restriction on candidacy, such as the challenged
previous act. measure herein, affects the rights of voters to choose their
public officials.
Pursuant to its constitutional
mandate to enforce and The Court, in this case, finds that an actual case or
administer election laws, 1. Do petitioners have locus controversy exists between the petitioners and the COMELEC,
COMELEC issued Resolution standi? the body charged with the enforcement and administration of
No. 8678,4 the Guidelines on 2. Do the second proviso in all election laws. Petitioners have alleged in a precise manner
the Filing of Certificates of paragraph 3, Section 13 of RA that they would engage in the very acts that would trigger the
Quinto vs. COMELEC
Candidacy (CoC) and 9369, Section 66 of the enforcement of the provisionthey would file their CoCs and run
606 SCRA 258
Nomination of Official Omnibus Election Code, and in the 2010 elections. Given that the assailed provision
(December 2009)
Candidates of Registered Section 4(a) of RA 8678 provides for ipso facto resignation upon the filing of the CoC, it
Political Parties in Connection violate the equal protection cannot be said that it presents only a speculative or
with the May 10, 2010 clause? hypothetical obstacle to petitioners' candidacy.
National and Local Elections.
Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution 2. It is noteworthy to point out that the right to run for public
No. 8678 provide: office touches on two fundamental freedoms, those of
expression and of association.
SEC. 4. Effects of Filing
Certificates of Candidacy.- Here, petitioners' interest in running for public office, an
interest protected by Sections 4 and 8 of Article III of the
a) Any person holding a Constitution, is breached by the proviso in Section 13 of R.A.
public appointive office or No. 9369.
41
position including active

members of the Armed Forces In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso
of the Philippines, and other facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs,
officers and employees in but not considering as resigned all other civil servants,
government-owned or specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates
controlled corporations, shall against the first class. The fact alone that there is substantial
be considered ipso facto distinction between those who hold appointive positions and
resigned from his office upon those occupying elective posts, does not justify such
the filing of his certificate of differential treatment.
candidacy.
In order that there can be valid classification so that a
b) Any person holding an discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional
elective office or position shall norm of equal protection, it is necessary that the four (4)
not be considered resigned requisites of valid classification be complied with, namely:
upon the filing of his certificate (1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
of candidacy for the same or (2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law;
any other elective office or (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
position. (4) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
SEC. 5. Period for filing The classification, even if based on substantial distinctions,
Certificate of Candidacy.- The will still be invalid if it is not germane to the purpose of the law.
certificate of candidacy shall Applying the four requisites to the instant case, the Court finds
be filed on regular days, from that the differential treatment of persons holding appointive
November 20 to 30, 2009, offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not
during office hours, except on germane to the purposes of the law.
the last day, which shall be
until midnight. The challenged provision also suffers from the infirmity of
being overbroad. First, the provision pertains to all civil
Alarmed that they will be servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to
deemed ipso facto resigned whether they occupy high positions in government or not.
from their offices the moment Second, the provision is directed to the activity of seeking any
they file their CoCs, petitioners and all public offices, whether they be partisan or nonpartisan
Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino in character, whether they be in the national, municipal or
A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold barangay level.
appointive positions in the
government and who intend to
run in the coming elections,5
filed the instant petition for
prohibition and certiorari,
seeking the declaration of the
afore-quoted Section 4(a) of
Resolution No. 8678 as null
42
and void.
1. No. The intent of both Congress and the framers of our
Constitution to limit the participation of civil service officers and
employees in partisan political activities is too plain to be
mistaken.
The equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is
not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification.
Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials
and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by
virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an
office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only
upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive
officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto
by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their
office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of
tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority.
Another substantial distinction between the two sets of
officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I, Subsection
1. Do the assailed provisions
A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the Administrative
violate the equal protection
Quinto vs. COMELEC Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), appointive officials,
clause?
613 SCRA 385 Motion for Reconsideration as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly
2. Do the assailed provisions
(February 2010) prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or
suffer from overbreadth?
take (sic) part in any election except to vote. Under the same
provision, elective officials, or officers or employees holding
political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in
political and electoral activities.
Since the classification justifying Section 14 of Rep. Act No.
9006, i.e., elected officials vis-à-vis appointive officials, is
anchored upon material and significant distinctions and all the
persons belonging under the same classification are similarly
treated, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is, thus,
not infringed.
Considering that elected officials are put in office by their
constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that
they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned
provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign
will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will
of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the
end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there
is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are
concerned.
43
The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective

officials is therefore germane to the purposes of the law.
2. No. The view that the assailed provisions are overly

broad because they apply indiscriminately to all appointive civil
servants regardless of position obviously fails to consider a
different, yet equally plausible, threat to the government posed
by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy:
the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a "powerful
political machine" that has amassed "the scattered powers of
government workers" so as to give itself and its incumbent
workers an "unbreakable grasp on the reins of power."
[T]he avoidance of such a "politically active public work force"
which could give an emerging political machine an
"unbreakable grasp on the reins of power" is reason enough to
impose a restriction on the candidacies of all appointive public
officials without further distinction as to the type of positions
being held by such employees or the degree of influence that
may be attendant thereto.
Obviously, these rules and guidelines, including the restriction
in Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, were issued specifically for
purposes of the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections,
which, it must be noted, are decidedly partisan in character.
Thus, it is clear that the restriction in Section 4(a) of RA 8678
applies only to the candidacies of appointive officials vying for
partisan elective posts in the May 10, 2010 National and Local
Elections.
Respondent Leonardo B. No. A winner who dislodges in a recall election an incumbent

Roman held the post of elective local official merely serves the balance of the latter's
Governor of Bataan province a term of office; it is not a full three-year term.
number of times:
Should Roman's incumbency The law contemplates a continuous full three-year term before
a) 1986 – 1988 Appointed OIC to the post of Governor the proscription can apply, providing for only one exception,
Mendoza vs. COMELEC
Governor of Bataan by former following the recall elections i.e., when an incumbent voluntarily gives up the office. If
G.R. No. 191084
Pres. Aquino and served up to be included in determining the involuntary severance from the service which results in the
March 25, 2010
1988 three-consecutive term limit incumbent’s being unable to finish his term of office because
b) 1988 – 1992 Elected fixed by law? of his ouster through valid recall proceedings negates “one
Governor and served up to term” for purposes of applying the three-term limit, it stands to
1992 reason that the balance of the term assumed by the newly
c) 1994 – 1995 Elected elected local official in a recall election should not also be held
Governor during the recall to be one term in reckoning the three-term limit.
44
election in 1993, assumed

office on 28 June 1994 and In both situations, neither the elective local official who is
served up to 1995 unable to finish his term nor the elected local official who only
d) 1995 – 1998 Elected assumes the balance of the term of the ousted local official
Governor and served up to following the recall election could be considered to have
1998 served a full three-year term set by the Constitution.
e) 1998 – 2001 Elected
Governor and served up to The Constitution does not prohibit elective local officials from
2001. serving for more than three consecutive terms because, in
fact, it excludes from the three-term limit interruptions in the
In 2001, private respondent continuity of service, so long as such interruptions are not due
Roman again filed a certificate to the voluntary renunciation of the office by an
of candidacy for the same post incumbent. Hence, the period from June 28, 1994 to June 30,
in the May 2001 regular 1995, during which respondent Leonardo B. Roman served as
elections. On 16 May 2001, governor of Bataan by virtue of a recall election held in 1993,
Leonardo Roman was should not be counted. Since on May 14, 2001 respondent
proclaimed by the Provincial had previously served as governor of Bataan for only two
Board of Canvassers of consecutive terms (1995-1998 and 1998-2001), his election on
Bataan. that day was actually only his third term for the same position.
Petitioners Melanio L. A recall term should not be considered as one full term,
Mendoza and Mario E. Ibarra because a contrary interpretation would in effect cut short the
seek to declare respondent elected official’s service to less than nine years and
Roman’s election as governor shortchange his constituents. The desire to prevent monopoly
of Bataan as null and void for of political power should be balanced against the need to
allegedly being contrary to Art. uphold the voters’ obvious preference who, in the present
X, §8 of the Constitution. case, is Roman who received 97 percent of the votes cast.
COMELEC gave due course Yes. The three-term limit rule for elective local officials is found
to the Recall Resolution in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which states:
against Mayor Socrates of the “Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except
City of Puerto Princesa, and barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be
scheduled the recall election three years and no such official shall serve for more than three
on September 7, 2002. WON one who has been consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
Socrates vs. COMELEC On August 23, 2002, elected and served for 3 length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
391 SCRA 457 Hagedorn filed his COC for consecutive full terms is continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
November 12, 2002 mayor in the recall election. qualified to run for mayor in elected.”
Different petitioners filed their the recall election. This three-term limit rule is reiterated in Section 43 (b) of RA
respective petitions, which No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code,
were consolidated seeking the which provides:
disqualification of Hagedorn to “Section 43. Term of Office. – (a) x x x
run for the recall election and (b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
the cancellation of his COC on consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation
45
the ground that the latter is of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as
disqualified from running for a an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for
fourth consecutive term, which the elective official was elected.”
having been elected and The first part provides that an elective local official cannot
having served as mayor of the serve for more than three consecutive terms. The clear intent
city for three (3) consecutive is that only consecutive terms count in determining the three-
full terms in 1992, 1995 and term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary
1998 immediately prior to the renunciation of office for any length of time does not interrupt
instant recall election for the the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntary
same post. severance from office for any length of time interrupts
COMELEC’s First Division continuity of service and prevents the service before and after
dismissed in a resolution the the interruption from being joined together to form a
petitioner for lack of merit. And continuous service or consecutive terms.
COMELEC declared After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot
Hagedorn qualified to run in seek immediate re-election for a fourth term. The prohibited
the recall election. election refers to the next regular election for the same office
following the end of the third consecutive
term. Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no
longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a
subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an
immediate re-election after three consecutive terms. Second,
the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in
the continuity of service.
Based from the deliberations of a Constitutional Commission,
what the Constitution prohibits is an immediate re-
election for a fourth term following three consecutive
terms. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit a
subsequent re-election for a fourth term as long as the re-
election is not immediately after the end of the third
consecutive term. A recall election mid-way in the term
following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election
but not an immediate re-election after the third term.
Neither does the Constitution prohibit one barred from seeking
immediate re-election to run in any other subsequent election
involving the same term of office. What the Constitution
prohibits is a consecutive fourth term.
In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall election on
September 24, 2002 is not an immediate re-election after his
third consecutive term which ended on June 30, 2001. The
immediate re-election that the Constitution barred Hagedorn
from seeking referred to the regular elections in 2001.
46
Petitioner Pamatong filed his No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the
Certificate of Candidacy Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed
(COC) for by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the
President. Respondent privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing
COMELEC declared petitioner in the plain language of the provision, which suggests such a
and 35 others as nuisance thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
candidates who could not The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of
wage a nationwide campaign the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State
and/or not nominated by a Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally
political party or are not considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason
supported by registered for according a different treatment to the "equal access"
political party with a national provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II,
constituency. the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable
Pamatong filed a Petition for constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
Writ of Certioari with the legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision
Supreme Court claiming that does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
the COMELEC violated his Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to
right to “equal access to Whether or not, the petitioners enact positive measures that would accommodate as many
opportunities for public interpretation of the people as possible into public office. Moreover, the provision
Pamatong vs. COMELEC service” under Section 26, Constitutional provision under as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be regarded as
G.R. No. 161872 Article II of the 1987 Section 26, Article II gives him the source of positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause
April 13, 2004 constitution, by limiting the a constitutional right to run or as operative in the absence of legislation since its effective
number of qualified candidates hold for public office? means and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the
only to those who can afford to myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric
wage a nationwide campaign appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such as
and/or are nominated by "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are
political parties. The susceptible to countless interpretations owing to their inherent
COMELEC supposedly erred impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of the
in disqualifying him since he is framers to inflict on the people an operative but amorphous
the most qualified among all foundation from which innately unenforceable rights may be
the presidential candidates (he sourced.
possesses all the The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office
constitutional and legal may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations
qualifications for the office of specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in
the president, he is capable of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance
waging a national campaign Candidates.” As long as the limitations apply to everybody
since he has numerous equally without discrimination, however, the equal access
national organization under his clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long as the
leadership, he also has the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne
capacity to wage an by any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. In
international campaign since the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt
47
he has practiced law in the from the limitations or the burdens which they create.
other countries, and he has a The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance
platform of government. candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not
evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine.
The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral
exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this
end, the State takes into account the practical considerations
in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of
candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical
confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and
resources in preparation for the election. The organization of
an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous
enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious
intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would
actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the
candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a
one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant
minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most
probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates.
It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.
The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate
or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual
determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this
case for the reception of further evidence is in order. The SC
remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further
evidence, to determine the question on whether petitioner Elly
Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as contemplated
in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Timbol filed a Certificate of YES.

Candidacy for the position of Respondent’s power to motu proprio deny due course to a
Member of the Sangguniang certificate of candidacy is subject to the candidate’s
Panlungsod of the Second opportunity to be heard.
WON COMELEC gravely
District of Caloocan City for Ø Under Art. II, Sec. 26 of the Constitution, “the State shall
Timbol vs. COMELEC abused its discretion in
the May 13, 2013 elections. guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
Resolution denying Timbol’s Petition for
However, COMELEC issued service.” This, however, does not guarantee a
G.R. No. 206004 inclusion in the certified list of
Resolution No. 9610 declaring constitutional right to run for or hold public office. To run
February 24, 2015 candidates
Timbol a nuisance candidate for public office is a mere privilege subject to limitations
and ordering the removal of imposed by law, such as prohibition on nuisance
his name from the certified list candidates.
of candidates, and Minute Ø Nuisance candidates are persons who file their certificates
Resolution denying his petition of candidacy “to put the election process in mockery or
48
to have his name listed in the disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the
certified list of candidates and similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by
printed on the ballots for the other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate
May 13, 2013 elections. that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the
Timbol, together with his office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed
counsel, appeared before and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of
Election Officer Valencia, the electorate.”
pursuant to the Subpoena Ø To minimize logistical confusion caused by nuisance
issued upon him, for a candidates, their CoCs may be denied due course or
clarificatory hearing. He cancelled by COMELEC, through motu proprio or upon
contended that he was not a verified petition of an interested party, subject to an
nuisance candidate, that in opportunity to be heard.
th
fact he placed 8 among all Ø In election cases, due process requirements are satisfied
candidates who ran for city when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
councilor of Caloocan City, opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
and that he had sufficient Ø COMELEC declared Timbol a nuisance candidate without
resources to sustain his giving him a chance to explain his bona fide intention to
campaign. Valencia run for office. It issued Resolution No. 9610 when Timbol
recommended that Timbol’s appeared before Valencia in a clarificatory hearing. This
name be removed from the list was an ineffective opportunity to be heard.
of nuisance candidates in the Ø Petition for inclusion in the certified list of candidates did
COMELEC’s website and that not cure the defect in the issuance of Resolution No. 9610.
his CoC be given due course. First, he would not have to file the Petition had he been
However, the recommendation given an opportunity to be heard in the first place. Second,
was never acted upon. in the Minute Resolution, COMELEC denied Timbol’s
petition on the sole ground that the printing of ballots had
already begun on February 4, 2013.
Ø Although reprinting of ballots would indeed be costly,
COMELEC should balance its duty to ensure that the
electoral process is clean, honest, orderly and peaceful
with the right of a candidate to explain his or her bona fide
intention to run for public office before he/she is declared a
nuisance candidate.
49
CAMPAIGN, ELECTION PROPAGANDA, ETC.

NO. Section 32, although not penal in nature, defines an
offense and prescribes a penalty for said offense. Laws of this
nature must operate prospectively, except when they are
favorable to the accused. It should be noted, however, that the
offense defined in the assailed provision is not the putting up
of "propaganda materials such as posters, streamers, stickers
Petitioner seeks to enjoin the or paintings on walls and other materials showing the picture,
Commission on Elections image or name of a person, and all advertisements on print, in
(COMELEC) from enforcing radio or on television showing the image or mentioning the
Section 32 of its Resolution name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or
No. 6520. He claims that said display thereof becomes a candidate for public office." Nor
section in the nature of an ex does it prohibit or consider an offense the entering of contracts
Is Sec. 32 of COMELEC Res.
Chavez vs. COMELEC post facto law. He urges this for such propaganda materials by an individual who
No. 6520 in the nature of an
G.R. No. 162777 Court to believe that the subsequently becomes a candidate for public office. One
ex post facto law?
August 31, 2007 assailed provision makes an definitely does not commit an offense by entering into a
individual criminally liable for contract with private parties to use his name and image to
an election offense for not endorse certain products prior to his becoming a candidate for
removing such advertisement, public office. The offense, as expressly prescribed in the
even if at the time the said assailed provision, is the non-removal of the described
advertisement was exhibited, propaganda materials three (3) days after the effectivity of
the same was clearly legal. COMELEC Resolution No. 6520. If the candidate for public
office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the
given period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the
Omnibus Election Code for premature campaigning. Indeed,
nowhere is it indicated in the assailed provision that it shall
operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto law
in this case.
The COMELEC disqualified (A) The Supreme Court En Banc dismissed Penera’s Petition
petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera and affirmed her disqualification because:
(Penera) as a candidate for (1) Penera raised a question of fact. The Supreme Court is not
Whether or not Penera should
mayor of the Municipality of a trier of facts, and the sole function of a writ of certiorari is to
be disqualified for engaging in
Penera vs. COMELEC Sta. Monica, Surigao del address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
election campaign or partisan
G.R. No. 181614 Norte, for unlawfully engaging discretion, and does not include a review of the tribunal’s
political activity outside the
Septmeber 11, 2009 in election campaign before evaluation of the evidence.
campaign period.
the start of the campaign (2) The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
period for the 2007 Evidence presented to the COMELEC, including Penera’s own
Synchronized National and evidence and admissions, sufficiently established that “Penera
Local Elections, in violation of and her partymates, after filing their COCs x x, participated in
50
Section 80 of Batas a motorcade which passed through the different barangays of

Pambansa 881 (the Sta. Monica, waived their hands to the public, and threw
Omnibus Election Code). candies to the onlookers.” With vehicles, balloons, and even
The COMELEC found that candies on hand, Penera can hardly persuade the Court that
Penera and her party-mates, the motorcade was spontaneous and unplanned.
after filing their Certificates of “(T)he conduct of a motorcade is a form of election campaign
Candidacy (CoCs), conducted or partisan political activity, falling squarely within the ambit of
a motorcade through Sta. Section 79(b)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code, on
Monica and threw candies to ‘[h]olding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies,
onlookers, aboard trucks parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of
festooned with balloons and soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
banners bearing their names propaganda for or against a candidate[.]’ x x The obvious
and pictures and the municipal purpose of the conduct of motorcades is to introduce the
positions for which they were candidates and the positions, to which they seek to be elected,
seeking election, one of which to the voting public; or to make them more visible so as to
trucks had a sound system facilitate the recognition and recollection of their names in the
that broadcast their intent to minds of the voters come election time. Unmistakably,
run in the 2007 elections. motorcades are undertaken for no other purpose than to
COMELEC Commissioner promote the election of a particular candidate or candidates.”
Rene V. Sarmiento dissented. Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits any
He emphasized that under person, whether a voter, a candidate or a party, from engaging
Section 15 of Republic Act in any election campaign or partisan political activity outside
8436 (the law authorizing the the campaign period (except that political parties may hold
COMELEC to use an political conventions or meetings to nominate their official
automated election system for candidates within 30 days before the campaign period and 45
the process of voting, counting days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election).
of votes, and And, under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, a
canvassing/consolidating the candidate declared by final decision to have engaged in
results of the national and premature campaigning shall be disqualified from continuing
local elections), as amended as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the
by Republic Act No. 9369, office. Said candidate may also face criminal prosecution for
one is now considered a an election offense under Section 262 of the same Code.
candidate only at the start of Thus, Penera, who had been elected Mayor of Sta. Monica
the campaign period. Thus, before the COMELEC rendered its decision, was disqualified
before the start of the from holding the said office. The proclaimed Vice-Mayor was
campaign period, there can be declared her rightful successor pursuant to Section 44 of the
no election campaign or Local Government Code which provides that if the mayor fails
partisan political activity to qualify or is removed from office, the vice-mayor shall
because there is no candidate become the mayor.
to speak of. Accordingly, (B) The Supreme Court disagreed with COMELEC
Penera could not be Commissioner Sarmiento, saying that Section 80 of the
disqualified for premature Omnibus Election Code remains relevant and applicable
51
campaigning because the despite Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended.
motorcade took place outside The Court gave the following reasons:
the campaign period – when (1) Republic Act No. 9369, which amended Republic Act No.
Penera was not yet a 8436, did not expressly repeal Section 80 of the Omnibus
“candidate.” Sarmiento posited Election Code. An express repeal may not be presumed.
that Section 15 of R.A. No. Implied repeals are disfavored, absent a showing of
8436, as amended by R.A. repugnance clear and convincing in character. When
9369, has practically made it confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, courts should
impossible to commit endeavor to reconcile the same instead of declaring outright
premature campaigning at any the invalidity of one as against the other.
time, and has, thus, effectively (2) There is no absolute and irreconcilable incompatibility
repealed Section 80 of the between Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended,
Omnibus Election Code. and Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits
Penera filed a Petition for premature campaigning. It is possible to harmonize and
Certiorari before the Supreme reconcile these two provisions and, thus, give effect to both, to
Court to nullify the wit:
disqualification. She argued (a) Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits “any
that the evidence was grossly person, whether or not a voter or candidate” from
insufficient to warrant the engaging in election campaign or partisan political activity
COMELEC’s ruling. She outside the campaign period. Thus, premature campaigning
maintained that the motorcade may be committed even by a person who is not a candidate.
was spontaneous and Accordingly, the declaration in Lanot vs. COMELEC (G.R. No.
unplanned, and the supporters 164858; 16 November 2006) that “(w)hat Section 80 of the
merely joined her and the Omnibus Election Code prohibits is ‘an election campaign or
other candidates. partisan political activity’ by a ‘candidate’ ‘outside’ of the
campaign period,” is erroneous.
(b) It is true that under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as
amended, a person is not yet officially considered a candidate
before the start of the campaign period, even after the filing of
his CoC. Nonetheless, upon the filing of his COC, such
person already explicitly declares his intention to run as a
candidate. When the campaign period starts and he proceeds
with his candidacy, his intent turning into actuality, act/s
constituting election campaign or partisan activity under
Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (holding rallies or
parades, making speeches, etc.), which he may have
committed after filing his CoC and before the campaign period,
can already be considered as the promotion of his election as
a candidate, constituting premature campaigning, for which he
may be disqualified. Conversely, if he withdraws his CoC
before the campaign period, his act can no longer be viewed
as for the promotion of his election, and there can be no
52
premature campaigning as there is no candidate to begin with.

Thus, a person, after filing his/her COC but prior to his
becoming a candidate (prior to the start of the campaign
period), can already commit the acts described under Section
79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or
partisan political activity. However, it is only after said person
officially becomes a candidate, at the beginning of the
campaign period, can said acts be given effect as premature
campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the
start of the campaign period, can his/her disqualification be
sought for acts constituting premature campaigning.
(c) While a proviso in Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as
amended, provides that “any unlawful act or omission
applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the
start of the campaign period,” this does not mean that the
acts constituting premature campaigning can only be
committed during the campaign period. Nowhere in the said
proviso was it stated that campaigning before the start of the
campaign period is lawful.
If the Court were to rule otherwise, “not only will the prohibited
act of premature campaigning be officially decriminalized, the
significance of having a campaign period before the elections
would also be negated. Any unscrupulous individual with the
deepest of campaign war chests could then afford to spend
his/her resources to promote his/her candidacy well ahead of
everyone else, thus, undermine the conduct of fair and
credible elections. Such is the very evil that the law seeks to
prevent. Our lawmakers could not have intended to cause
such an absurd situation.”
Petitioner and private No, she is not.

respondents were candidates Any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful
for mayor of the Municipality of by law. It is enough that Congress stated that “any unlawful act
Sta.Monica, Surigao del Norte or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only
Penera vs. COMELEC in the last May 2007 elections. Is petitioner guilty of upon the start of the campaign period.” So, it is lawful if done
G.R. No. 181614 The former filed her certificate premature campaigning? before the start of the campaign period. This plain language of
November 25, 2009 of candidacy on the day before the law need not be construed further.
the prescribed campaign Moreover, on the day of the motorcade, she was not yet a
period. When she went to the candidate for. As what was decided in the Lanot Case which
COMELEC Office for filing she says that prior to the campaign period, even if the candidate
was accompanied by her has filed his/her certificate of candidacy, he/she is not yet
53
partymates. Thereafter, they considered as a candidate for purposes other than the printing
had a motorcade which was of ballots. Hence, she cannot be guilty of premature
consist of two trucks and ten campaigning for in the first place there is no candidate to talk
motorcycles running around about. What she did was an exercise of her freedom of
the municipality convincing the expression.
residents to vote for her and
the other candidates of their
political party.
Due to this, private respondent
filed a petition against her
alleging premature
campaigning as provided in
the Omnibus Election Code
Section
While the petition was pending
in the COMELEC, she was
voted as mayor and took her
office thereafter. The
COMELEC Second Division
decided in favor of the
complainant and found her
guilty of premature
campaigning. Likewise, when
she appealed in the
COMELEC En Banc, the
previous decision was
affirmed.
Subsequently, she filed with
the Supreme Court which
decided against her. It held
that the conduct of the
motorcade is a form of election
campaign or partisan political
activity, falling under Section
79(b)(2) of the Omnibus
Election Code Furthermore, it
was held that she should
vacate the position. Now, she
comes for a motion for
reconsideration using the
same arguments.
54
Petitioner SWS and KPC

states that it wishes to conduct No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it
an election survey throughout imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is
the period of the elections and a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even
release to the media the Are the Comelec Resolutions though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3)
results of such survey as well prohibiting the holding of pre- the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be
SWS vs. COMELEC as publish them directly. polls and exit polls and the achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of
G.R. No.147571 Petitioners argue that the dissemination of their results expression.
May 5, 2001 restriction on the publication of through mass media, valid and It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs
election survey results constitutional? respecting matters of public convenience may well support
constitutes a prior restraint on regulation directed at other personal activities, but be
the exercise of freedom of insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights
speech without any clear and so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions.”
present danger to justify such
restraint.
Resolution 9615 of the 1. Yes, Section 9(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, with
Commission on Elections its adoption of the “aggregate-based” airtime limits
(COMELEC) changed the unreasonably restricts the guaranteed freedom of speech and
airtime limitations for political of the press.
campaign from “per station” Political speech is one of the most important expressions
basis, as used during the 2007 protected by the Fundamental Law. “Freedom of speech, of
and 2010 elections, to a “total expression, and of the press are at the core of civil liberties
aggregate” basis for the 2013. and have to be protected at all costs for the sake of
Various broadcast networks 1. Does Section 9(a) of democracy.”
such as ABS-CBN, ABC, Comelec Resolution No. 9615 GMA came up with its analysis of the practical effects of such
GMA, MBC, NBN, RMN and on airtime limit violate the a regulation: Given the reduction of a candidate’s airtime
GMA Network Inc. vs. KBP questioned the constitutional guaranty of minutes in the New Rules, petitioner GMA estimates that a
COMELEC interpretation of the freedom of expression, of national candidate will only have 120 minutes to utilize for his
G.R. No. 205357 COMELEC on the ground that speech and of the press? political advertisements in television during the whole
September 2, 2014 the provisions are oppressive 2. Does resolution No. 9165 campaign period of 88 days, or will only have 81.81 seconds
and violative of the impose unreasonable burden per day TV exposure allotment. If he chooses to place his
constitutional guarantees of on the broadcast industry? political advertisements in the 3 major TV networks in equal
freedom of expression and of allocation, he will only have 27.27 seconds of airtime per
the press. network per day. This barely translates to 1 advertisement
Collectively, they question the spot on a 30-second spot basis in television.
constitutionality of Section 9 The Court agrees. The assailed rule on “aggregate-based”
(a), which provides for an airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly
“aggregate total” airtime restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political
instead of the previous “per parties to reach out and communicate with the people. Here,
station” airtime for political the adverted reason for imposing the “aggregate-based”
campaigns or advertisements, airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not constitute a
55
and also required prior compelling state interest which would justify such a substantial
COMELEC approval for restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to
candidates' television and communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and
radio guestings and programs of government.
appearances. Petitioners claim 2. No, Resolution No. 9615 does not impose an unreasonable
that Section 9(a) limits the burden on the broadcast industry
computation of “aggregate The Court cannot agree with the contentions of GMA. The
total” airtime and imposes apprehensions of COMELEC appear more to be the result of a
unreasonable burden on misappreciation of the real import of the regulation rather than
broadcast media of monitoring a real and present threat to its broadcast activities. The Court
a candidate’s or political is more in agreement with COMELEC when it explained that
party’s aggregate airtime. On the legal duty of monitoring lies with the COMELEC. Broadcast
the other hand, COMELEC stations are merely required to submit certain documents to
alleges that the broadcast aid the COMELEC in ensuring that candidates are not sold
networks do not have locus airtime in excess of the allowed limits. There is absolutely no
standi, as the limitations are duty on the broadcast stations to do monitoring, much less
imposed on candidates, not on monitoring in real time. GMA grossly exaggerates when it
media outlets. claims that the non-existent duty would require them to hire
Comelec maintains that the and train an astounding additional 39,055 personnel working
per candidate rule or total on eight-hour shifts all over the country.
aggregate airtime limit is in
accordance with the Fair
Election Act as this would truly
give life to the constitutional
objective to equalize access to
media during elections. It sees
this as a more effective way of
"levelling the playing field"
between candidates/political
parties with enormous
resources and those without
much.
Contested in this petition for Yes. Ejercito claims that the advertising contracts between
certiorari under Rule 64, in ABS- CBN Corporation and Scenema Concept International,
WON the Petitioner should be
relation to Rule 65 of the Inc. were executed by an identified supporter without his
Emilio Ramon E.R. P. Ejercito disqualified for spending in his
Rules of Court (Rules), is the knowledge and consent as, in fact, his signature thereon was
vs. COMELEC election campaign an amount
May 21, 2014 Resolution of obviously forged. Even assuming that such contract benefited
G.R. No. 212398 in excess of what is allowed
the Commission on Elections him, Ejercito alleges that he should not be penalized for the
November 25, 2014 by the OEC.
(COMELEC) En Banc in SPA conduct of third parties who acted on their own without his
No. 13-306 (DC), which consent. Citing Citizens United v. Federal Election
affirmed the September 26, Commissiondecided by the US Supreme Court, he argues that
56
2013 Resolution of the every voter has the right to support a particular candidate in
COMELEC First Division accordance with the free exercise of his or her rights of speech
granting the petition for and of expression, which is guaranteed in Section 4, Article III
disqualification filed by private of the 1987 Constitution. He believes that an advertising
respondent Edgar "Egay" S. contract paid for by a third party without the candidate’s
San Luis (San Luis) against knowledge and consent must be considered a form of political
petitioner Emilio Ramon "E.R." speech that must prevail against the laws suppressing it,
P. Ejercito (Ejercito). Three whether by design or inadvertence. Further, Ejercito advances
days prior to the May 13, 2013 the view that COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 distinguishes
National and Local Elections, between "contribution" and "expenditure" and makes no
a petition for disqualification proscription on the medium or amount of contribution. He also
was filed by San Luis before stresses that it is clear from COMELEC Resolution No. 9615
the Office of the COMELEC that the limit set by law applies only to election expenditures of
Clerk in Manila against candidates and not to contributions made by third parties. For
Ejercito, who was a fellow Ejercito, the fact that the legislature imposes no legal limitation
gubernatorial candidate and, on campaign donations is presumably because discussion of
at the time, the incumbent public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates
Governor of the Province of are integral to the operation of the government.
Laguna. We refuse to believe that the advertising contracts between
Accordingly, a candidate for ABS- CBN Corporation and Scenema Concept International,
the position of Provincial Inc. were executed without Ejercito’s knowledge and consent.
Governor of Laguna is only As found by the COMELEC First Division, the advertising
authorized to incur an election contracts submitted in evidence by San Luis as well as those
expense amounting to FOUR in legal custody of the COMELEC belie his hollow assertion.
MILLION FIVE HUNDRED His express conformity to the advertising contracts is actually
SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND a must because non- compliance is consideredas an election
FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX offense.
(P4,576,566.00) PESOS.   Notably, R.A. No. 9006 explicitly directs that broadcast
However, in total disregard advertisements donated to the candidate shall not be
and violation of the afore- broadcasted without the written acceptance of the candidate,
quoted provision of law, which shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall
[Ejercito] exceeded his be submitted to the COMELEC, and that, in every case,
expenditures in relation to his advertising contracts shall be signed by the donor, the
campaign for the 2013 candidate concerned or by the duly-authorized representative
election. For television of the political party.Conformably with the mandate of the law,
campaign commercials alone, COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 requires that election
[Ejercito] already spent the propaganda materials donated toa candidate shall not be
sum of PhP23,730.784 based broadcasted unless it is accompanied by the written
on our party’s official acceptance of said candidate, which shall be in the form of an
monitoring on the following official receipt in the name of the candidate and must specify
dates: April 28, May 4 & May the description of the items donated, their quantity and value,
5, 2013.   and that, in every case, the advertising contracts, media
57
Even assuming that [Ejercito] purchase orders or booking orders shall be signed by the
was given 30% discount as candidate concerned or by the duly authorized representative
prescribed under the Fair of the party and, in case of a donation, should be
Election Act, he still exceeded accompanied by a written acceptance of the candidate, party
in the total allowable or their authorized representatives. COMELEC Resolution No.
expenditures for which he paid 9615 also unambiguously states thatit shall be unlawful to
the sum of P16,611,549;   broadcast any election propaganda donated or given free of
In view of the foregoing charge by any person or broadcast entity to a candidate
disquisitions, it is evident that without the written acceptance of the said candidate and
[Ejercito] committed an unless they bear and be identified by the words "airtime for
election offense as provided this broadcast was provided free of charge by" followed by the
for under Section 35 of true and correct name and address of the donor.
COMELEC Resolution No. This Court cannot give weight to Ejercito’s representation that
9615,   his signature on the advertising contracts was a forgery. The
Moreover, it is crystal clear issue is a belated claim, raised only for the first time in this
that [Ejercito] violated Sec. 68 petition for certiorari. It is a rudimentary principle of law that
of the Omnibus Election Code   matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the
Subsequently, on May 16, proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on
2013, San Luis filed a Very appeal before the Supreme Court. It would be offensive to the
Urgent ExParte Motion to basic rules of fair play and justice to allow Ejercito to raise an
Issue Suspension of Possible issue that was not brought up before the COMELEC. While it
Proclamation of Respondent is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally
and Supplemental to the Very truethat elementary considerations of due process require that
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to a party be duly apprised of a claim against him before
Issue Suspension of Possible judgment may be rendered.
Proclamation of Likewise, whether the advertising contracts were executed
Respondent.However, these without Ejercito’s knowledge and consent, and whether his
were not acted upon by the signatures thereto were fraudulent, are issues of fact. Any
COMELEC. The next day, factual challenge has no place in a Rule 65 petition. This Court
Ejercito and Ramil L. is not a trier of facts and is not equipped to receive evidence
Hernandez were proclaimed and determine the truth of factual allegations.
by the Provincial Board of The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the
Canvassers as the duly- candidate’s allowable limit of election expenses does not
elected Governor and Vice- trample upon the free exercise of the voters’ rights of speech
Governor, respectively, of and of expression under Section 4, Article III of the
Laguna. Based on the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the law’s concern
Provincial/District Certificate of is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement
Canvass, Ejercito obtained promoting a particular candidate but to ensure equality
549,310 votes compared with between and among aspirants with "deep pockets" and those
San Luis’ 471,209 votes. with less financial resources. Any restriction on speech or
The COMELEC First Division expression is only incidental and is no more than necessary to
issued a Summons with Notice achieve the substantial governmental interest of promoting
58
of Conference on June 4, equality of opportunity in political advertising. It bears a clear

2013. The scheduled case and reasonable connection with the constitutional objectives
conference between the set out in Section 26, Article II, Section 4, Article IX-C, and
parties on June 13, 2013 was Section 1, Art. XIII of the Constitution.
reset to June 27, 2013. In the Indeed, to rule otherwise would practically result in an
latter date, all the unlimited expenditure for political advertising, which skews the
documentary exhibits were political process and subverts the essence of a truly
marked in evidence and the democratic form of government.
parties agreed to file their
respective memorandum
within ten (10) days.
On September 26, 2013, the
COMELEC First Division
promulgated a Resolution
disqualifying Ejercito from
holding the office of the
Provincial Governor of Laguna
and to cease and desist from
performing the functions of the
office of the Provincial
Governor of Laguna. The
COMELEC En Banc agreed
with the findings of its First
Division that San Luis’ petition
is an action to disqualify
Ejercito.
On February 21, 2013, 1 Whether or not the size FIRST ISSUE: No.
petitioners posted two (2) limitation and its The Court ruled that the present case does not call for the
tarpaulins within a private reasonableness of the exercise of prudence or modesty. There is no political
compound housing the San tarpaulin is a political question. It can be acted upon by this court through the
Sebastian Cathedral of question, hence not within expanded jurisdiction granted to this court through Article VIII,
Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was the ambit of the Supreme Section 1 of the Constitution..
The Diocese of Bacolod vs.
approximately six feet (6′) by Court’s power of review. The concept of a political question never precludes judicial
COMELEC
ten feet (10′) in size. They 2 Whether or not the review when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a
G.R. No. 205728
were posted on the front walls petitioners violated the fundamental individual or collective right. Even assuming
January 21, 2015
of the cathedral within public principle of exhaustion of arguendo that the COMELEC did have the discretion to
view. The first tarpaulin administrative remedies choose the manner of regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it
contains the message as the case was not cannot do so by abridging the fundamental right to expression.
“IBASURA RH Law” referring brought first before the Also the Court said that in our jurisdiction, the determination of
to the Reproductive Health COMELEC En Banc or whether an issue involves a truly political and non-justiciable
Law of 2012 or Republic Act any if its divisions. question lies in the answer to the question of whether there
59
No. 10354. The second 3 Whether or not COMELEC are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
tarpaulin is the subject of the may regulate expressions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts
present case. This tarpaulin made by private citizens. are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or
contains the heading 4 Whether or not the instrumentality of the government properly acted within such
“Conscience Vote” and lists assailed notice and letter limits.
candidates as either “(Anti- for the removal of the A political question will not be considered justiciable if there
RH) Team Buhay” with a tarpaulin violated are no constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
check mark, or “(Pro-RH) petitioners’ fundamental conferred upon political bodies. Hence, the existence of
Team Patay” with an “X” mark. right to freedom of constitutionally imposed limits justifies subjecting the official
The electoral candidates were expression. actions of the body to the scrutiny and review of this court.
classified according to their 5 Whether the order for In this case, the Bill of Rights gives the utmost deference to
vote on the adoption of removal of the tarpaulin is the right to free speech. Any instance that this right may be
Republic Act No. 10354, a content-based or abridged demands judicial scrutiny. It does not fall squarely
otherwise known as the RH content-neutral regulation. into any doubt that a political question brings.
Law. Those who voted for the 6 Whether or not there was SECOND ISSUE: No.
passing of the law were violation of petitioners’ The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of
classified by petitioners as right to property. administrative remedies is not proper in this case.
comprising “Team Patay,” 7 Whether or not the Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative
while those who voted against tarpaulin and its message remedies, it is clear that the controversy is already ripe for
it form “Team Buhay.” are considered religious adjudication. Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had
Respondents conceded that speech. by then been accomplished or performed by either branch or
the tarpaulin was neither in this case, organ of government before a court may come
sponsored nor paid for by any into the picture.”
candidate. Petitioners also Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the
conceded that the tarpaulin message and their medium, had understandable relevance
contains names ofcandidates especially during the elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening
for the 2013 elections, but not the filing of the election offense against petitioners is already
of politicians who helped in the an actionable infringement of this right. The impending threat
passage of the RH Law but of criminal litigation is enough to curtail petitioners’ speech.
were not candidates for that In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative
election. remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs
the violation of their freedom of speech.
THIRD ISSUE: No.
Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to
support their position that they had the power to regulate the
tarpaulin. However, the Court held that all of these provisions
pertain to candidates and political parties. Petitioners are not
candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party.
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the
enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression
exercised by a non-candidate in this case.
FOURTH ISSUE: Yes.
60
The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political

consequences enjoys a high degree of protection.
Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is
election propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing
candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecting those
who voted for it, holds no water.
The Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the
success or failure of the named candidates and political
parties, this does not necessarily mean it is election
propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted “in return
for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or party-list
group.
By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are
not included, while sponsored messages are covered.
The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received
as a contribution to public deliberation about some issue,”
“fostering informed and civic minded deliberation.” On the
other hand, commercial speech has been defined as speech
that does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.”
The expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is,
however, definitely political speech.
FIFTH ISSUE: Content-based regulation.
Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions
“based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.” In
contrast, content-neutral regulation includes controls merely
on the incidents of the speech such as time, place, or manner
of the speech.
The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-
based. The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the
size of its medium.
Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of
invalidity, and this court has used the clear and present
danger rule as measure.
Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented
must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.’” “Only when the challenged act
has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass
constitutional muster, with the government having the burden
of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.”
Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents
failed to justify the regulation. There is no compelling and
61
substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the

tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the right of freedom of
expression. There is no reason for the state to minimize the
right of non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their
private property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect
anyone else’s constitutional rights.
SIXTH ISSUE: Yes.
The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen
by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of
petitioners. Their right to use their property is likewise
protected by the Constitution.
Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or
unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because
it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process
and equal protection of the laws.
The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that regulates
where decals and stickers should be posted is “so broad that it
encompasses even the citizen’s private property.”
Consequently, it violates Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of
his property without due process of law.
SEVENTH ISSUE: No.
The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by
petitioners are not binding upon this court. The position of the
Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the RH Law
does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members of
a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis. The
enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin
precludes any doubt as to its nature as speech with political
consequences and not religious speech.
In 2013, the COMELEC Issue 1: W/N the COMELEC No. The COMELEC may only regulate the franchise or permit
promulgated Resolution 9615 may impose the prohibition on to operate and not the ownership per se of PUVs and
providing rules that would PUVs and public transport transport terminals. The posting of election campaign material
implement Sec 9 of RA 9006 terminals during the election on vehicles used for public transport or on transport terminals
1-UTAK vs. COMELEC or the Fair Elections Act. One pursuant to its regulatory is not only a form of political expression, but also an act of
G.R. No. 206020 of the provisions of the powers delegated under Art ownership – it has nothing to do with the franchise or permit to
April 14, 2015 Resolution provide that the IX-C, Sec 4 of the Constitution operate the PUV or transport terminal.
posting of any election No. A government regulation based on the captive-audience
propaganda or materials Issue 2: W/N the regulation is doctrine may not be justified if the supposed “captive
during the campaign period justified by the “captive audience” may avoid exposure to the otherwise intrusive
shall be prohibited in public audience doctrine” speech. Here, the commuters are not forced or compelled to
62
utility vehicles (PUV) and read the election campaign materials posted on PUVs and
within the premises of public Issue 3: W/N the regulation transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of declining to
transport terminals. 1 UTAK, a constitutes prior restraints on receive the messages contained in the posted election
party-list organization, free speech campaign materials since they may simply avert their eyes if
questioned the prohibition as it they find the same unbearably intrusive. Hence, the doctrine is
impedes the right to free Issue 4: W/N the regulation is not applicable.
speech of the private owners a valid content-neutral Yes. It unduly infringes on the fundamental right of the people
of PUVs and transport regulation to freedom of speech. Central to the prohibition is the freedom
terminals. of individuals such as the owners of PUVs and private
transport terminals to express their preference, through the
posting of election campaign material in their property, and
convince others to agree with them.
No. The prohibition under the certain provisions of RA
9615 are content-neutral regulations since they merely control
the place where election campaign materials may be posted,
but the prohibition is repugnant to the free speech clause as it
fails to satisfy all of the requisites for a valid content-neutral
regulation.
The restriction on free speech of owners of PUVs and
transport terminals is not necessary to a stated governmental
interest. First, while Resolution 9615 was promulgated by the
COMELEC to implement the provisions of Fair Elections Act,
the prohibition on posting of election campaign materials on
PUVs and transport terminals was not provided for therein.
Second, there are more than sufficient provisions in our
present election laws that would ensure equal time, space,
and opportunity to candidates in elections. Hence, one of the
requisites of a valid content-neutral regulation was not
satisfied.
63
POLITICAL PARTY; PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION

It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-
list seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution
vested Congress with the broad power to define and prescribe
the mechanics of the party-list system of representatives. In
the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress
deemed it necessary to require parties participating in the
system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the
party list system to be entitled to a party-list seat. Congress
wanted to ensure that only those parties having a sufficient
COMELEC proclaimed 14 number of constituents deserving of representation are
Is the twenty percent
party-list representatives from actually represented in Congress.
allocation for party-list
13 parties which obtained at
representatives mentioned in
least 2% of the total number of FORMULA FOR determination of total number of party-list
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
votes cast for the party-list representatives = #district representatives/.80 x .20
Constitution, mandatory or is it
system as members of the
merely a ceiling? In other
House of Representatives. additional representatives of first party = # of votes of first
words, should the twenty
Upon petition for respondents, party/ # of votes of party list system
percent allocation for party-list
who were party-list additional seats for concerned party = # of votes of
Veterans Federation Party vs. solons be filled up completely
organizations, it proclaimed 38 concerned party/ # votes of first party x additional seats
COMELEC and all the time?
additional party-list for concerned party
G.R. No.136781
representatives although they
October 6, 2000 Are the two percent threshold
obtained less than 2% of the Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to
requirement and the three-
total number of votes cast for ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions
seat limit provided in Section
the party-list system on the having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of
11 (b) of RA 7941
ground that under the representation are actually represented in Congress. This
constitutional?
Constitution, it is mandatory intent can be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed
that at least 20% of the bill. The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the
How should the additional
members of the House of intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law, but with
seats of a qualified party be
Representatives come from the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or
determined?
the party-list representatives. representative state, all government authority emanates from
the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by
them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected
persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of
people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list
system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups
which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and
which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress.
Thus, even legislative districts are apportioned according to
"the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of
64
a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local

representation.
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the

public and the private respondents, as well as the members of
this Court that the initial step is to rank all the participating
parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes they each received.
Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes
by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the
system. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes
are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be
considered in the computation of additional seats. The party
receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be
referred to as the “first” party.
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats
the first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that
for the other parties. Since the distribution is based on
proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted
to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the
first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number
of votes.
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of
additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to,
based on proportional representation.
Herein case involves two 1.Yes. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private
Petitions under Rule 65 of the respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list
Rules of Court, challenging 1.Whether or not political elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 parties may participate in the Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
issued by the Commission on party-list elections. of the House of Representatives may “be elected through a
Elections (COMELEC) on 2.Whether or not the party-list party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
March 26, 2001. This system is exclusive to parties or organizations.”
Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
Resolution approved the ‘marginalized and 2.Yes. The requisite character of these parties or
COMELEC
participation of 154 underrepresented’ sectors and organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the
G.R. No. 147589
organizations and parties, organizations. party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA
June 26, 2001
including those herein 3.Whether or not the Comelec 7941. (e.g. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution)
impleaded, in the 2001 party- committed grave abuse of While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented
list elections. Petitioners seek discretion in promulgating sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the
the disqualification of private Omnibus Resolution No. law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list
respondents, arguing mainly 3785.” system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction
that the party-list system was that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection
intended to benefit the with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the
65
marginalized and words and the phrases with which they are associated or
underrepresented; not the related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be
mainstream political parties, limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate
the non-marginalized or association.
overrepresented.
In July and August 2007, the I. The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for every
COMELEC, sitting as the 5 seats allotted for legislative districts, there shall be one seat
National Board of Canvassers, allotted for a party-list representative. Originally, the 1987
made a partial proclamation of Constitution provides that there shall be not more than 250
the winners in the party-list members of the lower house. Using the 80-20 rule, 200 of that
elections which was held in will be from legislative districts, and 50 would be from party-list
May 2007. representatives. However, the Constitution also allowed
In proclaiming the winners and Congress to fix the number of the membership of the lower
apportioning their seats, the house as in fact, it can create additional legislative districts as
COMELEC considered the I. How is the 80-20 rule it may deem appropriate. As can be seen in the May 2007
following rules: observed in apportioning the elections, there were 220 district representatives, hence
1. In the lower house, 80% seats in the lower house? applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1 ratio, there should be 55
shall comprise the seats for II. Whether or not the 20% seats allotted for party-list representatives.
legislative districts, while the allocation for party-list How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is the formula:
remaining 20% shall come representatives mandatory or (Current Number of Legislative DistrictRepresentatives ÷ 0.80)
from party-list representatives a mere ceiling. x (0.20) = Number of Seats Available to Party-List
Barangay Association for
(Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987 III. Whether or not the 2% Representatives
National Advancement and
Constitution); threshold to qualify for a seat Hence,
Transparency (BANAT) vs.
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of valid. (220 ÷ 0.80) x (0.20) = 55
COMELEC
R.A. 7941 or the Party-List IV. How are party-list seats II. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is merely a
G.R. No. 179271, 179295
System Act, a party-list which allocated? ceiling – meaning, the number of party-list representatives
April 21, 2009
garners at least 2% of the total V. Whether or not major shall not exceed 20% of the total number of the members of
votes cast in the party-list political parties are allowed to the lower house. However, it is not mandatory that the 20%
elections shall be entitled to participate in the party-list shall be filled.
one seat; elections. III. No. Section 11b of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. There is no
3. If a party-list garners at VI. Whether or not the 3 seat constitutional basis to allow that only party-lists which
least 4%, then it is entitled to 2 cap rule (3 Seat Limit Rule) is garnered 2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and
seats; if it garners at least 6%, valid. those which garnered less than 2% are disqualified. Further,
then it is entitled to 3 seats – the 2% threshold creates a mathematical impossibility to attain
this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 the ideal 80-20 apportionment. The Supreme Court explained:
rule or the Panganiban To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose
Formula from the case of there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the
Veterans Federation Party vs party list elections. A party that has two percent of the votes
COMELEC. cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us
4. In no way shall a party be further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million
given more than three seats votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55
even if if garners more than seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold,
66
6% of the votes cast for the this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available
party-list election (3 seat cap party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes
rule, same case). cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of
The Barangay Association for parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always
National Advancement and impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to
Transparency (BANAT), a exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is
party-list candidate, present.
questioned the proclamation It is therefore clear that the two percent threshold presents an
as well as the formula being unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section
used. BANAT averred that the 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment
2% threshold is invalid; Sec. of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or
11 of RA 7941 is void because group interests in the House of Representatives.”
its provision that a party-list, to IV. Instead, the 2% rule should mean that if a party-list garners
qualify for a congressional 2% of the votes cast, then it is guaranteed a seat, and not
seat, must garner at least 2% “qualified”. This allows those party-lists garnering less than 2%
of the votes cast in the party- to also get a seat.
list election, is not supported But how? The Supreme Court laid down the following rules:
by the Constitution. Further, 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
the 2% rule creates a from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes
mathematical impossibility to they garnered during the elections.
meet the 20% party-list seat 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
prescribed by the Constitution. two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
BANAT also questions if the system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
20% rule is a mere ceiling or is 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the
it mandatory. If it is mandatory, ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in
then with the 2% qualifying proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional
vote, there would be instances seats are allocated.
when it would be impossible to 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
fill the prescribed 20% share more than three (3) seats.
of party-lists in the lower In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall
house. BANAT also proposes no longer be included because they have already been
a new computation (which allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the
shall be discussed in the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional seats”
“HELD” portion of this digest). are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System
On the other hand, BAYAN less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in
MUNA, another party-list the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a
candidate, questions the rounding off of fractional seats.
validity of the 3 seat rule In short, there shall be two rounds in determining the allocation
(Section 11a of RA 7941). It of the seats. In the first round, all party-lists which garnered at
also raised the issue of least 2% of the votes cast (called the two-percenters) are
whether or not major political given their one seat each. The total number of seats given to
parties are allowed to these two-percenters are then deducted from the total
67
participate in the party-list available seats for party-lists. In this case, 17 party-lists were
elections or is the said able to garner 2% each. There are a total 55 seats available
elections limited to sectoral for party-lists hence, 55 minus 17 = 38 remaining seats.
parties. (Please refer to the full text of the case for the tabulation).
The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, shall be used
in the second round, particularly, in determining, first, the
additional seats for the two-percenters, and second, in
determining seats for the party-lists that did not garner at least
2% of the votes cast, and in the process filling up the 20%
allocation for party-list representatives.
How is this done?
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by the party and
multiply it against the remaining number of seats. The product,
which shall not be rounded off, will be the additional number of
seats allotted for the party list – but the 3 seat limit rule shall
still be observed.
Example:
In this case, the BUHAY party-list garnered the highest total
vote of 1,169,234 which is 7.33% of the total votes cast for the
party-list elections (15,950,900).
Applying the formula above: (Percentage of vote garnered) x
(remaining seats) = number of additional seat
Hence, 7.33% x 38 = 2.79
Rounding off to the next higher number is not allowed so 2.79
remains 2. BUHAY is a two-percenter which means it has a
guaranteed one seat PLUS additional 2 seats or a total of 3
seats. Now if it so happens that BUHAY got 20% of the votes
cast, it will still get 3 seats because the 3 seat limit rule
prohibits it from having more than 3 seats.
Now after all the tw0-percenters were given their guaranteed
and additional seats, and there are still unoccupied seats,
those seats shall be distributed to the remaining party-lists and
those higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized until all
the seats are occupied.
V. No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to
disallow major political parties (the likes of UNIDO, LABAN,
etc) from participating in the party-list elections.
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out that there
is no prohibition either from the Constitution or from RA 7941
against major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections as the word “party” was not qualified and that even
the framers of the Constitution in their deliberations
68
deliberately allowed major political parties to participate in the

party-list elections provided that they establish a sectoral wing
which represents the marginalized (indirect participation),
Justice Puno, in his separate opinion, concurred by 7 other
justices, explained that the will of the people defeats the will of
the framers of the Constitution precisely because it is the
people who ultimately ratified the Constitution – and the will of
the people is that only the marginalized sections of the country
shall participate in the party-list elections. Hence, major
political parties cannot participate in the party-list elections,
directly or indirectly.
VI. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one way to ensure
that no one party shall dominate the party-list system.
No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the
cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC
as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which
abandoned some principles established in the two aforestated
This case partially abandoned
cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
the rulings in Ang Bagong
I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must
Bayani vs COMELEC and
use the following parameters:
BANAT vs COMELEC.
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list
Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51
system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional
other parties were disqualified
parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
by the Commission on
organizations.
Elections in the May 2013
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
party-list elections for various Whether or not the COMELEC
Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and
reasons but primarily for not committed grave abuse of
G.R. No. 203766 do not need to represent any “marginalized and
being qualified as discretion in disqualifying the
April 2, 2013 underrepresented” sector.
representatives for said party-lists.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
marginalized or
provided they register under the party-list system and do not
underrepresented sectors.
field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
Atong Paglaum et al then filed
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative
a petition for certiorari against
district elections can participate in party-list elections only
COMELEC alleging grave
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the
abuse of discretion on the part
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent
of COMELEC in disqualifying
sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a
them.
coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
“marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
69
sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and

underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,
and overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined
political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly,
women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority
of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack
“well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector
they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack “well-
defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their
respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy
for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and
regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members
of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who
remains qualified.
II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed,
as has always been the practice, from participating in the
party-list elections. But, since there’s really no constitutional
prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties
can now participate in the party-list system provided that
they do so through their bona fide sectoral wing (see
parameter 3 above).
Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit
indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage them to
work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” and to those who “lack
well-defined political constituencies.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission when they were drafting the
party-list system provision of the Constitution. The
Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include
all parties into the party-list elections in order to develop a
political system which is pluralistic and multiparty. (In the
70
BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the will of the

people should defeat the intent of the framers; and that the
intent of the people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that
the party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized
sectors.)
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list
system is NOT RESERVED for the “marginalized and
underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined
political constituencies”. It is also for national or regional
parties. It is also for small ideology-based and cause-oriented
parties who lack “well-defined political constituencies”. The
common denominator however is that all of them cannot, they
do not have the machinery – unlike major political parties, to
field or sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they
can acquire the needed votes in a national election system like
the party-list system of elections.
If the party-list system is only reserved for
marginalized representation, then the system itself unduly
excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat
in the lower house. As explained by the Supreme Court, party-
list representation should not be understood to include
only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and
other sectors that by their nature are economically at the
margins of society. It should be noted that Section 5 of
Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its provision for
sectoral representation groups of professionals, which are not
per se economically marginalized but are still qualified as
“marginalized, underrepresented, and do not have well-defined
political constituencies” as they are ideologically
marginalized.
In G.R. 189466, petitioner Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the
Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a
first nominee of the Aangat member of the House of Representatives. Section 5, Article VI
Tayo party-list organization Whether or not respondent of the Constitution,5 identifies who the “members” of that
Palparan vs. HRET that won a seat in the House HRET has jurisdiction over the House are:
G.R. No. 189506 of Representatives during the question of qualifications of Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed
February 11, 2012 2007 elections. Respondents petitioners Abayon and of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
filed a petition Palparan. otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
for quo warranto with districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
respondent HRET against Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of
petitioner Abayon. They their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
71
claimed that Aangat Tayo was progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
not eligible for a party-list seat elected through a partylist system of registered national,
in the House of regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring
Representatives, since it did supplied)
not represent the marginalized Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9 provides that the
and underrepresented sectors HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among
since she did not belong to the other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
marginalized and Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list
underrepresented sectors, she nominees are “elected members” of the House of
being the wife of an incumbent Representatives no less than the district representatives are,
congressional district the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their
representative. qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district
It was Aangat Tayo that was representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list
taking a seat in the House of nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his
Representatives, and not oath and assumed office as member of the House of
Abayon who was just its Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election
nominee. All questions contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s
involving her eligibility as first own jurisdiction begins.10
nominee, said Abayon, were The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse
internal concerns of Aangat its discretion when it dismissed the petitions for quo
Tayo. warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list
In G.R. 189506, petitioner but upheld its jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications
Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.
first nominee of the Bantay
party-list group that won a seat
in the 2007 elections for the
members of the House of
Representatives. Lesaca and
the others alleged that
Palparan was ineligible to sit in
the House of Representatives
as party-list nominee because
he did not belong to the
marginalized and
underrepresented sectors that
Bantay represented, namely,
the victims of communist
rebels, Civilian Armed Forces
Geographical Units
(CAFGUs), former rebels, and
security guards.
Petitioner Palparan countered
72
that the HRET had no

jurisdiction over his person
since it was actually the party-
list Bantay, not he, that was
elected to and assumed
membership in the House of
Representatives. Palparan
claimed that he was just
Bantay’s nominee.
Consequently, any question
involving his eligibility as first
nominee was an internal
concern of Bantay. Such
question must be brought, he
said, before that party-list
group, not before the HRET.
73
AUTOMATED ELECTIONS
On 23 January 2007, Assayed against the provisions of the Constitution, the
Congress passed RA 9369 enabling automation law, RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369,
amending the first automated the RFP and even the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners
[2]
election law, RA 8436. invoked as an afterthought, the Court finds the project award
Section 5 of RA 8436, as to have complied with legal prescriptions, and the terms and
amended by RA 9369, which conditions of the corresponding automation contract in
amendment took effect on 10 question to be valid. No grave abuse of discretion, therefore,
February 2007, authorized the can be laid on the doorsteps of respondent COMELEC. And
COMELEC to: surely, the winning joint venture should not be faulted for
Use an automated election having a foreign company as partner.
system or systems in the
same election in different The COMELEC is an independent constitutional body with a
provinces, whether paper- distinct and pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the
based or a direct recording discharge of its awesome functions as overseer of fair
automated election system as elections, administrator and lead implementor of laws relative
it may deem appropriate and to the conduct of elections, it should not be stymied with
practical for the process of restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an
Whether or not, the
voting, counting of votes and organization of lesser responsibility.[103] It should be afforded
COMELECgravely abuse its
Roque vs. COMELEC canvassing/consolidation and ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising means
discretion when it entered to
G.R. No. 188456 transmittal of results of and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great
contract with Smartmatic TIM
September 10, 2009 electoral exercises: Provided, objective for which it was created--to promote free, orderly,
Corporation and assailing to
that for the regular national honest and peaceful elections. This is as it should be for, too
an automated election.
and local election, which often, COMELEC has to make decisions under difficult
shall be held immediately conditions to address unforeseen events to preserve the
after effectivity of this Act, integrity of the election and in the process the voice of the
the AES shall be used in at people. Thus, in the past, the Court has steered away from
least two highly urbanized interfering with the COMELEC’s exercise of its power which,
cities and two provinces by law and by the nature of its office properly pertain to it.
each in Luzon, Visayas and Absent, therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion
Mindanao, to be chosen by on comelec’s part, as here, the Court should refrain from
the Commission x x x x In utilizing the corrective hand of certiorari to review, let alone
succeeding regular national or nullify, the acts of that body.
local elections, the AES shall
be implemented nationwide. There are no ready-made formulas for solving public
(Emphasis supplied) problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve
patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the
The COMELEC did not use matter of the administration of the laws relative to the conduct
any automated election of elections, x x x we must not by any excessive zeal take
system in the 14 May 2007 away from the comelec the initiative which by constitutional
74
elections, the national and and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Due regard to the
local elections held after RA independent character of the Commission x x x requires that
9369 took effect. the power of this court to review the acts of that body should,
as a general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in
On 10 July 2009, the appropriate cases.
COMELEC, on the one hand,
and TIM and Smartmatic .This independent constitutional commission, it is true,
(Provider), on the other, possesses extraordinary powers and enjoys a considerable
signed the Contract for the latitude in the discharge of its functions. The road, however,
automated tallying and towards successful 2010 automation elections would certainly
recording of votes cast be rough and bumpy. The comelec is laboring under very tight
nationwide in the 10 May 2010 timelines. It would accordingly need the help of all advocates
elections. For of orderly and honest elections, of all men and women of
P7,191,484,739.48, the goodwill, to smoothen the way and assist comelec personnel
COMELEC leased for use in address the fears expressed about the integrity of the system.
the 10 May 2010 elections Like anyone else, the Court would like and wish automated
82,200 optical scanners (and elections to succeed, credibly.
related equipment) and hired
ancillary services of the
Provider.
On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as

taxpayers and citizens, filed
[4]
this petition to enjoin the
signing of the Contract or its
implementation and to compel
disclosure of the terms of the
Contract and other
agreements between the
Provider and its
[5]
subcontractors. Petitioners
sought the Contract's
invalidation for non-
compliance with the
requirement in Section 5 of RA
8436, as amended, mandating
the partial use of an
automated election system
before deploying it nationwide.
To further support their claim
on the Contract's invalidity,
petitioners alleged that (1) the
75
optical scanners leased by the

COMELEC do not satisfy the
minimum systems capabilities"
under RA 8436, as amended
and (2) the Provider not only
failed to submit relevant
documents during the bidding
but also failed to show
"community of interest" among
its constituent corporations as
required in Information
Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. COMELEC
(Infotech).
During the oral arguments of YES.

the case in the Supreme
Court, it was challenged that The Rules of Court, defines digital signature as the first one it
PCOS machines do not is electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an
comply with the requirement of electronic document or an electronic data message using an
the law on automated asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having
elections that electronic the initial untransformed electronic document and the signers
transmissions must be digitally public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the
signed. Contrary to the belief transformation was created using the private key that
of Justice Carpio, Atty. Lazatin corresponds to the signers public key; and (ii) whether the
explained that the 2010 initial electronic document has been altered after the
automated elections already Whether or not the PCOS transformation was made.
Capalla vs. COMELEC used digital signatures. machines are capable of
G.R. No. 201112 According to Atty. Lazatin, producing digitally signed- Digital signature requires private key and public key generated
June 13, 2012 such digital signatures were transmissions as required by by an algorithm. There is another algorithm (second) which, if
contained in iButtons (gadget). law. you match if you put together the private key and the
Justice Carpio asked how message, will generate the signature. The third algorithm, that
were it possible if Board of if you put together the public key and the signature it will
Election Inspectors (BEIs) did accept or reject the message.
not input their private keys
because allegedly there was In the 2010 elections for example, the private key is embedded
no time and it would require in the iButtons which are used to start the PCOS machines.
five (5) months. Atty. Lazatin For authentication, all of the three BEIs are required. Each of
clarified that it was not a them has an 8-digit PIN given to them in a sealed envelope.
customized or personal digital The COMELEC on the other hand controls the public key.
signature but assigned by the Whoever in possession of the iButton and in possession of the
COMELEC. set of PINs can send a transmission. Whoever wants to send
76
transmission, he will have to get the private key from the BEI
Chairman and the PIN numbers from the other members. If
they can send an electronic transmission that’s digitally signed
and when received by the COMELEC and matched with the
public key will result with an official election return. Hence the
statutory requirement of digital signature is complied
accordingly.
77
RECALL
1) No. There is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely
suggest that the people have the "sole and exclusive right to
Enrique T. Garcia was elected
decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding." The
governor of Bataan in the
Constitution did not provide for any mode, let alone a single
1992 elections. Some mayors,
mode, of initiating recall elections.
vice-mayors and members of
The mandate given by section 3 of Article X of the Constitution
the Sangguniang Bayan of the
is for Congress to "enact a local government code which shall
twelve (12) municipalities of
provide for a more responsive and accountable local
the province constituted
government structure through a system of decentralization
themselves into a Preparatory
with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and
Recall Assembly to initiate the
referendum . . ." By this constitutional mandate, Congress was
recall election of petitioner
clearly given the power to choose the effective mechanisms of
Garcia. They issued
recall as its discernment dictates.
Resolution No. 1 as formal
What the Constitution simply required is that the mechanisms
initiation of the recall
1) Whether or not the people of recall, whether one or many, to be chosen by Congress
proceedings. COMELEC
have the sole and exclusive should be effective. Using its constitutionally granted
scheduled the recall election
right to initiate recall discretion, Congress deemed it wise to enact an alternative
for the gubernatorial position
proceedings. mode of initiating recall elections to supplement the former
of Bataan.
2) Whether or not the mode of initiation by direct action of the people. The legislative
Garcia vs. COMELEC
procedure for recall violated records reveal there were two (2) principal reasons why this
277 SCRA 100 Petitioners then filed a petition
the right of elected local public alternative mode of initiating the recall process thru an
for certiorari and prohibition
officials belonging to the assembly was adopted, viz: (a) to diminish the difficulty of
with writ of preliminary
political minority to equal initiating recall thru the direct action of the people; and (b) to
injunction to annul the
protection of the law. cut down on its expenses.
Resolution of the COMELEC
because the PRAC failed to
2) No. Under the Sec. 70 of the LGC, all mayors, vice-mayors
comply with the "substantive
and sangguniang members of the municipalities and
and procedural requirement"
component cities are made members of the preparatory recall
laid down in Section 70 of R.A.
assembly at the provincial level. Its membership is not
7160 (Local Government Code
apportioned to political parties. No significance is given to the
1991). They pointed out the
political affiliation of its members. Secondly, the preparatory
most fatal defect of the
recall assembly, at the provincial level includes all the elected
proceeding followed by the
officials in the province concerned. Considering their number,
PRAC in passing the
the greater probability is that no one political party can control
Resolution: the deliberate
its majority. Thirdly, sec. 69 of the Code provides that the only
failure to send notices of the
ground to recall a locally elected public official is loss of
meeting to 65 members of the
confidence of the people. The members of the PRAC are in
assembly.
the PRAC not in representation of their political parties but as
representatives of the people. By necessary implication, loss
78
of confidence cannot be premised on mere differences in

political party affiliation. Indeed, our Constitution encourages
multi-party system for the existence of opposition parties is
indispensable to the growth and nurture of democratic system.
Clearly then, the law as crafted cannot be faulted for
discriminating against local officials belonging to the minority.
Moreover, the law instituted safeguards to assure that the
initiation of the recall process by a preparatory recall assembly
will not be corrupted by extraneous influences. We held that
notice to all the members of the recall assembly is a condition
sine qua non to the validity of its proceedings. The law also
requires a qualified majority of all the preparatory recall
assembly members to convene in session and in a public
place. Needless to state, compliance with these requirements
is necessary, otherwise, there will be no valid resolution of
recall which can be given due course by the COMELEC.
Jovito O. Claudio (Claudio) Yes. SC Affirmed COMELEC
was duly elected mayor of
Pasay City in the May 11, The limitations in Section 74 apply to the exercise of the power
1998 elections. Sometime in of recall (i.e. the recall election itself) which is vested with the
May 1999, the chairs of registered voters of the LGU. It does not apply to the
several barangays in Pasay preparatory processes to such exercise of recall such as the
City gathered for the purpose proceedings of the PRA.
of convening the Preparatory
Recall Assembly (PRA) and to RATIO:
file a petition for recall against
Mayor Claudio for loss of Recall as used in Section 74 refers to the election itself
WoN the petition for recall was
confidence.
filed within the proper period
Claudio vs. COMELEC We can agree that recall is a process which begins with the
provided for by Section 74 of
331 SCRA 388 On May 29, 1999, 1,073 convening of the preparatory, recall assembly or the gathering
the Local Government Code
members of the PRA of the signatures at least 25% of the registered voters of a
composed of barangay chairs, local government unit, and then proceeds to the filing of a
kagawads, and sangguniang recall resolution or petition with the COMELEC, the verification
kabataan chairs of Pasay City, of such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the recall
adopted Resolution No. 01, S- election, and the holding of the election on the scheduled date.
1999 recalling Claudio as However, as used in paragraph (b) of § 74, "recall" refers
mayor for loss of confidence. to the election itself by means of which voters decide
The petition for recall was filed whether they should retain their local official or elect his
on July 2, 1999 and copies of replacement.
the petition were in public
areas throughout the City. Section 69 of the Local Government Code provides that "the
power of recall ...shall be exercised by the registered voters of
79
Claudio filed an opposition a local government unit to which the local elective official
against the petition alleging, belongs." Since the power vested on the electorate is not the
among others, that the petition power to initiate recall proceedings but the power to elect an
for recall was filed within one official into office, the limitations in §74 cannot be deemed to
year from his assumption into apply to the entire recall proceedings. In other words, the term
office and therefore prohibited. "recall" in paragraph (b) refers only to the recall election,
He argued that the PRA was excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition
convened within the 1 year for recall with the COMELEC, or the gathering of the
prohibited period as provided signatures of at least 25 % of the voters for a petition for recall.
by Section 74 of the Local
Government Code. The Anything steps prior to recall election itself are merely
COMELEC, however, granted preliminary steps for the purpose of initiating a recall. The
the petition for recall ruling that limitations in §74 apply only to the exercise of the power of
recall is a process which starts recall which is vested in the registered voters. It is this - and
with the filing of the petition for not merely, the preliminary steps required to be taken to
recall and since the petition initiate a recall - which paragraph (b) of §74 seeks to limit by
was filed exactly one year and providing that no recall shall take place within one year from
a day after Claudio's the date of assumption of office of an elective local official.
assumption of office, the
petition was filed on time. The proceedings of the PRA do not constitute the exercise of
Thereafter, COMELEC set the recall
date of the recall elections on
April 15, 2000. Hence, this It is the power to recall and not the power to initiate recall that
petition. the Constitution gave to the people. A recall resolution "merely
sets the stage for the official concerned before the tribunal of
the people so he can justify why he should be allowed to
continue in office. [But until] the people render their sovereign
judgment, the official concerned remains in office. Thus, the
preliminary proceedings of the PRA do not produce a decision
by the electorate on whether the local official concerned
continues to enjoy the confidence of the people, then, the
prohibition in paragraph (b) against the holding of a recall,
except one year after the official's assumption of office, cannot
apply to such proceedings.
Purpose of the one year prohibitory period against the

exercise of recall
The purpose of the first limitation is to provide a reasonable

basis for judging the performance of an elective local official.
Hence, in this case, as long as the election is held outside the
one-year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate a recall
80
can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a
local official.
Including the convening of the PRA as part of recall restricts

right of speech and assembly
Third, to construe the term "recall" in paragraph (b) as

including the convening of the PRA for the purpose of
discussing the performance in office of elective local officials
would be to unduly restrict the constitutional right of speech
and of assembly of its members. The people cannot just be
asked on the day of the election to decide on the performance
of their officials. The crystallization and formation of an
informed public opinion takes time. To hold, therefore, that the
first limitation in paragraph (b) includes the holding of
assemblies for the exchange of ideas and opinions among
citizens is to unduly curtail one of the most cherished rights in
a free society. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that such
assemblies will always eventuate in a recall election. To the
contrary, they may result in the expression of confidence in the
incumbent.
The phrase regular local election does not include the

campaign period
Claudio contends that the date April 15, 2000 also falls within
the second prohibition under Section 74 of the Local
Government Code arguing that the phrase "regular local
elections" in paragraph (b) does not only mean "the day of the
regular local election" which, for the year 2001 is May 14, but
the election period as well. Hence, he contends that beginning
March 30, 2000, no recall election may be held.
The contention is untenable. First there is nothing in the law

that shows the campaign period is included for purposes of
computing the prohibitory period. Moreover, petitioner's
interpretation would severely limit the period during which a
recall election may be held. Actually, because no recall
election may be held until one year after the assumption of
office of an elective local official, presumably on June 30
following his election, the free period is only the period from
July 1 of the following year to about the middle of May of the
81
succeeding year. This is a period of only nine months and 15

days, more or less. To construe the second limitation in
paragraph (b) as including the campaign period would reduce
this period to eight months. Such an interpretation must be
rejected, because it would devitalize the right of recall which is
designed to make local government units" more responsive
and accountable."
The petition to recall Mayor COMELEC SAYS THERE IS NO. THE 2014 GAA PROVIDES THE LINE ITEM
Bayron was initiated by former NO BUDGET IN THE 2014 APPROPRIATION TO ALLOW COMELEC TO CONDUCT
city administrator Alroben Goh GENERAL RECALL ELECTIONS.
in March 2014, due to "loss of APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR
trust and confidence" in the THE CONDUCT OF RECALL “We grant the petition. We hold that the COMELEC committed
mayor, after a series of ELECTION AND grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and
alleged deterioration in the THEREFORE THEY CANNOT 9882. The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to
peace and order situation, the CONDUCT RECALL allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of
city's poor tourism ELECTIONS. IS THIS conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental
performance, and other CORRECT? legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall
governance issues. elections for 2014.”
Bayron argued that the recall
petition was prematurely filed, TO BE VALID AN YES. THE PURPOSE MAY BE BROKEN DOWN INTO
as it was done before June APPROPRIATION MUST DIFFERENT RELATED SUB-CATEGORIES. THEREFORE
2014, or within his first year in INDICATE A SPECIFIC THE PURPOSE “TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS” COVERS,
office, thus violating the Local AMOUNT AND A SPECIFIC EVEN IF NOT EXPRESSLY SPELLED OUT, REGULAR,
Goh vs. Bayron
Government Code. PURPOSE. DOES THE SPECIAL AND RECALL ELECTIONS.
G.R. No. 212584
The Comelec ruled that the PURPOSE ‘TO CONDUCT
November 25, 2014
limitations set by law – a one- ELECTIONS’ COVER “Under these· factual circumstances, we find it difficult to justify
year ban after an official's RECALL ELECTIONS”? the COMELEC ‘s reasons why it is unable to conduct recall
assumption in office and elections in 2014 when the COMELEC was able to conduct
another one-year ban before a recall elections in 2002 despite lack of the specific words
regular election – "pertains to “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x” in the
the holding of the recall 2002 GAA. In the 2002 GAA, the phrase “Conduct and
elections itself" and not to the supervision of elections and other political exercises” was
filing of the petition sufficient to fund the conduct of recall elections. In the 2014
"It does not cover preparatory GAA, there is a specific line item appropriation for the
activities like signature “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x.”
gathering. Thus, the gathering
of signatures of supporting More importantly, the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No.
petitioners can actually start 9882 that the COMELEC has “a line item for the ‘Conduct and
prior to the period of one year supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and
after the official, subject of the plebiscites.”‘ This admission of the COMELEC is a correct
recall, has assumed office," interpretation of this specific budgetary appropriation.· To be
82
the resolution stated. valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a
specific purpose. However, the purpose may be specific even
if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the
same nature. For example, the purpose can be to “conduct
elections,” which even if not expressly spelled out covers
regular, special, or recall elections. The purpose of the
appropriation is still specific -to fund elections, which naturally
and logically include, even if not expressly stated, not only
regular but also special or recall elections.
YES. IT CAN AUGMENT FROM SAVINGS ITS

APPROPRIATIONS FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES,
MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.
RECALL ELECTIONS ONLY NEED OPERATING
CAN COMELEC TAP ITS EXEPENSES BECAUSE THE EXISTING PERSONNEL ARE
SAVINGS TO FUND THE THE SAME PERSONNEL WHO WILL EVALUATE THE
CONDUCT OF RECALL SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL PETITIONS.
ELECTIONS?
However, contrary to the COMELEC’s assertion, the
appropriations for personnel services and maintenance and
other operating expenses falling under “Conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and
plebiscites” constitute a line item which can be augmented
from the COMELEC’s savings to fund the conduct of recall
elections in 2014. The conduct of recall elections requires only
operating expenses, not capital outlays. The COMELEC’s
existing personnel in Puerto Princesa are the same personnel
who will evaluate the sufficiency of the recall petitions. and
conduct the recall elections.
83
FAILURE OF ELECTIONS, POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS, SPECIAL ELECTIONS

It appears that while the
election returns were being
canvassed by the Quezon City
Board of Canvassers but
before the winning candidates
were proclaimed, petitioner
commenced suit before the
COMELEC by filing a petition
seeking to suspend the
canvassing of votes and/or Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election
proclamation in Quezon City Code, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of
and to declare a failure of elections may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any
elections. The said petition polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of
was supposedly filed pursuant force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
to Section 63 of the Omnibus causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been
Election Code (Batas suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
Pambansa Blg. 881, as voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud,
amended) on the ground of or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and during
Sison vs. COMELEC "massive and orchestrated the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in
G.R. No. 134096 fraud and acts analogous WON the grounds are valid? the custody or canvass thereof such election result in a failure
March 3, 1999 thereto which occurred after to elect on account of force majuere, violence, terrorism ,
the voting and during the fraud, or other analogous causes. We have painstakingly
preparation of election examined petitioner's petition before the COMELEC but
returns and in the custody found nothing therein that could support an action for
or canvass thereof, which declaration of failure of elections. He never alleged at all
resulted in a failure to elect. that elections were either not held or suspended.
While the petition was pending Furthermore, petitioner's claim of failure to elect stood as
before the COMELEC, the City a bare conclusion bereft of any substantive support to
Board of Canvassers describe just exactly how the failure to elect came about.
proclaimed the winners of the
elections in Quezon City,
including the winning
candidate for the post of vice
mayor. On June 22, 1998, the
COMELEC promulgated its
challenged resolution
dismissing the petition before
it on the ground (1) that the
allegations therein were not
84
supported by sufficient
evidence, and (2) the grounds
recited were not among the
pre-proclamation issues set
forth in Section 17 of Republic
Act No. 7166
The petitioners were

proclaimed victorious in the
May 14, 2001 Maguindanao
Provincial election after the
order suspending such The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election
proclamation was lifted by the results and/or declare a failure of elections.
COMELEC, which issued the
same. Respondents The Court held that respondents’ allegations of massive fraud
petitioned, before the and terrorism, which led to a failure to elect, fell squarely within
Supreme Court, the Sec 6. Of the Omnibus Election Code (Failure of Election).
suspension of the effects “The Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to
Whether or not COMELEC
of the said proclamation and the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and
had jurisdiction to act on
Ampatuan vs. COMELEC insisted that there had been a terrorism that attended the conduct of the May 14,
respondents’ petitions even
375 SCRA 503 “failure of election”. The 2001 election”. There can be no assumption that petitioners’
after proclamation of
COMELEC ordered the proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001,
petitioners as winners
consolidation of respondents’ was legal precisely because the conduct by which the
petitions and a random elections were held was put in issue by respondents.
technical examination on
several precincts. The Court, in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, directed
Petitioners contended that by COMELEC to proceed with the hearing of the consolidated
virtue of their proclamation, petitions and the technical examination with deliberate
the proper remedy available to dispatch.
respondents was not a petition
for declaration of failure of
elections but an election
protest.
85
ELECTION OFFENSES
The undersigned Provincial
Fiscal of Pangasinan and the
Provincial Fiscals of Nueva
Ecija and Batanes, on special
detail in Pangasinan by
Administrative Orders Nos. 6
REVISED ELECTION LAW; DISTRIBUTION OF THINGS OF
and 13, dated January 12 and
VALUE DISTINGUISHED FROM ELECTIONEERING; WHO
27, 1954, respectively, of the
MAY COMMIT THE VIOLATIONS. — Causing cigarettes
Secretary of Justice, accuse
which are things of value to be distributed, made unlawful by
Andres G. Ferrer of the
section 51 and punished by section 183 of the Revised
offense of violation of Sections
Election Code, cannot be deemed a necessary means to
51 and 54 in relation to
commit the lesser violation of section 64 of the same law were
Sections 183, 184 and 185 of
the penalty attached to it taken into consideration. The rule in
the Revised Election Code,
the case of People vs. Buenviaje, 47 Phil. 536, has no
committed as follows:
application to the case, because there the defendant, who was
That on or about the 10th day
not a duly licensed physician, gave medical assistance and
of November, 1953, (Election
treatment to a certain person and advertised himself and
Day), and for sometime prior
offered services as a physician by means of cards and
thereto, in the municipality of
People vs. Ferrer letterheads and advertisements in the newspapers, the latter
Binmaley, province of
54 O.G. 1348 being a means to commit the former, and both violations are
Pangasinan, Philippines, and
punishable with the same penalty, whereas in the present
within the jurisdiction of this
case causing cigarettes or things of value to be distributed by
Honorable Court, the above-
the defendant to the people who attended a political meeting is
named accused, Andres G.
a violation distinct from that of electioneering committed by a
Ferrer, being then and there a
classified civil service officer or employee. The former has no
Foreign Affairs Officer, Class
connection with the latter. A violation of Section 51 may be
III, Department of Foreign
committed by any candidate, political committee, voter or any
Affairs, and a classified civil
other person, whereas a violation of Section 54 may only be
service officer, duly qualified
committed by a justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer or assessor of
and appointed as such, did
any province, officer or employee of the Army, member of the
then and there wilfully,
national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force, and
unlawfully, feloniously and
classified civil service officer or employee.||| (People v. Ferrer,
knowingly, in utter disregard
G.R. No. L-8957, [April 29, 1957], 101 PHIL 234-239)
and defiance of the specific
and several legal prohibitions
on the subject, and in
disregard of the civil service
rules and regulations, induce,
influence, sway and make the
86
electors vote in favor of the

candidates of the Liberal Party
in the following manner, to wit:
(1) that sometime before the
elections on November 10,
1953, the said accused,
Andres G. Ferrer, delivered a
speech during a political rally
of the Liberal Party in Barrio
Caloocan Norte, Binmaley,
Pangasinan, inducing the
electors to vote for the
candidates of the Liberal Party
but more particularly for
President Quirino and Speaker
Perez; that during said political
meeting the said accused
caused to be distributed to the
people who attended said
meeting cigarettes and
pamphlets concerning the
Liberal Party; and (2) that the
said accused, Andres G.
Ferrer, sometime prior to the
last elections campaigned in
the Barrio of Caloocan Norte,
of the said municipality of
Binmaley, going from house to
house and induced the
electors to whom he
distributed sample ballots of
the Liberal Party to vote for the
candidates of said Party.
|||
This is an administrative Yes. Respondent acquitted Alejandro Angoluan of violation of
complaint filed by Jacinto Whether or not respondent is Section 261 (p) of the Omnibus Election Code. Said provision
Mappala against Judge administratively liable for reads as follows: “Deadly weapons. - Any person who carries
Mappala vs. Nunez Crispulo Nuñez. serious misconduct for any deadly weapon in the polling place and within a radius of
240 SCRA 600 acquitting Alejandro Angoluan one hundred meters thereof during the days and hours fixed
The Provincial prosecutor of of violation of the Omnibus by law for the registration of voters in the polling place, voting,
Isabela filed, among others, an Election Code counting of votes, or preparation of the election returns.
information against Alejandro However, in cases of affray, turmoil, or disorder, any peace
87
and Honorato Angoluan for officer or public officer authorized by the Commission to
violation of the Omnibus supervise the election is entitled to carry firearms or any other
election code. The complaining weapon for the purpose of preserving and enforcing the law.”
witness in said criminal case
was Jacinto Mappala. After In his decision, respondent found that Alejandro shot
consideration of the facts of complainant inside Precinct No. 2 located at the elementary
the case, Judge Nuñez school building in Santo Tomas, Isabela, during the barangay
acquitted the two accused. elections on March 28, 1989. Respondent also found that
Whereupon, complainant Alejandro was the one who surrendered the gun. To
charged respondent with, respondent, the surrender of the weapon was an implied
among others, serious admission that it was the one used by Alejandro in shooting
misconduct for acquitting complainant. In spite of all these findings, respondent
Alejandro Angoluan of violation acquitted Alejandro of illegally carrying a deadly weapon inside
of the Omnibus Election Code. a precinct on the theory that the gun was not seized from him
while he was the precinct. According to respondent: “With
respect to the other accused Alejandro Angoluan, although
there is evidence to prove that he shot the complainant Jacinto
Mappala, the gun which he allegedly used was surrendered by
him 2 days after the incident and he was not apprehended in
possession of the gun within 100 meters radius of the
precinct.” Thus, respondent believes that the accused should
not be prosecuted in violation of Article 22, Section 261 (p) of
the Omnibus Election Code.
According to the high tribunal, to support a conviction under

Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election Code, it is not
necessary that the deadly weapon should have been seized
from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a
radius of 100 meters therefrom. It is enough that the accused
carried the deadly weapon in the polling place and within a
radius of one hundred meters thereof during any of the
specified days and hours. After respondent himself had found
that the prosecution had established these facts, it is difficult to
understand why he acquitted Alejandro of the charge of
violation of Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election Code.
During the general elections, The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision,
the accused was caught by and the intent with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be
WON accused violated the
People vs. Bayona Desiderio, the representative conceded that the defendant did not intend to intimidate any
election law. – YES
181 Phil. 186 of the Department of Interior, elector or to violate the law in any other way, but when he got
and the commander of the out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the
Constabulary carrying in his fence surrounding the polling place, he committed the act
88
belt a 32-caliber Colt Revolver complained of, and he committed it willfully. The act prohibited
inside the fence surrounding by the Election Law was complete. The intention to intimidate
the building intended for the the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election is not
polling station. At 22 meters made an essential element of the offense. Unless an offender
away from the polling station, actually makes use of his revolver, it would be extremely
Desiderio seized the revolver. difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he intended to
Apellant’s attorney assigned intimidate the voters. The rule is that in acts mala in se there
the following errors: 1. The must be a criminal intent, but in those mala prohibita it is
court a quo erred in finding sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care
that the appellant was caught must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the
with his revolver inside the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the
fence of the house Aranguel act. . . .”
neighborhood school ,
Municipality of Pilar , which
was restored as a polling
station. 2. The Court a quo
erred in finding the appellant
guilty of the offense of
querrellada Electoral Act
because he was called by a
friend and merely approached
him to find out what he wanted
and had no interest in the
election; that there were many
people in the public road in
front of the polling place, and
the defendant could not leave
his revolver in his automobile,
which he himself was driving,
without running the risk of
losing it and thereby incurring
in a violation of the law.
Petitioner and Agcorpa, a Issue: Whether or not the No, the COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
registered voter of Makati, filed Commission acted with grave COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 issued by the commission en
with the COMELEC a petition abuse of discretion in not banc on November 3, 1988 is the applicable law in this
Lozano vs. Yorac for disqualification against then finding Binay guilty of vote- disqualification case. Contrary to petitioner's submission that
G.R. No. 94521, 94626 candidate for mayor Jejomar buying contrary to evidence said resolution has been repealed by the COMELEC Rules of
October 28, 1991 C. Binay on the ground that presented by petitioner and in Procedure which took effect on November 15, 1988, there is
respondent Binay used P9.9 referring the case to the nothing in the resolution which appears to be inconsistent with
million of municipal funds to Commission en banc without the procedural rules issued by the COMELEC. Firstly,
enhance his candidacy and his the unanimous vote of all the Resolution No. 2050 was passed by reason of the variance in
89
entire ticket under the Lakas members of the Second opinions of the members of respondent commission on
ng Bansa. The case was Division matters of procedure in dealing with cases of disqualification
referred to the Law filed pursuant to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code in
Department of respondent relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, or the Electoral
commission by the Second Reforms Law of 1987, and the manner of disposing of the
Division composed of same had not been uniform. Secondly, prior to the issuance of
Commissioner Haydee Yorac Resolution No. 2050, petitioner had filed several motions with
as presiding officer and the Second Division asking for the referral of the
Commissioners Flores and disqualification case to the Commission en banc. After the
Dimaampao as members for COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 2050, petitioner
preliminary investigation of the filed another motion for the referral of the case to the
criminal aspect. With this, Commission en banc, specifically invoking Resolution No.
Binay filed his counter-affidavit 2050. In the words of petitioner in his said motion, under the
Petitioner filed an Omnibus aforesaid resolution, "once the petition for disqualification is
Motion praying for the forwarded to the Law Department, the case is deemed en
inhibition and/or banc because the report is submitted En banc by the law
disqualification of Department." Petitioner having invoked the jurisdiction of the
Commissioners Yorac and Commission en banc is now estopped from questioning the
Africa, he also prayed that the same after obtaining an adverse judgment therefrom. Thirdly,
disqualification petition be Commissioner Flores, who opined that the disqualification
referred for consideration en case should first be resolved by the Second Division, has
banc. Commissioner Yorac since then clarified his position after he was reminded that
denied the motion for Resolution No. 2050, which he had admittedly "completely
inhibition. The COMELEC en forgotten" had "laid down a definite policy on the disposition of
banc denied the prayer that disqualification cases contemplated in Section 68 of the
the case be heard en banc, Omnibus Election Code. Lastly, Resolution No. 2050
ruling that "no substantial specifically mandates a definite policy and procedure for
reason exists why the case disqualification cases. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure
should be taken en banc; and speak of special actions, which include disqualification cases,
considering finally that the in general. Hence, as between a specific and a general rule,
case is set for hearing by the the former shall necessarily prevail. No clear and convincing
Second Division." Petitioner proof exists to show that respondent Binay was indeed
Lozano himself filed a motion engaged in vote buying. The traditional gift-giving of the
to disqualify Commissioner Municipality of Makati during the Christmas season is not
Yorac because she postponed refuted. That it was implemented by respondent Binay as OIC
motu proprio a hearing set on Mayor of Makati at that time does not sufficiently establish that
the ground that she will study respondent was trying to influence and induce his constituents
the issue of jurisdiction. Said to vote for him. This would be stretching the interpretation of
motion was denied. the law too far. Petitioner deduces from this act of gift-giving
COMELEC en banc that respondent was buying the votes of the Makati residents.
promulgated Resolution No. It requires more than a mere tenuous deduction to prove the
2050 which provides that offense of vote-buying. There has to be concrete and direct
90
petitions for disqualification evidence or, at least, strong circumstantial evidence to support
filed prior to the January 18, the charge that respondent was indeed engaged in vote-
1988 local elections based on buying. The court is convinced that the evidence presented, as
Section 68 of the Omnibus well as the facts obtaining in the case, do not warrant such
Election Code but not resolved finding. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC Facts: Before t h Court is a
before the elections shall be petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC en banc
referred for preliminary Resolution approving the issuance of a restraining order to
investigation to the Law stop ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents and
Department which shall submit representatives from conducting such exit surveys. It was
its report to the Commission issued by the Comelec allegedly upon information from a
en banc. Petitioner filed a third reliable source that ABS-CBN has prepared a project, with PR
motion for the voluntary groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections and to
inhibition and/or make exit survey of the vote during the elections for national
disqualification of officials particularly for President and Vice President, results of
Commissioner Yorac for which shall be broadcast immediately. The respondent
having issued a previous contends that such project might conflict with the official
memorandum addressed to COMELEC count as well as the unofficial quick count of the
the chairman and members of National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted
respondent commission that it has not authorized or deputized Petitioner to undertake
expressing her opinion that the exit survey and that it is a violation of the constitutional
Binay should first be convicted provision regarding the secrecy of ballots. On the other hand,
by the regular courts of the the petitioner argues that the holding of the exit polls and the
offense of vote buying before nationwide reporting of their results are valid exercises of the
he could be disqualified. In the freedoms of speech and of the press. It submits that
resolution which is assailed, COMELEC gravely abused its discretion and grossly violated
the COMELEC en banc the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The Solicitor General
dismissed the petition for seeks to dismiss the petition due to mootness and prematurity.
disqualification and the Issue: Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
criminal complaint for vote Held: Yes, COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. Ratio:
buying against respondent The issue is not totally moot.Since the fundamental freedoms
Binay. During the promulgation of speech and of the press are being invoked, the Court has
of judgment, petitioner asked resolved to settle, for the guidance of posterity, whether they
that the same be suspended likewise protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination
until after the resolution of the of data derived therefrom. An exit poll is a species of electoral
legal issues raised involving survey conducted by qualified individuals or groups of
constitutional and jurisdictional individuals for the purpose of determining the probable result
questions. The motion for of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected
reconsideration filed by herein voters whom they have voted for, immediately after they have
petitioner was denied in officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are
another resolution on the announced to the public, usually through the mass media, to
ground that "pursuant to give an advance overview of how, in the opinion of the polling
Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the individuals or organizations, the electorate voted. Our
91
Comelec Rules of Procedure, Constitution clearly mandates that no law shall be passed
a motion for reconsideration of abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The freedom
an en banc ruling of the of expression is a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment,
Commission is one of the of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in
prohibited pleadings, and social and political decision-making, and of maintaining the
therefore not allowed under balance between stability and change. It represents a
the Rules profound commitment to the principle that debates on public
issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.While the
liberty to think is absolute, the power to express such thought
in words and deeds has limitations. The COMELEC asserts
that the exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying
the credibility and integrity of the electoral process. Such
arguments are purely speculative and clearly untenable. First,
by the very nature of a survey, the interviewees or participants
are selected at random, so that the results will as much as
possible be representative or reflective of the general
sentiment or view of the community or group polled. Second,
the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the
official Comelec count. It consists merely of the opinion of the
polling group as to who the electorate in general has probably
voted for, based on the limited data gathered from polled
individuals. Finally, not at stake here are the credibility and the
integrity of the elections, which are exercises that are separate
and independent from the exit polls. The absolute ban
imposed by the Comelec cannot, therefore, be justified. It does
not leave open any alternative channel of communication to
gather the type of information obtained through exit polling. On
the other hand, there are other valid and reasonable ways and
means to achieve the Comelec end of avoiding or minimizing
disorder and confusion that may be brought about by exit
surveys. In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not
actually exposed. Furthermore, the revelation of whom an
elector has voted for is not compulsory, but voluntary.
Saturnino, father of respondent Yes, respondent’s appointment is valid.
was the elected candidate till Since a deceased councilor who had caused the contested
his death. Petitioner, as vacancy is from the Liberal Party, it follows that his mode of
Whether or not the
Ong vs. Martinez indorsed by the treasurer of replacement should be governed by the standing rules of the
appointment respondent is
G.R. No. 87743 LP, was appointed as member LP.
valid?
August 21, 1990 of the City Council. However, a As such, the nomination should first be approved by the
letter was sent by the executive committee or party president. Jovito Salonga,
secretary of the party to president of LP, expressly manifested his support to the
exclude appointment and the appointment of respondent.
92
Council formally excluded. The non-acceptance/recognition of petitioner’s appointment by

Ong now assails the the City Council was because he was not recommended by
appointment and assumption the leader of LP.
of duties of respondent as Sec 261(g) does not apply since a permanent vacancy exists
councilor. and its filling up is governed by the LGC while sec 261 in
The records shows that election ban is governed by the Civil Service Law. As such, the
respondent went through the vacancy was an official position outside the election ban,
legal formalities or standard therefore, respondent’s appointment is declared valid.
procedure to her appointment
to the vacated position. She
was thereafter recognized as
member of the council.
Regalado was appointed as

OIC-Mayor, since the
incumbent mayor decided to
run in the upcoming elections
where Regalado’s brother was
also a candidate. Four days
after Regalado’s brother won, No. Under the Omnibus Election Code, it is a prohibited act for
Whether OIC-Mayor
Regalado vs. COMELEC and still within the election any public official to transfer any officer or civil service
Regalado’s act of transferring
G.R. No. 115962 period, Regalado, the OIC- employee within the election period except upon prior approval
Barba was legal. 
February 15, 2000 Mayor, effected the transfer of of the COMELEC.
a certain Barba from her post
as a permanent Nursing
Attendant in the office of the
mayor to a very remote
barangay, without COMELEC
clearance.
On January 8, 2010, Aquino, whether: the COMELEC validly In short, during the making or causing phase of the entire
as President and Chief issued Resolution No. 8737 transfer or reassignment process - from drafting the order, to
Executive Officer of the that defined transfer, as its signing, up to its release - the issuing official plays a very
Philippine Health Insurance contemplated under Section real and active role. Once the transfer or reassignment order is
Corporation (PHIC), issued 261(h) of BP 881, to include all issued, the active role is shifted to the addressee of the order
Aquino vs. COMELEC
PhilHealth Special Order No. personnel action including who should now carry out the purpose of the order. At this
G.R. Nos. 211789-90
16, Series of 2010 reassignments; and if so, level - the implementation phase - the issuing official's only
March 17, 2015
(reassignment order)[5] whether the COMELEC validly role is to see to it that the concerned officer or employee
directing the reassignment of found prima facie case against complies with the order. The issuing official may only exert
several PHIC officers and Aquino for violation of discipline upon the addressee who refuses to comply with the
employees. Aquino essentially Resolution No. 8737 in relation order.
argues that, first, the to Section 261(h).
93
COMELEC exceeded its Following these considerations, we find that the COMELEC
authority to implement the gravely abused its discretion in this case based on the
election laws when, in following facts:
interpreting Section 261(h) of
BP 881, it added First, Aquino made or caused the reassignment of the
reassignments as a covered concerned PHIC officers and employees before the election
offense when the prohibitions period.
speaks only of transfer and
detail. while the COMELEC Second, Aquino sent out, via the PHIC's intranet service, the
indeed has the exclusive reassignment order to all affected PHIC officers and
authority to implement the employees before the election period.
election laws, and with it the
authority to issue rules and Third, the reassignment order was complete in its terms, as it
regulations to supply details or enumerated clearly the affected PHIC officers and employees
clarify gaps in the law, it as well as their respective places of reassignments, and was
cannot validly extend what made effective immediately or on the day of its issue, which
these laws provide without was likewise before the election period.
running afoul of the basic
precept that the power to make Fourth, the subsequent orders that Aquino issued were not
laws is exclusively lodged in reassignment orders per se contrary to the COMELEC's
the legislature. he argues that assessment. Rather, they were, in fact, simply either orders of
none of the complaining PHIC retention, i.e., orders addressed to the incumbent officer-
officer/personnel even alleged occupant of the affected position to effectively maintain the
a situation similar to those in status quo and continue performing the duties of the position
Regalado. Hence, the while the reassigned officer or employee had not yet assumed
COMELEC cannot hold him or had been refusing to assume the position and its duties; or
criminally liable for an act that orders of temporary discharge of additional duties, i.e., orders
the law does not prohibit under addressed to the officer occupying the position next in rank to
the maxim nullum crimen sine discharge the duties of the affected position while the
lege. Aquino argues that the reassigned officer or employee had not yet assumed or had
COMELEC's resolutions and been refusing to assume the position and its duties.
directive to file criminal action
against him were premature Retention of duties and temporary discharge of additional
and without legal basis. He duties do not contemplate or involve any movement of
points out that, if only to personnel, whether under any of the various forms of
comply with the legal personnel action enumerated under the laws governing the
requirement of prior civil service or otherwise. Hence, the per se subsequent orders
COMELEC approval, he had could not be covered by the legal prohibition on transfers or
thrice requested[20] the detail.
COMELEC for exemption from
Resolution No. 8737. To this Based on these clear facts, Aquino completed the act of
date and despite the issuance making or causing the reassignment of the affected PHIC
94
of the October 19, 2012 and officers and employees before the start of the election period.
February 18, 2014 resolutions, In this sense, the evils sought to be addressed by Section
his request remains pending 261(h) of BP 881 is kept intact by the timely exercise of his
before the COMELEC En management prerogative in rearranging or reassigning PHIC
Banc.[21] He insists that the personnel within its various offices necessary for the PHIC's
resolution of his efficient and smooth operation. As Aquino's acts of issuing the
request/petition for exemption order fell outside the coverage of the transfer prohibition, he
is necessary as the issues cannot be held liable for violation of Section 261(h).
raised therein were prejudicial
questions to the issues in the In sum, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when,
consolidated COMELEC firstly, it used wrong or irrelevant considerations when it
complaints. sought to hold Aquino liable for violation of Section 261 (h) for
issuing orders that were clearly not for reassignment, but
which were simply orders for retention of position or orders for
temporary discharge of additional duties.
Secondly, the COMELEC also went beyond the clear

contemplation and intention of the law and of existing
jurisprudence when it included within the prohibition's
coverage the implementation aspect of the reassignment
process - acts that were obviously no longer within his active
and immediate control and beyond the ambit of making or
causing to which the prohibition applies.
In view of this conclusion, we no longer find it necessary to

discuss the other issues or matters raised in this petition.
During the 11 May 1998 This Court referred the petition to the Office of the Solicitor
elections, Florentino A. General (OSG) and the OSG stated that it repleads the
Bautista ran for the position of submissions contained in the petition and adopts the petition
mayor in the Municipality of as its own.
Kawit, Cavite. He filed with the Election offenses, such as vote-buying and vote-selling, are
WON respondent judge
COMELEC a complaint evils which prostitute the election process. The provision of
committed grave abuse of
against then incumbent mayor law alleged to have been violated by the respondents in E.O.
COMELEC vs. Tagle discretion in denying the
Atty. Federico Poblete, Case No. 98-219, who are the accused in Criminal Case No.
397 SCRA 618 (2003) motion to dismiss the said
Bienvenido Pobre, Reynaldo 7034-99. One of the effective ways of preventing the
criminal cases.
Aguinaldo, Arturo Ganibe, commission of vote-buying and of prosecuting those
Leonardo Llave, Diosdado del committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal liability in
Rosario, Manuel Ubod, favor of the party whose vote was bought. This grant of
Angelito Peregrino, Mario immunity will encourage the recipient or acceptor to come into
Espiritu, Salvador Olaes and the open and denounce the culprit-candidate, and will ensure
Pedro Paterno, Jr., for violation the successful prosecution of the criminal case against the
95
of Section 261 (a) and (b) of latter.

the Omnibus Election However, to avoid possible fabrication of evidence against the
Code. The complaint was vote-buyers, especially by the latter’s opponents, Congress
supported by the separate saw it fit to warn “vote-sellers” who denounce the vote-buying
affidavits of forty-four (44) that they could be liable for perjury or false testimony should
witnesses attesting to the vote- they not tell the truth.
buying activities of the It must be stressed that the COMELEC has the exclusive
respondents and was power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election
docketed as E.O. Case No. offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute
98-219. the same. This authority may be revoked or withdrawn by the
The COMELEC en COMELEC anytime. In this case, when the COMELEC nullified
banc issued a the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S. No. 1-99-
resolution directing the filing of 1080, which was the basis of the informations for vote-selling,
the necessary information it, in effect, withdrew the deputation granted to the prosecutor.
against the respondents in We agree with the petitioner and hold that the respondents in
E.O. Case No. 98-219 and I.S. No. 1-99-1080, who are the accused in Criminal Cases
authorizing the Director IV of Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00, are exempt from
the Law Department to criminal prosecution for vote-selling. Respondent judge lost
designate a COMELEC sight of the fact that at the time the complaint for vote-selling
prosecutor to handle the was filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the
prosecution of the cases and respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 had already executed
to file the appropriate motion sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-
for the preventive suspension buying in the case docketed as Criminal Case No. 7034-99.
of the respondents. They had already voluntarily given information in the vote-
Before the trial of Criminal buying case. In fact, they willingly testified in Criminal Case
Case No. 7034-99 No. 7034-99.
commenced, a complaint was Clearly then, respondent judge committed grave abuse of
filed by Innocencio Rodelas discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss Criminal
and Gerardo Macapagal with Cases Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and 7980-00 despite
the Office of the Provincial COMELEC’s determination that the accused therein are
Prosecutor in Imus, Cavite, for exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-selling pursuant to
violation of Section 261(a) of the proviso in the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No.
the Omnibus Election Code 6646.
against the witnesses in the
criminal case for vote-buying,
who were the witnesses in
E.O. Case No. 98-219.
On 23 June 2000, the
respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-
1080 appealed before the
COMELEC, the COMELEC en
banc denied the appeal for
96
lack of jurisdiction. However,

upon the urgent motion to set
for hearing the appeal, the
COMELEC en banc resolved
to defer action on the appeal
and refer the same to the Law
Department for comment and
recommendation.
The Law Department of the
COMELEC filed motions to
suspend proceedings before
Branches 20, 21, 22 and 90 of
the RTC of Imus, Cavite, until
the COMELEC would have
resolved the appeal of the
respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-
1080. The Presiding Judge of
Branch 22 granted the motion
for the suspension of
proceedings in Criminal Cases
Nos. 7940-00 to 7949-00 and
7981-00.
In its Minute Resolution No.
00-2453, [6] the COMELEC en
banc, upon the
recommendation of its Law
Department, declared null and
void the resolution of the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor in
I.S. No. 1-99-1080. It held that
the respondents therein are
exempt from criminal
prosecution pursuant to the
fourth paragraph of Section 28
of R.A. No. 6646, [7] otherwise
known as “The Electoral
Reforms Law of 1987,” which
grants immunity from criminal
prosecution persons who
voluntarily give information and
willingly testify against those
liable for vote-buying or vote-
97
selling.
Pursuant to Minute Resolution
No. 00-2453, the Law
Department filed a motion to
dismiss [8] Criminal Cases
Nos. 7950-00 to 7959-00 and
7980-00 before Branch 20 of
the RTC of Imus, Cavite,
presided by herein respondent
judge. The latter, however,
denied the said motion and the
motion for
reconsideration. According to
respondent judge, before one
can be exempt from
prosecution under the fourth
paragraph of Section 28 of
R.A. No. 6646, it is necessary
that such person has already
performed the overt act of
voluntarily giving information or
testifying in any official
investigation or proceeding for
the offense to which such
information or testimony was
given. It was thus premature
to exempt the respondents in
I.S. No. 1-99-1080 from
criminal prosecution, since
they have not yet testified.
Petitioner Tapispisan, a public Whether or not the designation No, Transfer is defined as "a movement from one position to
school teacher and has been of Rumbaoa and Teves another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without
occupying the position of violates Resolution No. 2731 break in service involving the issuance of an appointment."
Teacher III filed a petition for dated December 5, 1994 of the The designation of respondents Rumbaoa and Teves did not
Tapispisan vs. CA
review on certiorari to reverse Commission on Elections, involve a movement from one position to another. Neither did it
G.R. No. 157950
the decision of CA affirming which declared as a prohibited involve the issuance of any appointment to the said positions
June 8, 2005
the resolutions of Civil Service act the transfer of officers and in their favor. In fact, respondents Rumbaoa and Teves
Commission (CSC) dismissing employees in the civil service retained their incumbent positions at the Villamor Air Base
the petitioner’s protest against during the election period from Elementary School. As such, their designation could not be
the designation of respondent January 8, 1995 up to June 7, considered as a "transfer" within the meaning of a prohibited
98
Aida M. Rumbaoa as Officer- 1995. act during the election period.

in-Charge (OIC)-Head Teacher
of P. Villanueva Elementary
School and respondent Myrna
M. Teves as OIC-Principal of
Don Carlos Elementary
School. Petitioner contended
that the designation was made
in violation of appointments
and promotion during election
period. CSC argued that only
appointments/promotions and
not designation can be the
subject of a protest.
Designation, being temporary
in nature, does not amount to
the issuance of an
appointment, but is a mere
imposition of additional duties.
No. Reassignment was not prohibited by the was no probable

Nuevo, Iloilo. Mayor Biron cause to criminally charge Mayor Biron with the violation of the
issued Memorandum No. 12, Omnibus Election Code.
Series of 2010 (Office Order
No. 12), commanding for the The movement involving Causing did not equate to either a
detailing of Causing at the transfer or a detail within the contemplation of the law if Mayor
Office of the Municipal Mayor. Is the relocation of Causing by Biron only physically transferred her office area from tis old
Causing filed the complaint Mayor Biron during the location ot the office of the Mayor. Causing is not stripped of
claiming that issuance made election period from her office her functions as Municipal Civil Registrar. She was merely
by Mayor Biron ordering her as the Municipal Civil Registrar required to physically report to the Mayor’s office and performs
Causing vs. COMELEC
detail to the Office of the to the Office of the Mayor her functions as Municipal Civil Registrar therein. Definitely,
G.R. No. 199139
Municipal Mayor, being made constitute a prohibited act she is still the MCR, albeit doing her work physically outside of
September 9, 2014
within the election period and under the Omnibus Election her usual workstation. She was also not deprived of her
without prior authority from the Code and the relevant supervisory function over the staff as she continues to review
COMELEC, was illegal and it Resolution of the COMELEC? their work and sign documents they prepared. While she may
violated of Section 1, encounter difficulty in performing her duties as a supervisor as
Paragraph A, No. 1, in she is not physically near her staff, that by itself, however,
connection with Section 6 (B) does not mean that she has lost supervision over them.
of COMELEC Resolution No. Moreover, Causing’s too literal understanding of transfer
8737. Mayor Biron countered should not hold sway because the provisions involved here
that the purpose of transferring were criminal in nature. Mayor Biron was sought to be charged
the office of Causing was to with an election offense punishable under Section 264 of the
99
closely supervise the Omnibus Election Code. It is a basic rule of statutory

performance of her functions construction that penal statues are to be liberally construed in
after complaints regarding her favor of the accused. Every reasonable doubt must then be
negative behavior in dealing resolved in favor of the accused.
with her co- employees and
with the public transacting
business in her office. The
Provincial Election Supervisor
recommended the dismissal of
the complaint-affidavit for lack
of probable cause. COMELEC
En Banc affirmed the findings
and recommendation.
100
ELECTION ADJUDICATION SYSTEM

While serving as Mayor of While the Constitution vests in
Tampilasan Zamboanga del the COMELEC the power to
Norte, Petitioner, Romeo decide all questions affecting
Jalosjos sought the transfer of elections, such power is not
his voter's registration record without limitation. It does not
to Precint 0051F of Barangay extend to contests relating to
Veterans Village, Zamboanga the election, returns, and
Sibugay. qualifications of members of
the House of Representatives
Dan Erasmo filed a petition and the Senate. The
with the MCTC which Constitution vests the
rendered judgement excluding resolution of these contests
Jalosjos from the list of voters solely upon the appropriate The court has already settled
in question on the ground that Electoral Tribunal of the the question of when the
he did not abandon his Senate or the House of jurisdiction of the Comelec
domicile in Tampilasan and is Representatives. ends and when that of the
Whether or not the Supreme
still the incumbent mayor. HRET begins. The
Court has jurisdiction to pass
The proclamation of a proclamation of a
upon the question of Jalosjos’
Jalosjos vs. COMELC Jalosjos appealed the decision congressional candidate congressional candidate
residency qualification
G.R. No.192474 to the RTC but the MCTC following the election divests following the election divests
considering that he has been
June 26, 2012 ruling was affirmed. COMELEC of jurisdiction over the Comelec of jurisdiction
proclaimed winner in the
disputes relating to the over disputed relating to the
election and has assumed the
Through a petition for certiorari election, returns, and election, returns, and
discharge of that office.
with an application for the qualifications of the qualifications of the
issuance of a writ of proclaimed Representative in proclaimed representative in
preliminary injunction, Jalosjos favor of the HRET. favour of the HRET.
elevated the case to the CA.
His application was granted After Jalosjos' proclamation,
and his name was reinstated the COMELEC acted without
in the voter's list pending jurisdiction when it still passed
resolution of the petition. upon the issue of his
qualification and declared him
Jalosjos filed his Certificate of ineligible for the office of
Candidacy for the position of Representative of the Second
Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga
District of Zamboanga Sibugay Sibugay.
for the May 2010 national
elections. This prompted On election day of 2010 the
Erasmo to file a petition with COMELEC En Banc had as
101
the COMELEC to deny or yet to resolve Erasmo’s

cancel said COC. His petition appeal from the Second
was denied by the COMELEC Division’s dismissal of the
for insufficiency in form and disqualification case against
substance. Jalosjos. Thus, there then
existed no final judgment
Pending Erasmo's motion for deleting Jalosjos’ name from
reconsideration before the the list of candidates for the
COMELEC en banc, Jalosjos congressional seat he
won the elections and was sought. The last standing
proclaimed representative. official action in his case
before election day was the
Meanwhile, CA rendered in his ruling of the COMELEC’s
favor judgement on the Second Division that allowed
pending petition. Erasmo filed his name to stay on that
a petition for review of the list. Meantime, the COMELEC
CA's decision before the En Banc did not issue any
Supreme Court. order suspending his
proclamation pending its final
Thereafter, COMELEC en resolution of his case. With
banc granted Erasmo's motion the fact of his proclamation
anf declared Jalosjos ineligible and assumption of office, any
to seek election as issue regarding his
representative for not qualification for the same, like
satisfying the residency his alleged lack of the required
requirement because of his residence, was solely for the
incumbency as mayor of HRET to consider and decide.
Tampilisan.
Consequently, the Court holds
in G.R. 192474 that the
COMELEC En Banc exceeded
its jurisdiction in declaring
Jalosjos ineligible for the
position of representative for
the Second District of
Zamboanga Sibugay, which
he won in the elections, since
it had ceased to have
jurisdiction over his
case. Necessarily, Erasmo’s
petitions (G.R. 192704 and
G.R. 193566) questioning the
102
validity of the registration of

Jalosjos as a voter and the
COMELEC’s failure to annul
his proclamation also fail. The
Court cannot usurp the power
vested by the Constitution
solely on the HRET.
Court GRANTED the petition,

REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
the respondent COMELEC En
Banc’s order, and
REINSTATES the
Commission’s Second
Division resolution
The Citizens’ Battle Against The legislative power of the

Corruption (CIBAC) was Government is vested
one of the organized exclusively in the Legislature Sec. 8 of RA No. 7941
groups duly registered under in accordance with the enumerates only 3 instances
the party-list system of doctrine of separation of in which the party list
representation that manifested powers. As a general rule, the organization can substitute
their intent to participate in the Legislature cannot surrender another person in place of
or abdicate its legislative the nominee whose names
May 14, 2007
power, for doing so will be has been submitted to the
synchronized national and
unconstitutional. Although the Comelec, namely; (a) when
local elections. CIBAC,
Whether or not Section 13 of power to make laws cannot be the nominee dies; (b) when
Lokin vs. COMELEC through its president, Resolution No. 7804 is delegated by the Legislature the nominee withdraws in
G.R. No. 179342-321 Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, unconstitutional and violates to any other authority, a power writing his nomination; and
June 22, 2010 submitted a list of five the Party- that is not legislative in (c) when the nominee
nominees from which its List System Act. character may be delegated. becomes incapacitated.
representatives would be The COMELEC, despite its Section 13 of Resolution No.
chosen should CIBAC obtain role as the implementing arm 7804 expanded the
the required number of of the Government in the exceptions under Section 8
qualifying votes of which, the enforcement and of RA No. 7941 by adding
petitioner is the second administration of all laws and another exception which is
nominee. Prior to the regulations relative to the nomination withdrawn by the
elections, however, CIBAC conduct of an election, has party.
filed a certificate of neither the authority nor the
nomination, substitution and license to expand, extend, or
amendment of the list of add anything to the law it
103
nominees whereby it withdrew seeks to implement thereby.

the nominations of three of its The IRRs the COMELEC
nominees including Lokin and issues for that purpose should
substituted Armi Jane R. Borje always accord with the law to
as one of the nominees. be implemented, and should
On June 26, 2007, CIBAC, not override, supplant, or
supposedly through its modify the law. It is basic that
counsel, filed with the the IRRs should remain
COMELEC en banc sitting as consistent with the law they
the National Board of intend to carry out. Indeed,
Canvassers a motion seeking administrative IRRs adopted
the proclamation of Lokin as by a particular department of
its second nominee. The the Government under
COMELEC resolved the legislative authority must be in
matter declaring the validity of harmony with the provisions of
the withdrawal of the the law, and should be for the
nominations of Lokin, sole purpose of carrying the
Tugna and Galang and law’s general provisions into
the substitution of Borje effect. The law itself cannot be
expanded by such IRRs,
as the third nominee.
because an administrative
Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales
agency cannot amend an act
was sworn in being the second
of Congress.
nominee
This is a case for Certiorari The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure followed by the
and Mandamus filed by the SPBOC – Maguindanao was in order. The matter is a pre-
petitioner Aquilino L. Pimentel proclamation controversy defined by BP 881 or the Omnibus
III with regard to the Election Code as “any question pertaining to or affecting the
proceedings of the Special proceeding of the board of canvassers which may be raised by
Whether or not the procedure
Provincial Board of any candidate or by any registered political party before the
followed by the Special
Canvassers for Maguindanao board or directly with the Commission.” Further, according to
Provincial Board of
in re-canvassing the votes Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7166, pre-proclamation cases
Pimentel III vs. COMELEC th Canvassers for Maguindanao
therein to settle the 12 to resolve pre-proclamation controversies are allowed in local
G.R. No. 178413 was without legal basis and
senatorial seat of the 14 May elections. However, in Section 15 of the same statute, this is
March 13, 2008 violative of petitioner’s
2007 elections, now a contest prohibited as to elections for President, Vice-President,
constitutional right to due
between him and private Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. RA
process and equal protection.
respondent, Juan Miguel F. 9369 amended Section 15 of RA 7166 by adding an excepting
Zubiri. Among his claims in phrase to the general prohibition against pre-proclamation
the case at bar is his question controversies in elections for President down to the Members
of the manner the re- of the House of Representatives. The exemption is contained
canvassing was being done in Section 30 of RA 7166, likewise amended by RA 9369. This
where parties are not allowed mandates Congress and the Commission en banc to
104
to ask questions. He claims determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificate
that it deprives him of his right of canvass for president and vice-president and senators,
to due process and equal respectively as accomplished and transmitted to it by the local
protection. board of canvassers. In elections for House of
Representatives up to the President, the general rule still is
that the pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
election returns or certificates of canvass are still prohibited.
The recognized exceptions to the prohibition, namely: (1)
correction of manifest errors; (2) questions affecting the
composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; and
(3) determination of the authenticity and due execution of
certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of Republic
Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369.
Pimentel argues that his pre-proclamation case is an

exemption to the prohibition. The Court ruled for the
respondents. Undeniably, the SPBOC-Maguindanao is not
Congress nor COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC, as
specifically charged by law to perform such function; (1)
Congress as the NBC for the election for President and Vice-
President; and (2) COMELEC en banc as the NBC for the
election for Senators. This is a case where the law is clear. It
speaks in a language that is categorical. It is quite explicit; it is
too plain to be misread. No interpretation is needed. All that is
called for is to apply the statutory command.
Even if there is still a need for this Court to construe Section

30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No.
9369, it still cannot extend the scope of said provision to local
boards of canvassers. A preproclamation case under Section
30 is allowed only as an exception to the prohibition under
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9369. According to the rules of statutory construction,
exceptions, as a general rule, are strictly, but reasonably
construed; they extend only so far as their language fairly
warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the
general provisions rather than the exception. Where a general
rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not
curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication. A maxim
of recognized practicality is the rule that the expressed
exception or exemption excludes others. Exceptio firmat
105
regulim in casibus non exceptis. The express mention of

exceptions operates to exclude other exceptions; conversely,
those which are not within the enumerated exceptions are
deemed included in the general rule. And, in the case, the
exception applies only to Congress or the COMELEC en banc
acting as the NBC, and not the local boards of canvassers
who must still be deemed covered by the prohibition on pre-
proclamation controversies.
This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due

process problematic since he has not established what he is
being deprived of: life, liberty, or property. Pimentel cannot
invoke denial of substantive due process because he is not
assailing any law, which, arbitrarily or without sufficient
justification, supposedly deprived him of life, liberty, or
property. At most, Pimentel can claim that he was denied
procedural due process when he was not allowed by the NBC
and the SPBOC-Maguindanao to propound questions to
certain election officials. But even on this point, Pimentel fails
to convince this Court. Asking election officials questions and
confronting them with evidence are not part of the canvass
proceedings. There is no statute or regulation expressly
providing for such a procedure.
With regard to his right to equal protection, he was in fact

similarly treated with other senatorial candidates, none were
allowed to question the canvassers.
Finding no basis for the other grounds as well, the Court

dismissed the petition.
Petitioners Abdusakur Tan Under Section 248 of the Election Code, the filing of certain
Whether the election protest
and Basaron Burahan were petitions works to stop the running of the reglementary period
was filed on time
the gubernatorial and vice- to file an election protest. Section 248 contemplates two (2)
gubernatorial candidates, points of reference, that is, pre- and post-proclamation, under
Tan vs. COMELEC respectively, of Sulu Province which either of the petitions referred to therein is filed. Before
Whether the COMELEC has
G.R. Nos. 166143-47, 166891 in the May 10, 2004 elections. the proclamation, what ought to be filed is a petition to
jurisdiction to entertain
November 20, 2006 On May 17, 2004, petitioners "suspend" or stop an impending proclamation. After the
simultaneously pre-
Tan and Burahan, together proclamation, an adverse party should file a petition to "annul"
proclamation controversies
with other local candidates, or undo a proclamation made. Pre-proclamation controversies
and electoral protests
filed with the COMELEC four partake of the nature of petitions to suspend. The purpose for
Petitions for Declaration of allowing pre-proclamation controversies, the filing of which is
106
Failure of Elections in the covered by the aforequoted Section 248 of the Omnibus
towns of Maimbung, Luuk, Election Code, is to nip in the bud the occurrence of what, in
Tongkil, and Panamao, all of election practice, is referred to as "grab the proclamation and
Sulu Province, alleging prolong the protest" situation.
systematic fraud, terrorism, Correlating the petitions mentioned in Section 248 with
illegal schemes, and the 10-day period set forth in the succeeding Section 250, a
machinations allegedly petition to suspend tolls the 10-day period for filing an election
perpetrated by private protest from running, while a petition to annul interrupts the
respondents Benjamin Loong running of the period. In other words, in a Section 248 petition
and Nur-Ana Sahidull and their to suspend where the 10-day period did not start to run at all,
supporters, resulting in the filing of a Section 250 election contest after the tenth
massive failure of voters to (10th) day from proclamation is not late. On the other hand, in
cast their ballots. Petitioners a Section 248 petition to annul, the party seeking annulment
alleged that fraud and must file the petition before the expiration of the 10-day period.
terrorism took place in Luuk The numerous election-related petitions, which were
and Panamao because voters filed against Loong by the other Sulu gubernatorial candidates,
were forced to affix their sought to suspend his then impending proclamation And as
signatures and thumbprints; events unfolded, some of the petitions adverted to resulted in
and the ballots in Luuk and the issuance of an Order suspending the proclamation of the
Panamao were filled out by governor-elect of Sulu. Loong himself admitted that on May
respondents' poll watchers 17, 2004, the COMELEC Second Division issued an Order
and supporters.They suspending the proclamation of the winning candidate for
submitted as proof the Governor of the province of Sulu.
affidavits of poll watchers and Upon the foregoing considerations, the filing of the
photographs showing election election protest ad cautelam on July 19, 2004 or fifty-six (56)
irregularities. days after the May 24, 2004 proclamation was contextually on
time. This is because the 10-day reglementary period to file
Before the filing of the four such protest––which ordinarily would have expired on June 3,
above petitions, Abdusakur 2004––did not start to run at all
Tan had filed four other
petitions, one before the
Municipal Board of No. there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous
Canvassers of Parang, Sulu prosecution or adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies
for the exclusion of election and elections protests. Allowing the simultaneous prosecution
returns from several precincts scenario may be explained by the fact that pre-proclamation
and the other three before the controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues
Provincial Board of involved and the evidence admissible in each case and the
Canvassers of Sulu to exclude objective each seeks to achieve. Moreover, the Court, under
certificates of canvass from certain circumstances, even encourages the reinforcement of
Luuk, Panamao, and Parang. a pre-proclamation suit with an election protest. As we held in
All these petitions were Matalam v. Commission on Elections:
dismissed by the Boards The Court agonized over its inability to fully look into the
107
concerned, prompting Tan to election irregularities alleged by petitioner, due to the very
file an appeal with the limited scope of pre-proclamation controversy. Thus, the Court
COMELEC First Division reminds lawyers handling election cases to make a careful
which issued an Order on May choice of remedies. Where it becomes apparent that a pre-
24, 2004 directing the proclamation suit is inadequate, they should immediately
concerned boards of choose another timely remedy, like a petition to annul the
canvassers to suspend their election results or to declare a failure of elections or even an
proceedings and to refrain election protest, so that election irregularities may be fully
from proclaiming any winning ventilated and properly adjudicated by the competent tribunal.
candidate Another point is that simultaneous adjudications offer more
practical features than piecemeal adjudications in expediting
Meanwhile, the COMELEC the resolution of cases. We must stress the importance of
Second Division, acting on the speedy disposition of election cases because a late decision,
Petitions for Declaration of such as one that comes out when the term of office in dispute
Failure of Elections, initially is about to expire, is a veritable useless scrap of paper. in
issued its May 17, 2004 Order Espidol v. COMELEC, it was held that:
suspending the proclamation The COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and
of the winning gubernatorial proclamation illegally made. The fact that a candidate illegally
candidate of Sulu, however, it proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise of
lifted the suspension three such power. It is also true that as a general rule, the proper
days later, on May 20, 2004, remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the
and instead directed the position contested would be to file a regular election protest or
completion of canvassing of quo warranto. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and
votes and proclamation of one of those is where the proclamation was null and void. In
Governor. such a case, i.e., where the proclamation is null and void, the
proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive
Hence, on the same day that the COMELEC of the power to declare such proclamation a
the COMELEC First Division nullity.
issued the May 24, 2004 A pattern of conduct observed in past elections has been the
Order, private respondent "pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest-slogan
Benjamin Loong was of some candidates or parties.” Where a victim of a
proclaimed the winning proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity
governor of Sulu and assumed thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office
office. This prompted thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene. It may not
petitioner Tan to file a Petition be out of place to state that in the long history of election
for Annulment of the contests in this country, successful contestant in an election
Proclamation with the protest often wins but "a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication
COMELEC First Division. It when the term of office is about to expire or has expired."
granted the petition and Protests, counter-protests, revisions of ballots, appeals,
annulled the proclamation of dilatory tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate.
respondent Loong as governor And what if the protestant may not have the resources and an
of Sulu Province. unwavering determination with which to sustain a long drawn-
108
out election contest? In this context therefore all efforts should

The COMELEC en banc, be strained – as far as is humanly possible – to take election
through its October 18, 2004 returns out of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent
Joint Resolution, dismissed illegal or fraudulent proclamation from ripening into illegal
the petitions filed on May 17, assumption of office.
2004 to declare a failure of
elections. It reasoned that it
could only exercise the
extraordinary remedy of
declaring a failure of election
in the three instances
mentioned in Carlos v.
Angeles, in relation to Section
6 of the Omnibus Election
Code and Section 4 of RA
7166, which in gist are: (1) the
election is not held, (2) the
election is suspended, or (3)
the election results in a failure
to elect.
The Comelec en banc found

that, based upon the evidence
presented by the parties: (1) a
valid election was held as
scheduled, (2) there was no
suspension of the election as
voting continued normally, (3)
Loong was elected by a
plurality of votes as
proclaimed by the Provincial
Board of Canvassers (PBC).
The COMELEC did not give
credence to petitioners'
evidence in support of their
allegations of fraud and
terrorism since their evidence
consisted mainly of affidavits
executed by their own poll
watchers.
The COMELEC en banc ruled

109
that the grounds raised by

petitioners were best
ventilated in an election
protest.
COMELEC Commissioner
Sadain submitted his
Dissenting Opinion (on the
Joint Resolution) on
November 23, 2004 or 36
days after the joint resolution
was issued. The Dissenting
Opinion held that insufficient
notice of the change of date
and venue deprived voters of
the opportunity to participate in
the elections. Thereafter,
petitioners filed the instant
petition for certiorari.
Meanwhile,on July 19, 2004,

respondent Yusop Jikiri filed
before the COMELEC a
Petition of Protest Ad
Cautelam praying for the
recount or revision of the
ballots cast and the
examination of election returns
in four municipalities of Sulu,
namely, Luuk, Tongkil,
Maimbung, and Parang. After
the COMELEC en banc issued
its October 18, 2004 Joint
Resolution dismissing the
petitions to declare a failure of
elections, Jikiri converted his
petition ad cautelamin to a
regular election protest which
was granted by the COMELEC
First Division in its October 28,
2004 Order. Loong filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the
110
ground that COMELEC has no

jurisdiction to take cognizance
of an election protest filed out
of time, i,e, filed beyond ten
(10) days after the
proclamation of the results of
an election for a given
provincial office.
111
APPEAL AND OTHER ELECTION ISSUES

Petitioner Dumayas and
respondent Bernal were rival
candidates for the position in
Mayor of Carles, Iloilo in the
May 1998 synchronized
elections. During the
canvassing by the MBC,
petitioner sought the exclusion
of election returns for 3
precincts of Barangay
Pantalan owing to alleged acts
of terrorism, intimidation and
coercion committed in said
precincts during the casting
The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. The only evidence
and counting of votes. The
presented by the petitioner to prove the alleged irregularities
MBC denied petitioner’s
were the self-serving contracts of his watchers and inspectors.
objections and proceeded with
Returns cannot be excluded on mere allegations that the
the canvass which showed
Whether the COMELEC was returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns on their
respondent Bernal garnering
Dumayas vs. COMELEC correct in including in the face appear to be regular and without any physical signs of
more votes than the
357 SCRA 258 canvass the election returns of tampering. The election irregularities cited by the petitioner
petitioner.
the contested precincts? would require the presentation of evidence which cannot be
done in a pre-proclamation controversy which is summary in
Petitioner appealed to the
nature.
COMELEC Second Division
which excluded election
returns from 3 precincts and
directed the MBC to
reconvene and finish the
canvass of the remaining or
uncontested returns and then,
to proclaim the winning
mayoralty candidate. Private
respondent Bernal moved for
reconsideration of the decision
of the Second Division with the
COMELEC en banc.
The MBC proclaim petitioner

winner of the election. Private
112
respondent Bernal filed an

urgent motion to declare void
petitioner’s proclamation. The
duly proclaimed Vice-Mayor
Betita, and private respondent
Bernal filed n action for quo
warranto against petitioner
before the RTC of Iloilo.
Petitioner filed with COMELEC
en banc a motion to cancel
Bernal’s motion for
reconsideration and motion
declare void petitioner’s
proclamation on the ground
that respondent Bernal should
be deemed to have
abandoned said motion when
he filed quo warranto action.
The COMELEC en banc

reversed the decision of the
Second Division, annulled the
petitioner Dumayas’
proclamation; and constituted
a new MBC. Respondent
Bernal was proclaimed by the
newly-constituted MBC as the
duly-elected Mayor of the
Municipality.
Petitioner Dumayas asked the

Supreme Court to set aside
the COMELEC en banc
resolution.
This is a petition for certiorari The issues to be resolved in The Court found neither lack of jurisdiction nor grave abuse of
with prayer for the issuance of this present petition are the discretion attended the annulment of the substitution and
a temporary restraining order following: 1.) Whether the proclamation of petitioner. In particular, the Court ruled that the
Miranda vs. Abaya
and/or writ of preliminary annulment of petitioner's Comelec's action nullifying the substitution by and
G.R. No. 136351
injunction questioning the substitution and proclamation proclamation of petitioner for the mayoralty post of Santiago
July 28, 1999
resolution of the Comelec En was issued without jurisdiction City, Isabela is proper and legally sound because herein
Banc dated December 8, 1998 or with grave abuse of petitioner cannot substitute a candidate whose certificate of
in SPA Case No. 98-288. The discretion amounting to lack of candidacy has been canceled and denied due course.
113
aforementioned resolution of jurisdiction; 2.) Whether the Moreover, Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in
the Comelec reversed and set order of the Comelec directing resolving SPA No. 98-288 in favor of private respondent. The
aside the earlier resolution of the proclamation of the private result in the dispositive portion of the December 8, 1998
the First Division of Comelec respondent was issued with resolution pertaining to the issues involved in SPA No. 98-288
dated May 16, 1998 grave abuse of discretion is correct insofar as it annulled the election and proclamation
dismissing private amounting to lack of of Joel G. Miranda. But even assuming for the sake of
respondent's petition to jurisdiction argument that it is not, still, this supposed error did not
declare the substitution of constitute grave abuse of discretion which may be annulled
Jose `Pempe' Miranda by and reversed in the present petition for certiorari. However, the
petitioner as candidate for the Court ruled that the Comelec committed grave abuse of
City of Santiago's mayoralty discretion when it ordered the city board of Canvassers of
post void. Santiago to reconvene, prepare a new certificate of canvass
and proclamation and proclaim the winning candidate among
those voted upon because this was inconsistent with the ruling
applied in the case of Labo vs. Comelec, Aquino vs. Comelec,
Reyes vs. Comelec and Nolasco vs. Comelec. Accordingly,
the petition is partly denied, insofar as the Comelec ruling to
annul the election and proclamation of petitioner is affirmed.
The petition is, however, granted so as to modify the resolution
of the Comelec in SPA No. 98-288 by deleting the portion
directing the city board of canvassers to reconvene and
proclaim the winning candidate from among those voted upon
during the May 11, 1998 elections.
A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a

valid certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if the
disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably
filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at
all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted
under Section 77 of the Code. Besides, if we were to allow the
so-called “substitute” to file a “new” and “original” certificate of
candidacy beyond the period for the filing thereof, it would be a
crystalline case of unequal protection of the law, an act
abhorred by our Constitution.
Joy Chrisma Luna filed her There was a valid substitution . The COMELEC may not, by
Whether the COMELEC
certificate of Candidacy as a itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
committed grave abuse of
Luna vs. COMELEC substitute candidate for Hans cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez
discretion when it ruled that
G.R. No. 165983 Roger for the 2004 elections a v. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that the question of eligibility or
there was no valid substitution
April 24, 2007 vice mayor of Lagayan Abra. ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and
by Luna for Hans Roger.
However, Tomas Layao proper cognizance of the COMELEC.
together with several others
114
filed a disqualification petition

against her since she was a
registered voter of Bangued
and not Lagayan Abra.
Furthermore there can be no
valid substitution since Hans
Roger the candidate sought to
be substituted was only 20
years old on the day of the
election. COMELEC ruled in
favor of the disqualification
case. Hence this petition.
On October 2012, Kimberly

filed her certificate of
candidacy (COC) for
Councilor, City of Taguig for
the 2013 Elections. Her COC
stated that she was born on Yes, in declaring that Kimberly, being under age, could not be
29 October 1992, or that she considered to have filed a valid COC and, thus, could not be
will be twenty (20) years of validly substituted by Olivia, we find that the COMELEC
age on the day of the gravely abused its discretion. Firstly, subject to its authority
elections, in contravention of over nuisance candidates and its power to deny due course to
the requirement that one must or cancel COCs under Sec. 78, Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg.
be at least twenty-three (23) 881, the COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive and
years of age on the day of the acknowledge receipt of COCs. The question of eligibility or
Cerafica vs. COMELEC elections. As such, Kimberly ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper
Was there a valid substitution?
G.R. No. 205136 was summoned to a cognizance of the COMELEC.
December 2, 2014 clarificatory hearing due to the
age qualification. Instead of The next question then is whether Olivia complied with all of
attending the hearing, the requirements for a valid substitution; we answer in the
Kimberly opted to file a sworn affirmative. First, there was a valid withdrawal of Kimberly’s
Statement of Withdrawal of COC after the last day for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia
COC. Simultaneously, Olivia belongs to and is certified to by the same political party to
filed her own COC as a which Kimberly belongs; and third, Olivia filed her COC not
substitute of Kimberly. The later than mid-day of election day.
COMELEC rendered a
decision ordering the
cancellation of Kimberly’s
COC, and the denial of the
substitution of Kimberly by
Olivia.
115
COMELEC argued that Olivia

cannot substitute Kimberly as
the latter was never an official
candidate because she was
not eligible for the post by
reason of her age, and that;
moreover, the COC that
Kimberly filed was invalid
because it contained a
material misrepresentation
relating to her eligibility for the
office she seeks to be elected
to. Olivia countered that
although Kimberly may not be
qualified to run for election
because of her age, it cannot
be denied that she still filed a
valid COC and was, thus, an
official candidate who may be
substituted. Olivia also
claimed that there was no
ground to cancel or deny
Kimberly’s COC on the ground
of lack of qualification and
material misrepresentation
because she did not
misrepresent her birth date to
qualify for the position of
councilor, and as there was no
deliberate attempt to mislead
the electorate, which is
precisely why she withdrew
her COC upon learning that
she was not qualified.
Petitioner Loreto-Go filed 1. WON petitioner is 1. No. Petitioner’s withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy
Certificates of Candidacy for disqualified to be a for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all legal
Loreto-Go vs. COMELEC
Mayor of Baybay, Leyte and candidate for governor. purposes, and left in full force her certificate of candidacy
G.R. No. 147741
for Governor of the province of 2. Was there a valid for governor.
May 10, 2001
Leyte. withdrawal of the 2. Yes. Section 73, BP Blg. 881, does not mandate that the
certificate of candidacy for affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office
116
She filed an affidavit of mayor of Baybay, Leyte? where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was
withdrawal for the position of 3. Was there denial to filed. While it may be true that Sec. 12 of the COMELEC
Mayor with the provincial petitioner of procedural Resolution No. 3253-A requires that the withdrawal be
election officer, which the due process of Law? filed before the election officer where the certificate of
latter refused to receive stating candidacy was filed, such requirement is merely directory,
that she should file the same and is intended for the convenience. Hence, the filing of
with the municipal election petitioner’s affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy for mayor
officer of Baybay, hence, she of Baybay with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte
filed the same with the proper sufficed to effectively withdraw such candidacy.
office by fax. 3. Yes. Sec. 3, Rule 23 of COMELEC Rules of procedure
provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel
However, she filed the certificates of candidacy shall be heard summarily after
withdrawal 28 minutes after due notice. In the case, the COMELEC Law department
the deadline. conducted an ex-parte study of the cases without giving
petitioner an opportunity to be heard, or requiring her to
Respondents Felipe Montejo submit a comment or opposition to the petitionsm or
and Arvin Antoni filed separate setting the case for hearing. Hence, the COMELEC en
petitions to deny due course banc deprived the petitioner of due process of law in
and/or to cancel the approving the report and recommendation of the Law
certificates of candidacy of Department.
petitioner.
The case was referred to the

Law Department of COMELEC
which gave due course to
respondents’ petitions without
affording petitioner an
opportunity to be heard or to
submit responsive pleadings.
Based on the report of the

COMELEC’s Law Department,
the COMELEC en banc
disqualified petitioner to run for
both positions; hence, this
petition.
Petitioner Divinagracia and Yes. There are two (2) appeal fees that should be paid. The
Divinagracia vs. COMELEC private respondent Centena court clarified as follows: In the recent case of Aguilar v.
Whether or not petitioner is
G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016 are opponents for the vice- Comelec,[21] the Court harmonized the rules with the following
barred by laches?
July 27, 2009 mayoralty race in Calinog, ratiocination: The foregoing resolution is consistent with A.M.
Ilolo. After the voting and the No. 07-4-15-SC and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as
117
canvassing of the votes, amended. The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court’s
petitioner was proclaimed decision in election contests involving municipal and barangay
winner. Thereafter, respondent officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and
filed an election protest before the payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the court that
the RTC which dismissed the rendered the decision within the five-day reglementary period.
same. Both parties filed an The nonpayment or the insufficient payment of the additional
appeal before the COMELEC appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division, in
upon notice of appeal and accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of
paying the filing fees. Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection of the
COMELEC second division appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of
reversed the RTC’s decision the appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section 9(a) of the COMELEC
and thereby proclaimed Rules, the appeal may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40,
respondent as the true winner. Section 18 of the same rules, if the fees are not paid, the
Petitioner then filed his motion COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon until they are
of reconsideration; he alleged paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding. In such a
that the appeal must be situation, the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to
dismissed on the ground that dismiss the appeal or not. (Italics in the original; emphasis and
the required appeal fees are underscoring supplied) In Aguilar, the Court recognized the
not paid. COMELEC en banc Comelec’s discretion to allow or dismiss a “perfected” appeal
did not take heed and affirm that lacks payment of the Comelec-prescribed appeal fee. The
the COMELEC second Court stated that it was more in keeping with fairness and
division’s decision. It ruled that prudence to allow the appeal which was, similar to the present
petitioner was barred under case, perfected months before the issuance of Comelec
the doctrine of estoppel by Resolution No. 8486. Aguilar has not, however, diluted the
laches when he failed to raise force of Comelec Resolution No. 8486 on the matter of
the question of jurisdiction compliance with the Comelec-required appeal fees. To
when he filed his Appellant’s reiterate, Resolution No. 8486 merely clarified the rules on
and Appellee’s Briefs. Hence, Comelec appeal fees which have been existing as early as
this petition. 1993, the amount of which was last fixed in 2002. The
Comelec even went one step backward and extended the
period of payment to 15 days from the filing of the notice of
appeal. DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY LACHES
REGARDING FILING FEES A party cannot raise the issue of
lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there was lack of
payment of filing fees because on that matter it is within the
discretion of the COMELEC to dismiss or not any petition.
Being the case thereof, it must be raised by the parties if the
COMELEC did not dismiss it. In other words, although the
case is dismissible, the party must invoke it or seek the court
or COMELEC’s attention. Moreover, under the doctrine of
estoppels by laches, it bars any individual from raising the said
issue after he actively participated and recognized the court or
118
tribunal’s jurisdiction even and after received an adverse

decision from said tribunal or court. Therefore, he must raise
the same during the course of the trial not for the first time on
appeal. Hence, the petition is lack of merit.
Petitioner Edgar Santos and Yes. It is at once apparent from the records, as shown above,
respondent Pedro Panulaya that respondent was guilty of forum-shopping when he
were both candidates for instituted SPR No. 37-2002 with the COMELEC. Forum-
Mayor of the Municipality of shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse
Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in judgment or order has been rendered in one forum of seeking
the May 14, 2001 elections. and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum,
The Municipal Board of other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may
Canvassers proclaimed also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings
respondent Panulaya as the grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or
duly elected Mayor. Petitioner the other court would make a favorable disposition. For it to
filed an election protest before exist, there should be (a) identity of parties, or at least such
the lower court. After trial and parties as would represent the same interest in both actions;
revision of the ballots, the trial (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
court found that petitioner whether or not the COMELEC being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two
garnered 2,181 votes while committed grave abuse of preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the
respondent received only discretion in giving due other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
2,105. Hence, it rendered course, instead of dismissing amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
judgment declaring and outright, the petition in SPR Considering that respondent was indubitably guilty of forum-
Santos vs. COMELEC
proclaiming petitioner as the No. 37-2002 despite the clear shopping when he filed SPR No. 37-2002, his petition should
G.R. No.155618
duly elected Municipal Mayor, showing that respondent was have been dismissed outright by the COMELEC. Willful and
March 26, 2003
and setting aside as null and guilty of forum-shopping, and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal
void the proclamation of in setting aside the trial court’s of the case, and constitutes direct contempt of court.
respondent made by the order granting execution
Municipal Board of pending appeal COMELEC’s act of setting aside the trial court’s order granting
Canvassers. execution pending appeal is premised on the argument that
shortness of the remaining term of office and posting a bond
Petitioner thereafter filed a are not good reasons. This is untenable. A valid exercise of
motion for execution pending the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that
appeal. Meanwhile, before the it should be based upon good reasons to be stated in a special
trial court could act on order. The following constitute good reasons and a
petitioner’s motion, respondent combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant
filed with the COMELEC a execution pending appeal: (1) public interest involved or will of
petition for certiorari, assailing the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the
the decision of the trial court. term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the
Likewise, respondent election contest has been pending.
appealed the trial court’s
decision to the COMELEC. The decision of the trial court in election protest was rendered
on April 2, 2002, or after almost one year of trial and revision
119
The COMELEC issued a Writ of the questioned ballots. It found petitioner as the candidate
of Preliminary Injunction, with the plurality of votes. Respondent appealed the said
which effectively enjoined the decision to the COMELEC. In the meantime, the three-year
trial court from acting on term of the Office of the Mayor continued to run. The will of the
petitioner’s motion for electorate, as determined by the trial court in the election
execution pending appeal. protest, had to be respected and given meaning. The
Subsequently, the COMELEC Municipality of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental, needed the
dismissed petitioner’s petition services of a mayor even while the election protest was
for certiorari after finding that pending, and it had to be the candidate judicially determined to
the trial court did not commit have been chosen by the people.
grave abuse of discretion in
rendering the assailed
judgment. Moreover, the
COMELEC held that the
remedy from the decision of
the court a quo was to file a
notice of appeal. Hence, it
directed the trial court to
dispose of all pending
incidents in the election
protest with dispatch. The trial
court issued an Order
approving the Motion for
Execution Pending Appeal and
installing petitioner as the duly
elected Mayor.
Meanwhile, respondent filed

with the COMELEC a motion
for reconsideration of the
dismissal of his petition in SPR
No. 20-2002. After five days,
or on August 26, 2002, he filed
a supplemental petition in SPR
No. 20-2002. Barely two days
later, on August 28, 2002, and
while his motion for
reconsideration and
supplemental petition in SPR
No. 20-2002 were pending,
respondent filed another
petition with the COMELEC,
120
docketed as SPR No. 37-

2002. The petition contained
the same prayer as that in the
supplemental petition filed in
SPR 20-2002. Acting on
respondent’s motion, the
COMELEC issued the
assailed Order directing the
parties to maintain the status
quo ante and enjoining
petitioner from assuming the
functions of Mayor.
Navarosa and Esto were

The SC held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case.
candidates for mayor of
Navarosa claims that although the receipts issued by the trial
Libacao, Aklan in the 2001
court show that respondent paid 515 as filing and other fees,
elections. The MBC
only 100 was credited to the general fund of the court. As
proclaimed Navarosa as the
such, Esto only filed 100 as Comelec filing fee. The SC held
winner with only 3-vote
that an election protest is not dismissible if the protestant,
margin. Claiming that
relying on the court’s assessment, pays only a portion of the
irregularities marred the
Comelec filing fee. It should also be noted that navarosa never
canvassing of ballots in
raised that issue during the fullblown trial of the election
several precincts, Esto filed an
protest. Navarosa actively participated in the proceedings
election protest in the RTC.
below by filing her answer, presenting evidence and seeking a
Navarosa filed a counter
stay of execution by filing a bond. Thus, estoppel has set in
protest. After a revision of the
precluding petitioner from questioning the incomplete payment
Navarosa vs.COMELEC contested ballots, the RTC
of the comelec filing fee.
G.R. No. 157957 ruled in favor of Esto, thus
On Navarosa’s questioning of the execution pending appeal,
September 18, 2003 Esto was proclaimed winner
the SC held that good reasons exist to grant execution
and annulled the proclamation
pending appeal. To grant execution pending appeal in an
of Navarosa. The decision was
election protest case, the ff requisites must concur: (1) there
appealed to the RTC while
must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the
Esto filed a motion for
adverse party; (2) there must be good reasons for the
execution with the RTC. The
execution pending appeal and; (3) the order grandting
RTC ruled that Esto is entitled
execution pending appeal must state the good reasons. In one
to execution but he must file a
case, the SC held that “good reasons” are constituted by:
supersedeas bond of 300,000
(1)public interest involved or the will of the electorate;
while also saying that
(2)shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the
Navarosa could stay the
contested office (2001 elections---2003 decision); (3) length of
execution by also filing a bond
time that the election contest has been pending.
double the amount granted to
Esto. Navarosa then in the
121
petition for certiorari raised the

lack of jurisdiction of the RTC
because Esto failed to pay the
Comelec filing fee.
122

ICG Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICG Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS 2016-2017 INA CG

ELECTION AND SUFFRAGE

Mariano Badelles and Camilo Whether the notices of YES. CA affirmed.

that they were filed beyond

Badelles filed a petition for

Petitioners assailed the

Thus, they pray that the Court

ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.

The COMELEC did not use

On 10 July 2009, the

COMELEC leased for use in

winning candidates for

Generally accepted principles of international law

Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North

[if !supportLists]2) [endif]After renouncing her American

Republic of the Philippines, has Poe re-acquired her status as

A natural born citizen before he lost his Philippine nationality

[if !supportLists]3) [endif]Has Poe satisfied the 10 year

[T]here is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other

Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her

considering the overwhelming evidence submitted by Poe.

desire, and (2) make a

elections as he even acquired

The Comelec denied

In 1988, Juan Frivaldo won as

Ernesto Mercado on the shall be dealt with by law."

practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past

Both petitioner Villaber and

COMELEC issued the

Hence, this petition.

Then came the May 10, 2010

While it may be apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a)

The third preambular clause of the pardon did not operate

Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the third preambular

This is especially true as the pardon itself does not explicitly

commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.

Besides, a preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is

If former President Arroyo intended for the pardon to be

Romeo D. Lonzanida Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed

Office of the Mayor of San Mayor.1âwphi1Whether his certificate of candidacy is

Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought a residential lot

Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.

While the Court ordinarily respects the factual findings of

Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the 2010

position including active

The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective

2. No. The view that the assailed provisions are overly

Respondent Leonardo B. No. A winner who dislodges in a recall election an incumbent

election in 1993, assumed

Timbol filed a Certificate of YES.

CAMPAIGN, ELECTION PROPAGANDA, ETC.

Section 80 of Batas a motorcade which passed through the different barangays of

premature campaigning as there is no candidate to begin with.

Petitioner and private No, she is not.

Petitioner SWS and KPC

of Conference on June 4, equality of opportunity in political advertising. It bears a clear

The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political

substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the

POLITICAL PARTY; PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION

a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local

Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the

deliberately allowed major political parties to participate in the

sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and