NOTES ON COMELEC
Q: What is the nature of the powers of the COMELEC?
A: The COMELEC is empowered by the Constitution to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
Like the CSC, the COMELEC is an administrative agency. As such, the powers it possesses are
executive, quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. By exception, however, it has been given judicial
power as judge with exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction,
or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. (Ang Tibay v.
CIR, Mendoza v. COMELEC)
Q: How many COMELEC members are there in the different Charters?
A: Under the Commonwealth Charter, 3 Members.
Under the 1973 Constitution, total are 9 members.
Under the 1987 Constitution, there are 7 members.
Q: Explain the composition, qualifications, and term of COMELEC members.
A: Composition of the COMELEC:
1. Chairman
2. Six (6) Commissioners
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 35 years old at the time of appointment
3. College degree holder; and
4. Not a candidate in any election immediately preceding the appointment.
Note: Majority of the members, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. [1987 Constitution, Art.
IX-C, Sec 1(1)]
Term:
Seven years without reappointment.
Note: Article IX-C Sec.1(2) provides:
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Q: Is the COMELEC a collegial body?
A: Yes, the act of the head of a collegial body cannot be considered as that of the entire body
itself.
Q: In the absence of a chairman of the COMELEC, President Vercede designated Commissioner
Gimena as Acting Chairman. Is this valid?
A: No. Article IX-C, Section 1(2) prohibits the appointment of members in a temporary or acting
capacity. Moreover, Article XI, A, Section 1, provides for the independence of the Commissions.
The choice of a temporary chairman falls under the discretion of the Commission and cannot be
exercised for it by the President. (Brillantes, Jr. v. Yorac GR No.93867, 1990)
Constitutional powers and functions of the COMELEC
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
Q: Give examples under this provision.
A: Under this provision, the COMELEC can:
Require compliance with the rules for filing of CoC
Prevent or prosecute election offenses
Supervise the registration of voters and holding of polls
See to it that canvass of the votes and proclamation of winners are done in accordance
with the law (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Edition)
Such authority also includes the power to:
Annul an illegal registry of voters (Prudente v. Genuino GR L-5222, 1951)
Cancel a proclamation made by the board of canvassers on the basis of an irregular or
incomplete canvass (Lacson v. COMELEC GR L-16261, 1951)
Oust the candidate proclaimed notwithstanding that he has already assumed office
(Aguam v. COMELEC)
Reject nuisance candidacies (Bautista v. COMELEC (1998)
Cancel COCs (Salcedo II v. COMELEC (1999)
Disqualify candidates (Justimbaste v. COMELEC)
Q: In an automated election, candidate Francese Raga is a nuisance candidate whose surname
happened to be included in the Official Ballots. More importantly, she has the same surname with
that of Florence Raga, a legitimate candidate. As a commissioner of the COMELEC, how will you
decide in the event that voters cast their votes to the nuisance candidate?
A: Votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment, particularly where
such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that of the legitimate candidate, shall not be
considered as stray but counted in favor of the latter. This rule applies notwithstanding the
automation of elections. (De la Cruz v. COMELEC GR No. 192221, 2012)
Q: What is a manifest error? Can the COMELEC order the correction of manifest errors in the
tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing even after a winning candidate is
proclaimed?
A: A manifest error is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; that which is
open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing no evidence to make it clear.
Yes. Pursuant to its power to enforce and administer election laws, the COMELEC may order the
correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing, and
petitions for this purpose may be filed directly with the Commission even after a proclamation of
the winning candidates. It may also require the correction of the Statement of Votes to make it
conform to the election returns. (Abainza v. Arellano, 2008)
Q: Is the subsequent disqualification of a winning candidate entitles his opponent, the second
placer, to be declared as winner?
A: No. A second-placer cannot be proclaimed as the winner in an election contest because he is
not the choice of the sovereign will. (Topacio v. Paredes) He could not be proclaimed winner as
he could not be considered the first among the qualified candidates. If the winning candidate is
not qualified and cannot qualify for the office to which he was elected, a permanent vacancy is
thus created. (Ocampo v. HRET)
Q: When does a second placer be allowed to take the place of a disqualified candidate?
A: Two requisites must concur:
1) the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and
2) the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of that candidate’s disqualification as to bring
such awareness within the realm of notoriety but the electorate still cast the plurality of the votes
in favor of the ineligible candidate. (Talaga v. COMELEC)
2. Decisions of Election Contests
Exercise:
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of all elective:
i. Regional
ii. Provincial
iii. City officials
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving:
i. Elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction.
ii. Elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction.
COMELEC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on elections contests involving elective
municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
This express grant of power on the COMELEC carries with it the grant of all other powers
necessary to the effective and efficient exercise of the power expressly granted, including
authority to order a technical examination of relevant election paraphernalia, election returns and
ballots in order to determine fraud and irregularities accompanied the canvassing of votes.
COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-lists, not the House
of Reps Electoral Tribunal. Latter has exclusive original jurisdiction over nominees of political
parties once they become members of HoR. (Layug v. COMELEC)
The Commission is NOT a judicial tribunal but ONLY an administrative body. It’s decisions, orders,
and rulings may be challenged in a petition for CERTIORARI with the SC under Article IX-A,
Section 7, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
With regards to election contests in regional trial courts, Section 251 of the Omnibus Election
Code vests in them jurisdiction.
Trial courts of limited jurisdiction have exclusive original jurisdiction over election protests
involving barangay officials, including the Sangguniang Kabataan chairman.
A division of COMELEC may not conduct recount proceedings in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. It may do so ONLY in connection with exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction
over all election protests involving elective regional, provincial and city officials. It can too, in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, take cognizance of petitions for certiorari against all acts or
ommissions of courts in election cases. (Maliksi v. COMELEC)
The COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration
of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
The COMELEC meets in two divisions, consisting of three members.
Their decisions can be elevated in a motion for reconsideration and may be reviewed by the
Commission sitting en banc.
The Commission sitting in DIVISION, not en banc, has jurisdiction over petitions to cancel a
certificate of candidacy.
The Commission, sitting en banc, doesn’t have authority to hear and decide election cases.
3. Decision of Administrative Questions
Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
It is the responsibility of the Commission on Elections to determine the plethora of administrative
details relating to how the elections are run.
This includes:
Establishment of precincts, designation of polling places, purchase of election paraphernalia,
appointment of election officials, registration of voters, and conduct of elections in general.
The Constitution however prevents the COMELEC to decide questions involving the right to vote.
These questions fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. It can however decide those
concerning the registration of voters except that these decisions shall be subject to judicial review.
4. Deputization of Law-Enforcement Agencies
Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities
of the government, including the AFP, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections.
It should be stressed that this power can be exercised ONLY with the consent of the President.
Under the 1935 Constitution: Conflict arose between the COMELEC and the Presidency when
the former deputized law enforcement agencies and the latter transferred them elsewhere in
exercise of military control.
In the Constitutional Convention of 1971: It was resolved conditioning the exercise by COMELEC
of the power to deputize upon the initiative/consent of the President. This rule is partly maintained
in the present charter.
In the present charter, the COMELEC cannot exercise direct disciplinary authority over any
officer/employee it has deputized. It can however recommend their removal, or any other
disciplinary action, to the President.
5. Registration of Political Parties
Registration of political parties, organizations, or coalitions and accreditation of citizens’ arms of
the COMELEC. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations
of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and
malpractices.
This power is purely administrative in character. It only needs to assess whether the party or
organization seeking registration possesses all of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.
Political party registration is necessary to give political identity and juridical personality for
purposes of the elections they wish to partake in.
Parties must present their programs and platforms of government for the information of the
electorate whose support they are seeking.
This rule allows the COMELEC to identify whether a party seeking registration is not entitled to
registration due to their being a religious group, subversive in nature, or supported by a foreign
government.
Financial support from such governments are also a ground for cancellation of registration of a
party in addition with penal sanctions prescribed by law.
The Commission may as well cancel a certificate of registration issued in favor of a political party,
despite the finality of the registration. For this to proceed the law imposes two conditions:
1. Due notice and hearing is afforded to the party-list group concerned.
2. Any of the enumerated grounds for disqualification in Section 6 exist.
6. Improvement of Elections
Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including
limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all
forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies. Submit to the
President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, or recall.
The Commission is entrusted with these powers and functions in pursuance to the constitutional
ideal of a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election.
The Omnibus Election Code expanded the list of prohibited election practices, changed the
limitations on expenses to be incurred by political parties/candidates, allows COMELEC to refuse
to give due course to certificates of nuisance candidates, and assures equal treatment of
candidates.
The required report can be basis for legislation that may improve the conduct of future elections.
It can be used for the purpose of determining certain questions relative to election contests or to
the credentials of the candidates proclaimed elected.
Election Period
Unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC in special cases, the election period shall commence
90 days before the day of the election and shall end 30 days thereafter [Sec. 9, Art IX-C,
Constitution].
Q: Distinguish election period from campaign period.
A: The election period is distinguished from the campaign period in that the latter cannot extend
beyond election day and in fact, under present law, ends two days before the election. (Peralta
v. Commission on Elections)
Q: When is a candidate liable for election offenses?
A: A candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. Under
existing laws, any person who files his certificate of candidacy within the filing period shall only
be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of
candidacy and that any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only
upon the start of the campaign period. (Penera v. COMELEC, 2009)
Party System
A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people,
subject to the provisions of this Article [Sec. 6, Art IX-C, Constitution].
No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution [Sec. 7, Art IX-C,
Constitution].
Q: What is a party?
A: A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
Q: What is a political party?
A: A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform,
principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate
means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates certain of its leaders and members as
candidates for public office. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its
constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
Q: What is a Party-List System?
A: The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections [RA 7941].
Note: Party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives in the
House of Representatives [Sec. 5(2), Art. VI].
Q: Can political parties appoint poll watchers?
A: Yes. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall
not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of
canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in
accordance with law [Sec. 8, Art IX-C, Constitution].
Q: Who determines whether a party is qualified to participate in the party-list system?
A: The COMELEC. Qualification is a question of fact and therefore is not subject to review by
certiorari. (VC Vadangen, et al. v. COMELEC, 2009)
Q: Which groups cannot be registered as political parties?
A: 1. religious denominations or sects;
2. those who seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means;
3. those who refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution; and,
4. those supported by foreign governments [Sec. 2(5), Art IX-C].
Q: When can COMELEC refuse or cancel the registration of parties, organizations or coalitions?
A: Under R.A. 7941, the COMELEC may, motu propio or upon a verified complaint of any
interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition, on any of the following grounds:
1. it is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious
purposes;
2. it advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. it is a foreign party or organization;
4. it is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members, or indirectly through
third parties, for partisan election purposes;
5. it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
6. it declares untruthful statements in its petition; [vii] it has ceased to exist for at least one
year; and,
7. it fails to participate in the last two preceding elections, or fails to obtain at least 2% of the
votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding elections for the constituency in
which it was registered.
Q: May COMELEC resolve matters involving ascertainment of the identity of the political party
and its officers?
A: Yes. Flowing from its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of the election and its power to register and regulate political parties, the
Commission on Elections may resolve matters ascertainment of the identity of the political party
and its legitimate officers (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161265,
February 24, 2004).
Funds
Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and
special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or
special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by
the Chairman of the Commission. [Sec. 11, Art IX-C, Constitution].
This provision is added to ensure the independence of the COMELEC and also to guarantee the
proper conduct of elections and other exercises calling for the suffrages of the people.
Judicial Review
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Supreme Court within
30 days from receipt of a copy of final order, ruling or decision of the Commission en banc (See
Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251; Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25).
Only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari (as
a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). In Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro,
244 SCRA 41, it was held that the failure of the petitioner to file a Motion for Reconsideration from
the decision of the COMELEC First Division is fatal to the petition filed with the Supreme Court.
Only decisions of the COMELEC made in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power
may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Thus, in Garces v. Court of Appeals, 259
SCRA 99, where what was assailed in the petition for certiorari was the COMELEC choice of an
appointee, which is a purely administrative duty, the case is cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court (or the Civil Service Commission, as the case may be). Indeed, determinations made by
the COMELEC which are merely administrative (not quasi-judicial) in character, may be
challenged in an ordinary civil action before trial courts (Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop
v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25).
Relevant Cases
Pedragoza v. COMELEC
The petition was filed by Pedragoza who claimed that a COMELEC resolution is invalid for not
having a quorum due to the failure of the two commissioners to indicate their reasons for their
inhibition.
The issue is whether or not the resolution of the COMELEC is valid.
The resolution is valid even if the votes of Commissioner Sadain and Tuason are disregarded, a
quorum still remains with the three of the then five COMELEC Commissioner voting to deny the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
There may be no extant record of the proceedings in adopting Section 1, Rule 18 of the
COMELEC Rules, Section 13, of ARTICLE VIII provides the purpose of the rule as to why a
member of this Court has to take part in the deliberation of cases.
Thus, the non-compliance with the rule does not annul the ruling in which a judge takes no part
but will be considered as basis that the judge did omission.
Macalintal v. COMELEC
The petition was filed by Romulo Macalintal seeking a declaration that certain provisions of RA
9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are unconstitutional and that it violates the
requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution.
The issues are:
1. WON Sec5 (d) of RA 9189 violates the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of the
Constitution?
2. WON Sec 18.5 of RA 9189 violates the constitutional mandate under Sec4 Article VII of the
Constitution that the winning candidates shall be proclaimed by Congress?
3. WON Congress may exercise the power to review, revise, amend and approve the
implementing rules and regulations of COMELEC?
Held: RA 9189 is promulgated to allow Filipinos living aborad to exercise the privilege to vote
through absentee voting. Hence, Sec 5 (d) of RA 9189 allows an immigrant and permanent
resident abroad to register as a voter and execute an affidavit to prove that he has not abandoned
his domicile according to Sections 1 and 2 of Article V.
Seneres v. Comelec
The petition was filed by Seneres based on his assertion that under the Constitution, Robles
should be disqualified from being an officer of BUHAY Party since he is also the Chairman of the
Light Railway Transport Authority. He also charged Robles of being involved into a partisan
political activity which civil service members were enjoined from engaging in.
The issue is whether or not the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing its challenged Resolution dated July 19, 2007 recognizing and
declaring Robles as the President of BUHAY.
Robles’ being the Chairman of LRTA and the President of BUHAY is valid since there is no law
prohibiting that LRTA Chair cannot be President of a party-list group.
He is also not guilty of electioneering (clearly defined under Section 79 (b) of the Omnibus Election
Code as he only nominated BUHAY Representatives to Congress.
Atienza v. Comelec
The former president of the Liberal Party, Drilon, announced that his party withdrew support for
the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Atienza, LP Chairman alleged
that Drilon made the announcement without seeking for the approval of the party.
Atienza then hosted a party conference which then resulted to the election of new officers with
Atienza as LP President. Drilon claimed that the said election was illegal because the party’s
electing bodies NECO and NAPOLCO were not properly convened. COMELEC held that
Atienza’s and others’ election was invalid as it did not abide the LP Constitution and that Drilon
was only sitting in a hold-over capacity since his term has already expired.
Issue is whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party dispute.
It was held that the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party dispute is limited. The COMELEC
may intervene in disputes internal to a party only when necessary to the discharge of its
constitutional functions.
As in Kalaw v. COMELEC that the COMELEC’s powers and functions under Section 2, Article
IX-C of the Constitution, “include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its
legitimate officers responsible for its acts”. Thus the COMELEC may resolve intra-party leadership
dispute, in a proper case brought before it as an incident of its power to register political parties.
