Election Laws

ELECTION LAWS
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881#Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines#December 3, 1985#

The OEC is the decades-old law that governs all elections of public officers, as
well as all referendums and plebiscites.##
Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Section 10. Common Poster Areas.
strategic public places such as markets, barangay centers and the like
common billboards may be installed by the Commission and/or non-partisan private or
civic organizations
free of charge

Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda (Section 85 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
election propaganda outside the common poster areas
Except
candidate's own residence
campaign headquarters
two (2) feet by three (3) feet
three (3) feet by eight (8) feet five (5) days before the date of the meeting
or rally, and shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours after said
meeting or rally
sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other
political purposes except to the Commission
Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcement or personality who is a
candidate for any elective public office shall take a leave of absence from his
work as such during the campaign period.

Section 12. Official Watchers
every registered political party/candidate
Section 13. Board of Election Inspectors

Chairman and 2 members
public school teachers
private school teachers
civil service employees
citizens of known probity and competence

Section 16. Certificates of Votes
issued by the BEI upon request of the duly accredited watchers
contain the number of votes obtained by each candidate written in words and
figures, the number of the precinct, the name of the city or municipality and
province, the total number of voters who voted in the precinct and the date and
time issued
signed and thumbmarked by each member of the board

Section 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence
admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly
committed in the election returns
duly authenticated by testimonial or documentary evidence presented to the board of
canvassers by at least two members of the board of election inspectors who issued
the certificate
failure to present any certificate of votes shall be a bar to the presentation of
other evidence to impugn the authenticity of the election returns
Section 25. Right to be Present and to Counsel During the Canvass
Any registered political party, coalition of parties, through their
representatives, and any candidate has the right to be present and to counsel
during the canvass of the election returns
only one counsel may argue for each political party or candidate
right to examine the returns being canvassed without touching them, make their
observations thereon, and file their challenges in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Commission
No dilatory action shall allowed by the board of canvassers
Section 27. Election Offenses

Section 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Vote-selling
paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
at least one voter in different precincts representing at least twenty percent
(20%) of the total precincts has been offered, promised or given money, valuable
consideration or other expenditure by a candidate's relatives, leaders and/or
sympathizers
disputable presumption
conspiracy under paragraph (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
involvement of such candidate and of his principal campaign managers
giver, offerer, and promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and
conspirator shall be liable as principals
any persons, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives
information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official
investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment
nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or
false testimony.
Republic Act No. 7166#An Act Providing For Synchronized National And Local
Elections And For Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, And For
Other Purposes#November 26, 1991
Section 2. Date of Elections
President, Vice-President, twenty-four (24) Senators, all elective Members of the
House of Representatives, and all elective provincial, city and municipal officials
on the second Monday of May, 1992
Thereafter, the President and Vice-President shall be elected on the same day every
six (6) years
Senators, elective Members of the House of Representatives and all elective
provincial, city and municipal officials shall be elected on the same day every
three (3) years, except that with respect to Senators, only twelve (12) shall be
elected

Section 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections
decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members
causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after the
casting of votes or on the day of the election
permanent vacancy in the Senate or House of Representatives at least one (1) year
before the expiration of the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special
election to fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than
ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy
Section 5. Election Period
ninety (90) days before the day of the election and shall end thirty (30) days
thereafter.
Campaign periods
(a) For President, Vice-President and Senators, ninety (90) days before the day of
the election
(b) For Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial, city and
municipal officials, forty-five (45) days before the day of the election

Any election campaign or partisan political activity for or against any candidate
outside of the campaign period herein provided is prohibited and shall be
considered as an election offense punishable under Section 263 and 264 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Section 7. Filing of Certificates of Candidacy
five (5) legible copies with the offices of the Commission specified hereunder not
later than the day before the date legally fixed for the beginning of his campaign
period.
President, Vice-President and Senators - main office of the Commission in Manila;
Members of the House of Representatives - provincial election supervisor
legislative districts in the National Capital Region - regional election director
legislative districts in cities outside the National Capital Region which comprise
one or more legislative districts - city election registrar
provincial offices - provincial supervisor
city or municipal offices - city or municipal election registrar
Annulment of the List of Voters

fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any other similar
irregularity or which is statistically improbable
after due notice

verified complaint

no order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed within
sixty (60) days before an election.
Section 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. –
For candidates. –
Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice-President;
other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the
constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy
candidate without any political party and without support from any political party
may be allowed to spend Five Pesos (P5.00) for every such voter

For political parties. –
Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency or
constituencies where it has official candidates.
Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement. –
30 days after the day of the election,

Pre-requisite for entry upon the duties of his office
same prohibition if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails
to file the statement

administrative offense

Fine of P1,000.00 to P30,000.00 payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of
notice, otherwise writ of execution issued by the Commission against the
properties of the offender
Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00) for second or
subsequent offense with perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

Section 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President Vice-
President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns or the certificates of canvass
does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or
upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the
certificate of canvass or election returns before it
composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers may be initiated in the board
or directly with the Commission in accordance with Section 19 hereof
objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers,
or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial board of
canvassers or district boards of canvassers in Metro Manila Area shall be
specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.
Section 16. Pre-proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices
allowed and shall be governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof
All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated
at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards
of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing
of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party
proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the
Commission determined that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues
an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been
issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
Section 17. Pre-proclamation Controversies: How Commenced
composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers - board or directly with the
Commission
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns, and the certificates of canvass - in the first instance before the board
of canvassers only.
Section 18. Summary Disposition of Pre-proclamation Controversies
on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers,
be disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt
thereof
decisions shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipts by the
losing party
Section 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns
oral objection to the chairman of the board of canvassers at the time the
questioned return is presented for inclusion in the canvass
objection shall be recorded in the minutes of the canvass.
board of canvassers shall automatically defer the canvass of the contested returns
and shall proceed to canvass the returns which are not contested by any party
objecting party shall also enter his objection in the form for written objections
to be prescribed by the Commission
within twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation of such an objection,
the objecting party shall submit the evidence in support of the objection, which
shall be attached to the form for written objections
within the same period of twenty-four (24) hours after presentation of the
objection, any party may file a written and verified opposition to the objection
evidence attached to the objection or opposition, submitted by the parties, shall
be immediately and formally admitted into the records of the board by the chairman
affixing his signature at the back of each every page thereof
Board summarily and immediately rules thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on
the prescribed form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its members.
Any part adversely affected by the ruling of the board shall immediately inform the
board if he intends to appeal, board shall enter said information in the minutes of
the canvass, set aside the returns and proceed to consider the other returns
board shall suspend the canvass
within forty-eight (48) hours, written and verified notice of appeal
unextendible period of five (5) days thereafter an appeal may be taken to the
Commission.
upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the board shall make an appropriate report to
the Commission, elevating therewith the complete records and evidence
Commission shall decide summarily the appeal within seven (7) days from receipt of
said record and evidence
executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipts thereof by the losing
party.
not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the
latter has ruled on the object brought to it on appeal by the losing party
Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the
contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election
Election Contests for Municipal Offices
Regional Trial Court

appeal to the Commission within five (5) days from promulgation or receipt

decide the appeal within sixty (60) days after it is submitted for decision, but
not later than six (6) months

decision shall be final, unappealable and executory.
Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Section 3. Lawful Election Propaganda
3.1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed

materials the size of which does not exceed eight and one half inches in width and
fourteen inches in length;
3.2. Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any
particular political party or candidate for public office;
3.3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area not
exceeding
two (2) feet by three (3) feet
streamers not exceeding three (3) feet by eight (8) feet in size – public meeting
or rally five (5) days before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed
within twenty-four (24) hours after said meeting or rally
3.4. Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media
3.5. All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus Election
Code or this Act.

Section 4. Requirements for Published or Printed and Broadcast Election Propaganda
newspaper, newsletter, newsweekly, gazette or magazine advertising, posters,
pamphlets, comic books, circulars, handbills, bumper stickers, streamers, sample
list of candidates or any published or printed political matter and any broadcast
of election propaganda by television or radio for or against a candidate or group
of candidates to any public office shall bear and be identified by the reasonably
legible or audible words "political advertisement paid for," followed by the true
and correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the
election propaganda was printed or aired.
If given free of charge - "airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge
by" followed by the true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity
Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the candidate or political
party shall not be printed, published, broadcast, or exhibited without the written
acceptance by the said candidate or political party - attached to the advertising
contract and shall be submitted to the COMELEC

Section 6. Equal Access to Media Time and Space. – All registered parties and bona
fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space. The following
guidelines may be amplified on by the COMELEC.
Print advertisements - not exceed one-fourth (1/4) page in broad sheet and one-half
(1/2) page in tabloids thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other publications
nationally elective office shall be entitled - one hundred twenty (120) minutes of
television advertisement and one hundred eighty (180) minutes of radio
advertisement whether by purchase or donation
locally elective office shall be entitled to not more than sixty (60) minutes of
television advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio advertisement whether by
purchase or
All members of media, television, radio or print, shall scrupulously report and
interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the
truth by omission or improper emphasis. They shall recognize the duty to air the
other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.

Section 6. Equal Access to Media Time and Space. – All registered parties and bona
fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space. The following
guidelines may be amplified on by the COMELEC.
mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or
personality who is a candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign
volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity by any candidate or political
party
deemed resigned, if so required by their employer
leave of absence from his/her work as such during the campaign period
media practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of the
campaign staff of a candidate or political party shall not use his/her time or
space to favor any candidate or political party
No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or biography of a
candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater, television station or any
public forum during the campaign period
No movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an actor or media personality
who is himself a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater, television
station or any public forum during the campaign period

Section 7. Affirmative Action by the COMELEC
Pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bldg.
881), the COMELEC shall procure the print space upon payment of just compensation
from at least three (3) national newspapers of general circulation
allocated free of charge equally and impartially among all the candidates for
national office on three (3) different calendar days
COMELEC shall also procure free airtime from at least three (3) national television
networks and three(3) national radio networks
allocated free of charge equally and impartially among all candidates for national
office on three (3) different calendar days
COMELEC may require national television and radio networks to sponsor at least
three (3) national debates among presidential candidates and at least one (1)
national debate among vice presidential candidates
Section 8. COMELEC Space and Time
at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation and air time in at least one (1)
major broadcasting station or entity in every province or city
in the absence of said newspaper, publication shall be done in any other magazine
or periodical in said province or city, which shall be known as "COMELEC Space“
in the absence of said broadcasting station or entity, broadcasting shall be done
in any radio or television station in said province or city, which shall be known
as "COMELEC Time“
Said time shall be allocated to the COMELEC free of charge, while said space shall
be allocated to the COMELEC upon payment of just compensation
utilized exclusively by the COMELEC for public information dissemination on
election-related concerns.

Section 9. Posting of Campaign Materials
political parties and party-list groups to erect common poster areas for their
candidates in not more than ten (1) public places such as plazas, markets, barangay
centers and the like
size of the poster areas shall not exceed twelve (12) by sixteen (16) feet or its
equivalent.
Independent candidates with no political parties may likewise be authorized to
erect common poster areas in not more than ten (10) public places, the size of
which shall not exceed four (4) by six (6) feet or its equivalent.
Candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private places with the
consent of the owner thereof, and in public places or property which shall be
allocated equitably and impartially among the candidates.

Section 12. Substitution of Candidates
valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast
for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not
invalidate the whole ballot
official ballots shall provide spaces where the voters may write the name of the
substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter
if the substitute candidate of the same family name, this provision shall not
apply.
Republic Act No. 9369#An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8436, Entitled "An Act
Authorizing The Commission On Elections To Use An Automated Election System In The
May 11, 1998 National Or Local Elections And In Subsequent National And Local
Electoral Exercises, To Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness And Accuracy
Of Elections, Amending For The Purpose Batas PampansaBlg. 881, As Amended, Republic
Act No. 7166 And Other Related Elections Laws, Providing Funds Therefor And For
Other Purposes" #January 23, 2007
The Philippines first adopted the automated election system in the 2010
presidential election, using the technology anew in 2013 and 2016 during the
national elections in the said years.##For the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
elections on Oct. 23, 2017, the Comelec reverted to a manual conduct of
elections.##
Board of Election Inspectors. –
at least one member of the Board of Election Inspectors shall be an information
technology-capable person, who is trained or certified by the DOST to use the EAS.
considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed
his certificate of candidacy
unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that
start of the aforesaid campaign period
any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members
of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso factor resigned from his/her office and must
vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certification of
candidacy.
"Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their official
candidate within thirty (30) days before the start of the period for filing
certificate of candidacy.
SEC. 28. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 35. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. - The following shall be penalized as
provided in this Act, whether or not said acts affect the electoral process or
results:
"(a) Utilizing without authorization, tampering with, damaging, destroying or
stealing:
"(1) Official ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes used
in the system; and
"(2) Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or supplies used in the
AES such as counting machine, memory pack/diskette, memory pack receiver and
computer set;
"(b) Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, preventing the
installation or use of computer counting devices and the processing, storage,
generation and transmission of election results, data or information;
"(c) Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any
computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices,
facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified;
SEC. 28. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(d) Refusal of the citizens' arm to present for perusal its copy of election
return to the board of canvassers;
"(e) Presentation by the citizens' arm of tampered or spurious election returns;
"(f) Refusal or failure to provide the dominant majority and dominant minority
parties or the citizens'' arm their copy of election returns; and
"(g) The failure to post the voters' list within the specified time, duration and
in the designated location shall constitute an election offense on the part the
election officer concerned."
"Any person convicted for violation of this Act, except those convicted of the
crime of electoral sabotage, shall be penalized with imprisonment of eight years
and one day to twelve (12) years without possibility of parole, and perpetual
disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage.
Moreover, the offender shall be perpetually disqualified to hold any non-elective
public office."
SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as
follows :
"SEC. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal
officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the
government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses
punishable under this Code, and prosecute the same"
SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as
follow:
"SEC. 265. Prosecution. –
Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power,
concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and
prosecute the same"
QUINTO vs. COMELEC #G.R. No. 189698 December 1, 2009

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The second proviso in the
third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section 66 of the Omnibus
Election Code and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are declared as
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in
the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period
shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for
which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or
omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the
aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public
appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and
officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the
start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Section 66 of B.P. Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) of the Philippines,
which reads:
Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position.- Any person holding a
public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 is a reproduction of the second proviso
in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, which for ready reference is
quoted as follows:
For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of
certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation to participate in
the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period
shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for
which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or
omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the
aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public
appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and
officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the
start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.15
QUINTO vs. COMELEC#G.R. No. 189698 February 22, 2010

For the foregoing reasons, we now rule that Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678 and
Section 13 of RA 9369, which merely reiterate Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code, are not unconstitutionally overbroad.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondent’s and the intervenors’
Motions for Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Court’s December 1, 2009
Decision; DISMISS the Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second
proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and (3)
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters.

conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours.

No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred
twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special
election.

Section 9. Who may Register.
All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law
at least eighteen (18) years of age,

resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year,

in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately
preceding the election

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely
by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the
Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police
Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with
law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age
or period of residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such
qualifications, may register as a voter.

Section 11. Disqualification.
sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year,
such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after
service of sentence

adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having committed any
crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion,
sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime against national security,
unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after
service of sentence
Insane or incompetent persons

Notice and Hearing of Applications.
Hearing
notice of which shall be posted in the city or municipal bulletin board and in his
office for at least one (1) week before the hearing
furnish copies thereof to the applicant concerned, the heads or representatives of
political parties, and other accredited groups or organizations which actively
participate in the electoral process in the city or municipality.
Election Officer shall receive such evidence for or against the applicant
not seasonably objected need not appear on the date set for the hearing
Physical presence mandatory in all cases where objections against his application
have been seasonably filed with the proper Election Registration Board

Section 18. Challenges to Right to Register.

Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered political party may
challenge in writing any application for registration, stating the grounds
therefor. The challenge shall be under oath and be attached to the application,
together with the proof of notice of hearing to the challenger and the applicant.
Oppositions to contest a registrant’s application for inclusion in the voter’s list

must, in all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the month in which
the same is scheduled to be heard or processed by the Election Registration Board.
The hearing on the challenge shall be heard on the third Monday of the month and
the decision shall be rendered before the end of the month.

Section 27. Deactivation of Registration.
sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year
crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government
insane or incompetent
did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections
ordered excluded by the Court; and
lost his Filipino citizenship.

Section 28. Reactivation of Registration.

sworn application for reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit
stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist
not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety
(90) days before a special election.

Section 31. Sealing of Precinct Book of Voters.
fifteen (15) days before the start of the campaign period

of all registered political parties and members of the Board of Election Inspectors
to inspect and verify the completeness of the voter’s registration records for each
precinct compiled in the book of voters.

After verification and certification by the Board of Election Inspectors and party
representatives as to the completeness of the voters’ registration records in the
precinct book of voters

Section 32. Common Rules Governing Judicial Proceedings in the Matter of
Inclusion, Exclusion, and Correction of Names of Voters.
The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon
a stipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not the voter is real or
fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie
evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious

Section 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case.

Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective cities or municipalities.

appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days
from receipt of notice
regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it
is received and the decision shall immediately become final and executory.
No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

Section 37. Voter Excluded Through Inadvertence or Registered with an Erroneous or
Misspelled name. –
file with the Board an application for reinstatement or correction of name.
file on any date with the proper Municipal Circuit, Municipal or Metropolitan Trial
Court a petition for an order directing that his name be entered or corrected in
the list.

Section 39. Annulment at Book of Voters.
The Commission shall, upon verified petition of any voter or election officer or
duly registered political party, and after notice and hearing, annul any book of
voters

not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act

prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any
similar irregularity, or which contains data that are statistically improbable.

No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed within
ninety (90) days before an election.

Section 40. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Registration Records.
The Commission shall reconstitute all registration records which have been lost or
destroyed by using the corresponding copies of the provincial or national central
files.

If this is not feasible, the Commission shall conduct a general registration of
voters in the affected area: Provided, That there is a scheduled election before
the next scheduled general registration of voters in accordance with the Omnibus
Election Code.

All such voters shall retain their voter’s identification number. Reconstituted
forms shall be clearly marked with the word "reconstituted."

It shall be the duty of the Election Officer to immediately report to the
Commission any case of loss or destruction of registration record in his custody.

The reconstitution of any lost or destroyed registration records shall not affect
the criminal liability of any person who is responsible for such loss or
destruction.

Section 46. Penalties.
Election offense under this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years
not be subject to probation
disqualification to hold public office and

deprivation of the right of suffrage.

If he is a foreigner, he shall be deported after the prison term has been served.

Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000).
PARAS vs COMELEC#G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996#

Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan
City who won during the last regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his
recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay.
Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition, scheduled the petition signing on
October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on November 13,#1995.1 At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25% requirement
provided by law. The COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC set anew the recall
election, this time on December 16, 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall
election, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a
petition for injunction, docketed as SP Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial
court issuing a temporary restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing,
the trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition and required
petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for
misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval.2
In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the third time, re-
scheduled the recall election an January 13, 1996; hence, the instant petition
for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On January 12, 1996, the Court
issued a temporary restraining order and required the Office of the Solicitor
General, in behalf of public respondent, to comment on the petition. In view of the
Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation maintaining an opinion adverse to
that of the COMELEC, the latter through its law department filed the required
comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply.3

Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan
City who won during the last regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his
recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay.
Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition, scheduled the petition signing on
October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on November 13,#1995.1 At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25% requirement
provided by law. The COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC set anew the recall
election, this time on December 16, 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall
election, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a
petition for injunction, docketed as SP Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial
court issuing a temporary restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing,
the trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition and required
petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for
misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval.2
In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the third time, re-
scheduled the recall election an January 13, 1996; hence, the instant petition
for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On January 12, 1996, the Court
issued a temporary restraining order and required the Office of the Solicitor
General, in behalf of public respondent, to comment on the petition. In view of the
Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation maintaining an opinion adverse to
that of the COMELEC, the latter through its law department filed the required
comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply.3

Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code, which states that "no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the
date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a
regular local election“
January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May 1996, and
every three years thereafter. In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor
Union v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA 621, where the Court considered the SK election
as a regular local election. Petitioner maintains that as the SK election is a
regular local election, hence no recall election can be had for barely four months
separate the SK election from the recall election

Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the
local government unit necessitating additional expenses, hence the prohibition
against the conduct of recall election one year immediately preceding the regular
local election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular
election for the office of the local elective official concerned. The electorate
could choose the official's replacement in the said election who certainly has a
longer tenure in office than a successor elected through a recall election. It
would, therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the
Code to construe regular local election as one referring to an election where the
office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be contested
and be filled by the electorate.
Palatino, et. al. vs COMELEC, 2009#G.R. No. 189868 December 15, 2009
Resolution No. 85141
which, among other things, set December 2, 2008 to December 15, 2009 as the period
of continuing voter registration using the biometrics process in all areas
nationwide, except in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.
Resolution No. 85852
adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and
local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously
fixed by Resolution No. 8514.
The intense public clamor for an extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline
notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing
mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections.
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its
nullity.
the serious questions involved in this case and potential disenfranchisement of
millions of Filipino voters justify resort to this Court in the first instance,
claiming that based on National Statistics Office (NSO) data, the projected voting
population for the May 10, 2010 elections is 3,758,964 for the age group 18-19 and
8,756,981 for the age group 20-24, or a total of 12,515,945.
COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is an unconstitutional encroachment on the legislative
power of Congress as it amends the system of continuing voter registration under
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189), otherwise known as The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996, reading:
Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of
application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the
Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be
conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
election and ninety (90) days before a special election.
COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 be declared null and void, and that the COMELEC be
accordingly required to extend the voter registration until January 9, 2010 which
is the day before the 120-day prohibitive period starting on January 10, 2010.
Ruling
Section 8 of RA 8189 which provides:
Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of
application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the
Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be
conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
election and ninety (90) days before a special election. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the COMELEC the
power to fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the
same cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by law. This grant of
power, however, is for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of
suffrage – the common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436.
In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of
continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided
by RA 8189, Sec. 8 – daily during office hours, except during the period starting
120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no occasion for
the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.
The present case differs significantly from Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC.11 In said
case, the Court held that the COMELEC did not commit abuse of discretion in denying
the request of the therein petitioners for an extension of the December 27, 2000
deadline of voter registration for the May 14, 2001 elections. For the therein
petitioners filed their petition with the Court within the 120-day prohibitive
period for the conduct of voter registration under Section 8 of RA 8189, and sought
the conduct of a two-day registration on February 17 and 18, 2001, clearly within
the 120-day prohibitive period.
petition is GRANTED. COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is declared null and void insofar
as it set the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 elections on
October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the
registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010. This Decision is
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
ELECTION CASES/REMEDIES
Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Pre-election Disputes

Opposition to Contest a Registrant's Application
RA 8189
Any voter, candidate, or representative of a registered political party

Not later than the second Monday of the month in which the same is scheduled to be
heard

Petition for Inclusion in the List of Voters
RA 8189
Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Election
Registration Board
Any time except 105 days prior to a regular election or 75 days prior to a special
election
Municipal/ Metropolitan Trial Court

The petition shall be decided within 15 days after its filing
Petition for Exclusion from the List of Voters
RA 8189
Any voter, candidate, representative of a registered political party, or the
Election Officer
Any time except 100 days prior to a regular election or 65 days prior to a special
election

The petition shall be decided within 10 days after its filing
Petition for the Annulment of the List of Voters
Section 10, RA 7166 (preparation was affected by fraud, bribery, forgery,
impersonation, intimidation, force, or any other similar irregularity, or which is
statistically improbable
Any voter, representative of a registered political party, or the Election
Officer

Municipal/ Metropolitan Trial Court

No order, ruling, or decision annulling a book of voters shall be excuted within 90
days before an election
Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Petition for Disqualification (Before the Elections)
Section 12, 68 of the Omnibus Election Code/Section 40 of the Local Government Code
of 1991 Candidate does not possess all the qualifications or commits
any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification
Any citizen of voting age, duly registered political party, organization or
coalition of political parties
Any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later
than the date of proclamation
Municipal/ Metropolitan Trial Court (Barangay)
COMELEC (Municipal, Provincial, City, Congressional, Senatorial, Vice President,
President - Before the Elections)
If cannot be decided before the completion of the canvass, the votes cast for the
respondent may be included in the counting and, in the canvassing; however, if the
evidence of guilt is strong, his proclamation shall be suspended notwithstanding
the fact that he received the winning number of votes (Section 5, Rule 25 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
If the candidate is declared by final judgment before the election to be
disqualified, he shall not be voted for and the votes cast for him shall be
considered stray and shall not be counted, and his opponent, if there is only one,
will be declared elected. Conversely, if no decision is rendered against him
before the election, the votes he obtains cannot be considered stray and if he
obtains the winning number of votes, he is entitled to be proclaimed elected to the
office and to enter the discharge of his functions until the COMELEC finally
decides the disqualification case against him. In case of such adverse decision,
the COMELEC will order his ouster from office, but in no case shall the second
placer be proclaimed elected. The crown of victory cannot be transferred to the
candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes, as the people have
rejected him. (Codilla vs Jose de Venecia, 179 SCAD 58 [2002];Domino vs COMELEC,
310 SCRA 546 [1999]; Miranda vs Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 [1999]
A disqualification case has two aspects, the administrative which requires only a
preponderance of evidence to prove disqualification, and the criminal, which
necessitates proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. Where in the opinion of
COMELEC the acts which are grounds for disqualification also constitute a criminal
or election offense, it may refer the criminal aspect to its law department for
preliminary investigation,without prejudice to hearing and deciding the
administrative or electoral aspect. (Sunga vs COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76 [1998];
Bagatsing vs COMELEC, 320 SCRA 817 [1998}) The
proclamation of the candidate sought to be disqualified is suspended only if there
is an order of the COMELEC suspending the proclamation (Bagatsing vs COMELEC, 320
SCRA 817 [1999])
Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks

Petition to Declare a Candidate a Nuisance Candidate
Section 69, BP 881
Any registered candidate for the same elective office
Within five days following the last day for the filing of the certificate of
candidacy (COC)
Law Department of the Commission

Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks

Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel the COC
Section 78, OEC Any material misrepresentation contained in the COC referring to
the qualifications for the office with deliberate attempt to misinform, mislead, or
hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible/candidate lacks any
of the required qualifications for the office/fatally defective COC/COC filed
beyond the prescribed period
Any citizen of voting age, duly registered political party, organization or
coalition of political parties
five (5) days from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy; but not
later than twenty five (25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of
candidacy subject of the Petition
Law Department of the Commission
The cancellation of the certificate of candidacy renders it void ab initio, and if
said cancellation takes effect after election, it should be given retroactive
effect so as to nullify the votes cast for the ineligible candidate
The two requirements of false statement in the COC with deliberate intent to
mislead must concur to warrant the cancellation of the COC
Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Pre-Proclamation Controversies

composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers
candidate, political party, or coalition of political parties
Before the proclamation
Board of Canvassers or Commission

No pre- proclamation cases in the elections for President, Vice President,
Senators,and Members of the House of Representatives

preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns
Board of Canvassers

Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Petition for Disqualification (After the Elections)

Within 10 days after proclamation
Electoral Tribunal (Congressional, Senatorial, Vice President, President

Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Post-election Disputes
Election Protest
fraud and election irregularities
candidate who has been voted to the same office and who obtained the 2nd/3rd
highest number of votes or 4th (multi-slot positions)
10 days after proclamation
Municipal Trial Court (Barangay), Regional Trial Court (Municipal), COMELEC
(regional, provincial, city) Electoral Tribunal (Congressional, Senatorial, Vice
Presidential, and Presidential)
Protestee may be ousted and the protestant seated in the offfice vacated

Petition for Quo Warranto
ineligibility or disloyalty of the winning candidates
any registered voter who voted during the election concerned
Protestee may be ousted but the protestant will not be seated

Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Post-election Disputes
Petition for Postponement or for Declaration of Failure of Election

COMELEC en banc

Remedy
Cause of Action
Who Can File
When to File
Where to File
Effects
Remarks
Criminal Case for Election Offense
Section 261-262 of BP 881, Section 27 and 27 (b) of RA 6646, Section 13 of RA 9006,
Sections 32-34 of RA 7166

Regional Trial Court

The regional trial court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and
decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this Code, except those
relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be
under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. (Sec. 268, BP
881). The COMELEC is
vested with the power of a public prosecutor with the exclusive authority to
conduct the preliminary investigation and prosecution of election offenses
punishable under the OEC before the competent court.
Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Municipal and Barangay Officials (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC) ##
Election Contests
election protests
petitions for quo warranto
Election Protest - relating to the election and returns of elective officials,
grounded on frauds or irregularities in the conduct of the
elections in the
casting and counting of the ballots
preparation and canvassing of returns.
The issue is who obtained the plurality of valid votes cast
Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code - relating to the qualifications of
an elective official on the ground of
ineligibility or disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines
The issue is whether respondent possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law.

SEC. 2. Jurisdiction of municipal trial courts. –

exclusive original jurisdiction over all election contests involving elective
barangay officials.
An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto, nor shall a
petition for quo warranto include an election protest.
SEC. 4. Modes of service and filing. – personally

resort to other modes of service must be accompanied by a written explanation why
the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule shall be
cause to consider the pleading or paper as not filed.

SEC. 5. Election protest. –

A petition contesting the election or returns of an elective barangay official

filed with the municipal trial court ##by any candidate who was voted for the same
office and who received the second or third highest number of votes or, in a multi-
slot position, was among the next four candidates following the last-ranked winner
duly proclaimed

party filing the protest shall be designated as the protestant; the adverse party
shall be known as the protestee.
Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office; however, contests for offices
of Sangguniang Bayan or Sangguniang Barangay may be consolidated in one case.

SEC. 6. Quo Warranto. –

A petition for quo warranto against an elective barangay official shall be filed
with the municipal trial court

by any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned

party filing the petition shall be designated as the petitioner; the adverse party
shall be known as the respondent.

SEC. 7. Petition must be verified and accompanied by a certificate of non-forum
shopping. –

An unverified petition or one with insufficient verification or unaccompanied by a
certificate of non-forum shopping shall be dismissed outright and shall not suspend
the running of the reglementary period to file an election protest or petition
for quo warranto.

SEC. 8. Period to file protest or petition; non-extendible. –

non-extendible period of ten days following the date of proclamation.

SEC. 9. Pendency of pre-proclamation controversy. –

suspend the running of the period to file an election protest or petition for quo
warranto.


SEC. 10. COMELEC judgment in disqualification case. –

A decision of the Commission on Elections, either in division or en banc, in a
disqualification case shall not bar the filing of a petition for quo warranto based
on the same ground, except when the Supreme Court has affirmed the COMELEC decision

SEC. 11. Contents of the protest or petition. - An election protest or petition
for quo warranto shall specifically state the following facts:

(a) the position involved;
(b) the date of proclamation; and
(c) the number of votes credited to the parties per proclamation.
An election protest shall also state:
(d) the total number of precincts of the municipality or the barangay concerned;
(e) the protested precincts and votes of the parties in the protested precincts per
the Statement of Votes By Precinct or, if the votes of the parties are not
specified, an explanation why the votes are not specified; and
(f) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the
electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts.

SEC. 13. Summary dismissal of election contest. –

summarily dismiss, motu proprio, an election protest, counter-protest or petition
for quo warranto on any of the following grounds:
(a) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required in Section 11
hereof;
(c) The petition is filed beyond the period prescribed in these Rules;
(d) The filing fee is not paid within the period for filing the election protest or
petition for quo warranto; and
(e) In case of protest where a cash deposit is required, the cash deposit is not
paid within five days from the filing of the protest.

SECTION 1. Summons. –

Within twenty-four hours from the filing of the protest or petition

filing of an answer within a non-extendible period of five days from notice.

SEC. 2. Service of summons. –

in person

in case of refusal of the protestee or respondent to receive and sign for it, by
tendering the same.
If, for justifiable causes, the protestee or respondent cannot be served in person
as provided above, service may be effected by leaving copies of the summons at:
(a) the residence of protestee or respondent with some person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein, or
(b) the office or regular place of business of protestee or respondent with some
competent person in charge thereof.

RULE 4#ANSWER AND COUNTER-PROTEST

SECTION 1. Verified answer; counter-protest. –

five days from receipt

three legible copies

admissions and denials,

special and affirmative defenses

compulsory counterclaim

counter-protest
counter-protested precincts
votes of the parties therein per the Statement of Votes By Precinct
an explanation why the votes are not specified,
detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral
frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the counter-protested precincts.

SEC. 2. Answer to counterclaim or counter-protest. –

non-extendible period of five days from notice.

SECTION 1. Prohibited pleadings and motions. –

(a) Motion to dismiss the petition except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Demurrer to evidence;
(d) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of
trial;
(e) Petition for relief from judgment;
(f) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or other papers;
(g) Memoranda, except as provided under Section 7, Rule 13 of these Rules;
(h) Motion to declare the protestee or respondent in default;
(i) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(j) Motion to inhibit the presiding judge except on clearly valid grounds;
(k) Reply or rejoinder; and
(l) Third-party complaint.

Sec. 2. Offer of evidence. – The court shall consider no evidence that has not been
formally offered.1âwphi1 Offer of evidence shall be done orally on the last day of
hearing allowed for each party after the presentation of the last witness. The
opposing party shall be required to immediately interpose objections thereto. The
court shall rule on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the court may, at
its discretion, allow the party to make an offer of evidence in writing, which
shall be submitted within three days. If the court rejects any evidence offered,
the party may make a tender of excluded evidence. (Rule 13)

SEC. 2. Revision committee; under the supervision of the court. - There shall be
constituted such number of revision committees as may be necessary. Each revision
committee shall be composed of a chairperson and two members, one designated by the
protestant and another designated by the protestee. The court shall designate the
chairperson from among its personnel. The parties shall also designate their
respective substitute revisors.

SECTION 1. Motion for technical examination; contents. - A party may move for the
technical examination within five days after completion of revision in the protest
or counter-protest, except when it involves allegation of massive substitute voting
in the protest or counter-protest, specifying:
(a) The nature of the technical examination requested (e.g., fingerprint
examination, etc.);
(b) The documents to be subjected to technical examination;
(c) The objections made in the course of the revision of ballots which the movant
intends to substantiate with the results of the technical examination; and
(d) The ballots covered by such objections.

SEC. 6. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are considered as
facts, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) On the election procedure:
(1) The election of candidates was held on the date and time set and in the polling
place determined by the Commission on Elections;
(2) The Boards of Election Inspectors were duly constituted and organized;
(3) Political parties and candidates were duly represented by pollwatchers;
(4) Pollwatchers were able to perform their functions; and
(5) The Minutes of Voting and Counting contains all the incidents that transpired
before the Board of Election Inspectors.

(b) On election paraphernalia:
(1) Ballots and election returns that bear the security markings and features
prescribed by the Commission on Elections are genuine;
(2) The data and information supplied by the members of the Boards of Election
Inspectors in the accountable forms are true and correct; and
(3) The allocation, packing and distribution of election documents or paraphernalia
were properly and timely done.

(3) The allocation, packing and distribution of election documents or paraphernalia
were properly and timely done.
(c) On appreciation of ballots:
(1) A ballot with appropriate security markings is valid;
(2) The ballot reflects the intent of the voter;
(3) The ballot is properly accomplished;
(4) A voter personally prepared one ballot, except in the case of assistors; and
(5) The exercise of one's right to vote was voluntary and free.

SECTION 1. Rendition of decision. - The court shall decide the election contest
within thirty days from the date it is submitted for decision, in no case beyond
six months after its filing, unless the Supreme Court authorizes an extension in
writing. Failure to comply herewith shall be considered a serious offense and shall
be ground for disciplinary action against the judge. In addition, after the
expiration of six months, the judge shall be relieved of all duties and functions,
except to decide the election case.
An election protest is deemed submitted for decision after completion of the
reception of evidence or, if the parties were allowed to submit memoranda, upon
submission of such memoranda or the expiration of the period for their filing,
whichever is earlier. In an election protest, the winner shall be the candidate who
obtained the plurality of the valid votes cast.
SEC. 8. Appeal. - An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission on
Elections, within five days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with
the court that rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or
party if not represented by counsel.

SEC. 9. Appeal fee. - The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court
that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00),
simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

SEC. 11. Execution pending appeal. - On motion of the prevailing party with notice
to the adverse party, the court, while still in possession of the original records,
may, at its discretion, order the execution of the decision in an election contest
before the expiration of the period to appeal, subject to the following rules:
(a) There must be a motion by the prevailing party with three-day notice to the
adverse party. Execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior notice and
hearing. There must be good reasons for the execution pending appeal. The court, in
a special order, must state the good or special reasons justifying the execution
pending appeal. Such reasons must:
(1) constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the
injury or damage should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment on
appeal; and
(2) be manifest, in the decision sought to be executed, that the defeat of the
protestee or the victory of the protestant has been clearly established.
(b) If the court grants an execution pending appeal, an aggrieved party shall have
twenty working days from notice of the special order within which to secure a
restraining order or status quo order from the Supreme Court or the Commission on
Elections. The corresponding writ of execution shall issue after twenty days, if no
restraining order or status quo order is issued. During such period, the writ of
execution pending appeal shall be stayed.

SEC. 12. Jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections in certiorari cases. - The
Commission on Elections has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs
of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
over decisions of the courts in election cases involving elective municipal and
barangay officials.
Took effect May 15, 2007
Regio vs COMELEC, 2013#

The Facts
Petitioner Jaime C. Regio (Regio) and private respondent Ronnie C. Co (Co), among
other candidates, ran in the October 25, 2010 barangay elections in Barangay 296,
Zone 28, District III of the City of Manila for the position of punong barangay.
Immediately following the counting and canvassing of the votes from seven clustered
precincts in the adverted barangay, Regio, who garnered four hundred seventy-eight
(478) votes, as against the three hundred thirty-six (336) votes obtained by Co,
was proclaimed winner for the contested post of punong barangay.

The detailed tally of the votes per precinct, as reflected in the Statement of
Votes, is as follows :
Candidate
Clustered Precinct Number
Total
1302A 1303A
1304A 1305A
1306A
1307A 1307B
Co, Ronnie C.
76
113
48
99
336
Regio, Jaime C.
171
151
73
83
478

On November 4, 2010, Co filed an election protest before the MeTC.
He claimed, among other things, that the Board of Election Tellers (BET) did not
follow COMELEC Resolution No. 9030, as it:
(1) did not permit his supporters to vote;
(2) allowed "flying voters" to cast votes; and
(3) ignored the rules on appreciation of ballots, resulting in misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots.
Additionally, he alleged that Regio committed vote-buying, and engaged in
distribution of sample ballots inside the polling centers during the day of the
elections.2

Of the seven clustered precincts (CPs) initially protested, Co would later exclude
CP Nos. 1304A and 1305A from the protest. During the preliminary conference, the
trial court allowed the revision of ballots. The revision of ballots occurred on
January 13-14, 2011.3 Per the report of the revision committee, the number of votes
obtained by both candidates in the contested precincts, as shown below, indica
ted a substantial recovery on the part of Co:
Candidate
Clustered Precinct Number
Total
1âwphi1
1302A 1303A
1304A 1305A
1306A
1307A 1307B
Co, Ronnie C.
160
--
63
98
321
Regio, Jaime C.
86
--
62
84
232

During his turn to present evidence, Co limited his offer to the revision committee
report, showing that he garnered the highest number of votes.
The results of the revision notwithstanding, the trial court, in its Decision of
May 4, 2011, dismissed Co’s protest and declared Regio as the duly-elected punong
barangay of Barangay 296

COMELEC First Division12
dismissed the appeal, noting, as the MeTC did, that Co failed to show that the
integrity of the ballots in question was in fact preserved.
the absence of any report or record of tampering of the ballot boxes does not
preclude the possibility of ballot tampering.13
affirmed the rejection of Co’s reliance on the revision committee report as proof
that no post-election tampering occurred
note that protestant-appellant did not offer any evidence to prove his claims of
misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of the ballots; he posits that the
variance between the election results according to the election documents and the
revision of the ballots is in itself enough to prove his allegations of misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of the ballots by the Board of Election Tellers.

a Motion for Reconsideration. In its assailed December 7, 2012 Resolution, the
COMELEC En Banc17reconsidered the August 23, 2011 Resolution of the First Division,
and accordingly declared Co as the duly elected punong barangay. Vital to the En
Banc’s disposition is its finding that the ballots subjected to revision were
genuine
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to
reconsider its Resolution dated August 23, 2011 and proclaim protestant-appellant
as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay 296, District III, Manila

Thus, the present recourse, on the argument that the COMELEC En Banc committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
arbitrarily set aside the Decision of the MeTC and the Resolution of the COMELEC
First Division, in the choice between the revision results in the protested
precincts and the official vote count recorded in the election returns. Petitioner
further argues that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it demanded from
protestee direct proof of actual tampering of ballots to justify consideration of
the use of the election returns in determining the winning candidate in the
elections. In fine, petitioner questions the ruling of the COMELEC giving
precedence to the results of the revision over the official canvassing results.

The Issues
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT CO HAD
SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BALLOTS
SUBJECTED TO REVISION.
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN REVERSING THE RULING OF THE COMELEC FIRST
DIVISION, TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONER REGIO IS THE DULY-ELECTED PUNONG BARANGAY.

Rosal v. COMELEC23
this Court summarized the standards to be observed in an election contest
predicated on the theory that the election returns do not accurately reflect the
will of the voters due to alleged irregularities in the appreciation and counting
of ballots.
These guiding standards are:
(1) The ballots cannot be used to overturn the official count as reflected in the
election returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that the ballots have been
preserved with a care which precludes the opportunity of tampering and suspicion of
change, abstraction or substitution;
(2) The burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved in
such a manner is on the protestant;
(3) Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made
of such substantial compliance with the requirements of that mode as would provide
assurance that the ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight
deviations from the precise mode of achieving that end;
(4) It is only when the protestant has shown substantial compliance with the
provisions of law on the preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual
tampering or likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee; and
(5) Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court of COMELEC that the
integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it adopt the result as shown by
the recount and not as reflected in the election returns.

Rosal was promulgated precisely to honor the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions.
Following Rosal, it is presumed that the BET and Board of Canvassers had faithfully
performed the solemn duty reposed unto them during the day of the elections. Thus,
primacy is given to the official results of the canvassing, even in cases where
there is a discrepancy between such results and the results of the revision
proceedings. It is only when the protestant has successfully discharged the burden
of proving that the re-counted ballots are the very same ones counted during the
revision proceedings, will the court or the Commission, as the case may be, even
consider the revision results. Even then, the results of the revision will not
automatically be given more weight over the official canvassing results or the
election returns. What happens in the event of discrepancy between the revision
results and the election returns is that the burden of proof shifts to the
protestee to provide evidence of actual tampering of the ballots, or at least a
likelihood of tampering. It is only when the court or the COMELEC is fully
satisfied that the ballots have been well preserved, and that there had been no
tampering of the ballots, that it will accord credibility to the results of the
revision
Disputable Presumptions (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC)

The duty of the protestee in an election contest to provide evidence of actual
tampering or any likelihood arises only when the protestant has first successfully
discharge the burden or providing that the ballots have been secured to prevent
tampering or susceptibility of charge, abstraction or substitution. Such need to
present proof of tampering did not arise since protestant himself failed to provide
evidence of the integrity of the ballots.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The
Resolution dated December 7, 2012 of the COMELEC En Banc in EAC (BRGY-SK) No. 161-
2011 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division dated August 23, 2011, affirming the Decision in Election Case No. 02480-
EC of the MeTC. Branch 4 in Manila is hereby REINSTATED.
Abad Jr. vs COMELEC, 1999#G.R. No. 128877 December 10, 1999##

Factual antecedents
Petitioner Abad and private respondent Sarenas were both candidates for Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) chairman of Barangay Sta. Barbara, Llanera, Nueva Ecija, during the
May 6, 1996, SK elections.
Petitioner emerged as winner with 66 votes as against private respondent's 62
votes. Petitioner was thus proclaimed SK chairman of Sta. Barbara. 2
Private respondent soon thereafter filed an election protest before the Second
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, presided over
by respondent Judge
alleging fraud on the part of petitioner through the registration of four
unqualified voters. Three voters were allegedly underaged while one lacked the
required residency in the barangay.
asked for a recount of the votes cast.

Order dated June 3, 1996, respondent MCTC Judge Fernandez ruled in favor of private
respondent
while the registry list of voters is indeed conclusive as to who can vote, this
must be disregarded if justice were to prevail.
a recount of the votes would not be determinative of who actually won the SK
chairmanship
ordered that four votes, representing the votes of those persons whose
qualification as voters were questioned, be deducted from petitioner. 4
As this resulted in a 62-62 tie between petitioner and private respondent, Judge
Fernandez ordered that the winner be determined via drawing of lots or toss of a
coin. 5

Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26
which, however, dismissed his appeal
since under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, the decision of the MCTC insofar as the SK
election is concerned can only be elevated to the COMELEC en banc through a
petition for review and only in meritorious cases
ordered remand of the case to the court of origin. 6
The drawing of lots ordered by the MCTC proceeded on October 3, 1996.
Petitioner was absent although he was duly notified of the proceeding. 7
Private respondent Sarenas emerged as winner in the drawing of lots.
In an order issued on the same day, the MCTC directed him to take his oath of
office and to assume his duties as SK chairman.

petitioner Abad then filed a petition for review with the COMELEC en banc.
In its Resolution dismissing the petition, the COMELEC said:
the June 3, 1996 Order of the Municipal Trial Court had, as of the filing of the
Petition for Review already become final
Records show that the decision of the Trial Court annulling the proclamation of
Abad and declaring a tie between him and Sarenas, to be broken by a drawing of
lots, was received by Abad on June 5, 1996. Though he appealed said Order to the
Regional Trial Court, the remedy availed of was not the one obtaining under COMELEC
Resolution 2824, Section 49 of which provides:
Finality of Proclamation. —
The proclamation of the winning candidates shall be final.
However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases,
whose decision shall be final.
The Commission En Banc in meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of
the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure.
An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shall be required which shall be refundable if the
appeal is found meritorious.
Petitioner should have directed his Petition to the Commission En Banc within
thirty days from June 5, 1996, the date the decision was served upon him. Even if
we assume that his procedural lapse was justifiable thus permit his appeal to the
RTC to stay the running of the prescriptive period, he should have rectified his
error upon receipt of the Order of the RTC dismissing his Appeal on July 10, 1996.
Issues
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for not declaring as null and
void the challenged orders of the trial court
COMELEC's own jurisdiction

Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections, [212 SCRA 307, 313 (1992)]
the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to hear and
decide election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions
of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases
decided by it in the first instance is null and void.
Zarate v. COMELEC, (G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999, p. 8)
We nullified the decision of the COMELEC, which incidentally also concerns a 1996
SK election case appealed directly from the MTC. We remanded the case and ordered
it assigned to an appropriate division of the COMELEC.

Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections, [212 SCRA 307, 313 (1992)]
the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to hear and
decide election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions
of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases
decided by it in the first instance is null and void.
Zarate v. COMELEC, (G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999, p. 8)
We nullified the decision of the COMELEC, which incidentally also concerns a 1996
SK election case appealed directly from the MTC. We remanded the case and ordered
it assigned to an appropriate division of the COMELEC.

petition is GRANTED.
decision of the COMELEC en banc in SPR No. 45-96 is SET ASIDE
Commission is ordered to assign the case to one of its Divisions for prompt
resolution.

Municipal Officials#
Section 1. Jurisdiction of regional trial courts. – exclusive original jurisdiction
over all election contests involving municipal officials.

Section 2. How initiated. – filed directly with the court in three legible copies
plus such number of copies corresponding to the number of protestees or
respondents.

An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto, nor shall a
petition for quo warranto include an election protest.

Section 3. Modes of service and filing. – personally. Except for papers emanating
from the court, resort to other modes of service must be accompanied by a written
explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A pleading or motion
violating this Rule shall be considered not to have been filed.1avvphi1

Section 4. Election protest. –
contesting the election or returns for an elective municipal office shall be
filed with the proper Regional Trial Court
by any candidate who was voted for the same office and who received the second or
third-highest number of votes or, in a multi-slot position, was among the next four
candidates following the last-ranked winner duly proclaimed
Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office; however, contests for offices
of the Sangguniang Bayan may be consolidated in one case.

Section 5. Quo warranto. –

filed with the proper Regional Trial Court
by any registered voter who voted in the municipal election

Section 7. Period to file protest or petition; non-extendible. – non-extendible
period of ten (10) days from the date of proclamation.

Section 8. Pendency of pre-proclamation controversy. – The pendency of a pre-
proclamation controversy, involving the validity of the proclamation as defined by
law, shall suspend the running of the period for the filing of an election protest
or petition for quo warranto.

Section 9. COMELEC judgment in disqualification case. – The decision of the
COMELEC, either en banc or in division, in a disqualification case shall not be a
bar to the filing of a petition for quo warranto based on the same ground, except
when the Supreme Court has affirmed the COMELEC decision.


Section 10. Contests of the protest or petition. –

(a) An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall commonly and
specifically state the following facts:

(i) the position involved;
(ii) the date of proclamation; and
(iii) the number of votes credited to the parties per the proclamation.

(b) A quo warranto petition shall also state:
(i) if the petitioner is not a candidate for the same municipal position, the facts
giving the petitioner standing to file the petition;
(ii) the qualifications for the municipal office and the disqualifications
prescribed by law;
(iii) the petitioner’s cited ground for ineligibility or the specific acts of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

(c) An election protest shall also state:
(i) that the protestant was a candidate who had duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and had been voted for the same office;
(ii) the total number of precincts in the municipality;
(iii) the protested precincts and votes of the parties are not specified, an
explanation why the votes are not specified; and
(iv) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the
electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts.

Section 12. Summary dismissal of election contests. – The court shall summarily
dismiss, motu proporio, an election protest, counter-protest or petition for quo
warranto on any of the following grounds:
(a) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required under Section 10;
(c) The petition is filed beyond the period prescribed in these Rules;
(d) The filling fee is not paid within the period for filling the election protest
or petition for quo warranto; and
(e) In a protest case where cash deposit is required, the deposit is not paid
within five (5) days from the filling of the protest.

PROHIBITED PLEADINGS
Section 1. Prohibited pleadings and motions. – The following pleadings, motions or
petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by these Rules:
(a) Motion to dismiss the petition, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Demurrer to evidence;
(d) Motion for new trial, or for the reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
(e) Petition for relief from judgment;
(f) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or other papers;
(g) Memoranda, except as provided under Section 7, Rile 13 of these Rules;
(h) Motion to declare the protestee or the respondent in default;
(i) Dilatory motion for postponements;
(j) Motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge, except on clearly valid
grounds;
(k) Reply or rejoinder; and
(l) Third-party complaint.

Section 1. Filling fees. – No protest, counter-protest or petition for quo warranto
shall be accepted for filling without the payment of a filling fee in the amount of
Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for every protest, counter-protest or petition for
quo warranto filed.
If claims for damages and attorney’s fees are set forth in a protest or counter-
protest, additional filling fees shall be paid in accordance with the schedule
under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Section 2. Cash deposit. –
(a) In addition to the fees prescribed in the preceding section, the protestant in
an election protest requiring revision or examination of ballots, or the
verification or re-tabulation of election returns, or which may require bringing
copies of other election documents and paraphernalia to court, shall make a cash
deposit with the court in the following amounts:
i. One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for each precinct covered by the protest or
counter-protest, provided that the deposit shall in no case be less than Twenty-
five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to be paid upon the filling of the election
protest or counter-protest;
ii. Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for the cost of bringing to court and
of storing and maintaining the PCOS, the consolidation machines and other automated
election paraphernalia brought to court as evidence or as necessary equipment in
considering the protested or counter-protested ballots;
iii. If the amount to be deposit does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00), the required sum shall be paid in full within ten (10) days from the
filling of the protest or counter-protest; and
iv. If the required deposit shall exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00),
a cash deposit in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be
made within ten (10) days from the filling of the protest or counter-protest. The
balance shall be paid in installments under the schedule the court may require
after hearing the Protestant or counter-Protestant on the matter.
Section 10. Post-revision determination of the merit or legitimacy of the protest
prior to revision of the counter-protest. – Immediately after the revision or
examination of ballots, or the verification or re-tabulation of election returns in
all protested precincts, the protestant shall be required to point to a number of
precincts, corresponding to twenty percent (20%) of the total of the revised
protested precincts, that will best attest to the votes recovered, ore that will
best exemplify the fraud or irregularities pleaded in the protest. In the
meanwhile, the revision or examination of the ballots, or the verification or re-
tabulation of election returns in the counter-protested precincts, shall be
suspended for a period not exceeding fifteen days to allow the court to
preliminarily determine, through the appreciation of ballots and other submitted
election documents, the merit of legitimacy of the protest based in the chosen
twenty percent (20%) of the protested precincts.
Based on the results of this post-revision preliminary determination, the court may
dismiss the protest without further proceedings if the validity of the grounds for
the protest is no established by the evidence from the chosen twenty percent (20%)
of the protested precincts; or proceed with the revision or examination if the
ballots, or the verification or re-tabulation of election returns in the counter-
protested precincts. In the latter case, the protestee shall be required to pay the
cash deposit within a non-extendible period of three (3) days from notice.

TECHNICAL EXAMINATION
Section 1. Motion f or technical examination; contents. – Except when the protest
or counter-protest involves allegation of massive substitute voting, a party may
move for the technical examination of the presented evidence within five (5) days
after completion of the revision in the protest or counter-protest, specifying:
(a) The nature of the technical examination requested (e.g., fingerprint
examination, etc.);
(b) The documents or machines/equipment to be subjected to technical examination;
(c) The objections made in the course of the revision of ballots which the movant
intends to substantiate with the results of the technical examination; and
(d) The ballots covered by these objections.
Section 2. Technical examination; time limits. – The court may grant the motion for
technical examination at its discretion and under the conditions it may impose. If
the motion is granted, the technical examination shall start within five (5) days
from notice to both parties, and shall be completed within the period specified by
the court, in no case to exceed to twenty successive working days, unless the court
grants an extension based on exceptionally meritorious ground. A party may attend
the technical examination either personally or through a representative. However
the technical examination shall proceed with or without the attendance of a party,
provided that the due notice has been given.
The expenses for technical examination shall be for the account of the party
requesting the examination. The technical examination shall be under the
supervision of the clerk of court.
Section 3. Experts; who shall provide. – Experts necessary for the conduct of
technical examination shall be provided by the party requesting the same and may
come from the National Bureau of Investigation, the PNP Crime Laboratory, the
Commission on Elections, the Department of Science and Technology, or experts from
the private sector. The other party may secure the services of his or her own
expert who may only observe, not interfere with, the examination conducted by the
movant’s experts.

Section 2. Offer of evidence. – The court shall not consider any evidence that has
not been formally offered. Offer of evidence shall be done orally on the last day
of hearing allowed for each party after the presentation of the party’s last
witness. The opposing party shall be required to immediately interpose objections
to the offer. The court shall rule on the offer of evidence in open court. However,
the court may, at its discretion, allow the party to make an offer of evidence in
writing, which shall be submitted within three days from notice of the court’s
order. If the court rejects any evidence offered, the party may make a tender of
the excluded evidence.

Section 6. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are considered as
established facts, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) On the election procedure:
(i) The election of candidates was held on the date and at the time set and in the
polling place determined by the Commission on Elections;
(ii) The Boards of Election Inspectors were duly constituted and organized;
(iii) Political parties and candidates were duly represented by pollwatchers;
(iv) Pollwatchers were able to perform their functions;
(v) The Minutes of Voting and Counting contains all the incidents that transpired
before the Board of Election Inspectors; and
(vi) The Audit Log contains the list of all activities performed by the PCOS
machines from the time it was powered on until it was turned off.

(b) On election paraphernalia:
(i) Ballots and election returns that bear the security markings and features
prescribed by the Commission on Elections are genuine;
(ii) The data and information supplied by the members of the Boards of Election
Inspectors in the accountable forms are true and correct; and
(iii) The allocation, packing and distribution of election documents or
paraphernalia were properly and timely done;
(iv) The PCOS and consolidation machines and the data storage devices are all in
order, and the data generated reflect the activities entered in these electronic
machines and devices.

(c) On appreciation of ballots:
(i) A ballot with appropriate security markings is valid;
(ii) The ballot reflects the intent of the voter;
(iii) The ballot was properly accomplished;
(iv) A voter personally prepared one ballot, except in the case of assistors; and
(v) The exercise of one’s right to vote was voluntary and free.

Section 2. Form of decision in election protests. – After the termination of the
revision of ballots and before rendering its decision in an election protest that
involved a revision, the court shall examine and appreciate the original ballots.
The court, in its appreciation of the ballots and in ruling on the parties’ claims
and objections, shall observe the following rules:
(a) On marked ballots – The court must specify and point to the marking clearly
indicating the voter’s intent to identify the ballot.
(b) On fake or spurious ballots, election document, machine, device or
paraphernalia – The court must specify the COMELEC security markings or features
that are not found in the ballot, election documents, machine, device or
paraphernalia considered fake or spurious, or the operation or aspects of the
machine, device or paraphernalia that resulted in fake or spurious results;
(c) On stray ballots – The court must specify and state in detail why the ballots
are considered stray;
(d) On claimed ballots – The court must specify the exact basis for admitting
claimed votes or crediting these to either party.

Section 5. Finality of decision. – The court’s promulgated decision shall become
final and executory five (5) days after receipt of notice by the parties if no
appeal is taken.
Section 6. Entry of judgment. – If no appeal is filed within the time provided in
these Rules, the judgment shall be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of
judgments. The date of finality of the judgment shall be the date of its entry. The
record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment and shall be signed by
the clerk, with a certificate that the judgment has become final and executory.
Section 7. Notice of final decision. – As soon as the decision becomes final, the
clerk of court shall send notices to the COMELEC, the Department of the Interior
and Local Government, and the Commission on Audit.
Section 8. Appeal. – An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the COMELEC
within five (5) days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the
court that rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or on the
adverse party who is not represented by counsel.
Section 9. Appeal fee. – The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the
court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00),
simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

Section 11. Execution pending appeal. – On motion of the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party, the court, at its discretion and while still in
possession of the original records, may order the execution of its decision before
the expiration of the period to appeal, subject to the following rules:
(a) Execution pending appeal shall not issue except upon motion and hearing with
prior notice of the motion of at least three (3) days to the adverse party. The
motion for execution pending appeal must be supported by good reasons cited and
stated by the court in a special order. These reasons must:
(i) constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that would outweigh the
injury or damage, should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment on
appeal; and
(ii) manifest, in the decision sought to be executed, that the defeat of the
protestee or the victory of the protestant has been clearly established.
(b) If the court grants an execution pending appeal, an aggrieved party shall have
twenty working days from notice of the special order within which to secure a
restraining order or status quo order from the Supreme Court or the COMELEC. The
corresponding writ of execution shall issue after twenty (20) days if no
restraining order or status quo order is issued. During the twenty (20)-day period,
the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal shall be stayed.
Section 12. Jurisdiction of the Commission on Elec
Gomez – Castillo vs COMELEC, 2010

Castillo and respondent Strike P. Revilla ran for Municipal Mayor of Bacoor, Cavite
during the May 14, 2007 local elections.
After the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Revilla as the elected Municipal
Mayor of Bacoor, Cavite, Castillo filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam2 in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bacoor, Cavite, which was eventually raffled to
Branch 19.
Answer
Revilla sought the dismissal of the election protest, alleging that it was filed in
the wrong Branch of the RTC.
Supreme Court Administrative Order (SCAO) No. 54-2007 designated Branch 22 of the
RTC in Imus, Cavite and Branch 88 of the RTC in Cavite City to hear, try and decide
election contests involving municipal officials in Cavite; and that contrary to
SCAO No. 54-2007, Castillo filed his protest in the RTC in Bacoor, Cavite, which
was not the proper court.
Branch 19 dismissed Castillo’s election protest for being violative of SCAO No. 54-
2007.

On December 23, 2008, Castillo presented a notice of appeal.3 Thereupon, the RTC
ordered that the complete records of the protest be forwarded to the Election
Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) of the COMELEC.4
On December 23, 2008, Castillo presented a notice of appeal.3 Thereupon, the RTC
ordered that the complete records of the protest be forwarded to the Election
Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) of the COMELEC.4

Issues
Does Section 13 of Rule 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC designate the RTC Branch that has
jurisdiction over an election contest, or does it merely designate the
proper venue for filing?
In case the RTC was incorrect, is the error enough to warrant the reversal of its
order of dismissal despite its having attained finality?

The jurisdiction over election contests involving elective municipal officials has
been vested in the RTC by Section 251, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election
Code).11 On the other hand, A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, by specifying the proper venue
where such cases may be filed and heard, only spelled out the manner by which an
RTC with jurisdiction exercises such jurisdiction. Like other rules on venue, A.M.
No. 07-4-15-SC was designed to ensure a just and orderly administration of
justice,12 and is permissive, because it was enacted to ensure the exclusive and
speedy disposition of election protests and petitions for quo warranto involving
elective municipal officials.

Section 8 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC provides that:
Section 8. Appeal. - An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission
on Elections within five days after promulgation by filing a notice of appeal with
the court that rendered the decision with copy served on the adverse counsel or
party if not represented by counsel.
Jurisdiction of the COMELEC#

Article IX-C, 1987 Philippine Constitution
Chairman and six Commissioners
a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
term of seven years without reappointment

Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and
appellate jurisdiction - elective municipal officials or elective barangay
officials
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and
not appealable.
Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections

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

en banc or in two divisions
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en

banc.

Election period
ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.
Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC, 2015#

facts are not disputed.
On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private
compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was
approximately six feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the
front walls of the cathedral within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the
message "IBASURA RH Law" referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or
Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present
case.4 This tarpaulin contains the heading "Conscience Vote" and lists candidates
as either "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" with a check mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" with
an "X" mark.5 The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on
the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law.6 Those who
voted for the passing of the law were classified by petitioners as comprising "Team
Patay," while those who voted against it form "Team Buhay":7

On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as
Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign
Materials8 addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra. The
election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three (3) days from receipt
for being oversized. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement
of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).9
On February 25, 2013, petitioners replied10 requesting, among others, that (1)
petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC Law Department regarding
the tarpaulin; and (2) pending this opinion and the availment of legal remedies,
the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.11
On February 27, 2013, COMELEC Law Department issued a letter12 ordering the
immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be constrained to file an
election offense against petitioners. The letter of COMELEC Law Department was
silenton the remedies available to petitioners.

Concerned about the imminent threatof prosecution for their exercise of free
speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order.14 They question respondents’ notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter
issued on February 27, 2013. They pray that: (1) the petition be given due course;
(2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued restraining respondents from further proceeding in enforcing their orders
for the removal of the Team Patay tarpaulin; and (3) after notice and hearing, a
decision be rendered declaring the questioned orders of respondents as
unconstitutional and void, and permanently restraining respondents from enforcing
them or any other similar order.

WHETHER IT IS RELEVANT TODETERMINE WHETHER THE TARPAULINS ARE "POLITICAL
ADVERTISEMENT" OR "ELECTION PROPAGANDA" CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT A
POLITICAL CANDIDATE[;]
WHETHER THE TARPAULINS ARE A FORM OR EXPRESSION (PROTECTED SPEECH), OR ELECTION
PROPAGANDA/POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT[;]
A. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE TARPAULINS ARE A FORM OF EXPRESSION, WHETHER THE
COMELEC POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE SAME[;]
B. WHETHER THIS FORM OF EXPRESSION MAY BE REGULATED[;]

This court has held free speech and other intellectual freedoms as "highly ranked
in our scheme of constitutional values."193 These rights enjoy precedence and
primacy.
The term "political advertisement" or "election propaganda" refers to any matter
broadcasted, published, printed, displayed or exhibited, in any medium, which
contain the name, image, logo, brand, insignia, color motif, initials, and other
symbol or graphic representation that is capable of being associated with a
candidate or party, and is intended to draw the attention of the public or a
segment thereof to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of the
said candidate or candidates to a public office. In broadcast media, political
advertisements may take the form of spots, appearances on TV shows and radio
programs, live or taped announcements, teasers, and other forms of advertising
messages or announcements used by commercial advertisers. Political advertising
includes matters, not falling within the scope of personal opinion, that appear on
any Internet website, including, but not limited to, social networks, blogging
sites, and micro-blogging sites, in return for consideration, or otherwise capable
of pecuniary estimation. (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that this paragraph suggests that personal opinions are not included,
while sponsored messages are covered.
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.
COMELEC’s general role includes a mandate to ensure equal opportunities and reduce
spending among candidates and their registered political parties. It is not to
regulate or limit the speech of the electorate as it strives to participate inthe
electoral exercise.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order
previously issued is hereby made permanent. The act of the COMELEC in issuing the
assailed notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 is
declared unconstitutional.
Jurisdiction of COMELEC
Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, reads:
Sec. 6.Failure of election — If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due
notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the
date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect
but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Canicosa vs COMELEC #G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997

RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for mayor in Calamba,
Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections.
After obtaining a majority of some 24,000 votes1 Lajara was proclaimed winner by
the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass
and Proclamation

Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be
declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by
law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election
returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect on account of force majeure. violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes.

None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those enumerated.
the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in their
respective lists of voters.

Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 the final list of
voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of R.A. No. 7166.

Remedy : petition for inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts.
The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves the right
to vote3 which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon. The
determination of whether one has the right to vote is a justiciable issue properly
cognizable by our regular courts.
Section 138, Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election Code states;
Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. — The municipal and
metropolitan trial courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their respective
municipalities or cities. Decisions of the municipal or metropolitan trial courts
may be appealed directly by the aggrieved party to the proper regional trial court
within five days from receipts of notice thereof, otherwise said decision of the
municipal or metropolitan trial court shall decide the appeal within ten days from
the time the appeal was received and its decision shall be immediately final and
executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the courts (Sec.
37, PD 1896, as amended).

Remedy : verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters
Sec. 10, of R.A. No. 7166:
Sec. 10. Annulment of the List of Voters. — Any book of voters the preparation of
which has been affected with fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation,
force or any other similar irregularity or which is statistically improbable may be
annulled after due notice and hearing by the Commission motu propio or after the
filing of a verified complaint: Provided, that no order, ruling or decision
annulling a book of voters shall be executed within sixty (60) days before an
election.
the permanent list of voters as finally corrected before the election remains
conclusive on the question as to who had the right to vote in that election,
although not in subsequent elections.5

more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote,
instead, strangers voted in their behalf.

Remedy : watcher is empowered by law to challenge any illegal voter
Secs.199 and 202, Art. XVII, of the Omnibus Election Code, provide:
Sec. 199.Challenges of illegal voters. — (a) Any voter, or watcher may challenge
any person offering to vote for not being registered, for using the name of another
or suffering from existing disqualification. In such case, the board of election
inspectors shall satisfy itself as to whether or not the ground for the challenge
is true by requiring proof of registration or identity of the voter . . .
Sec. 202.Record of challenges and oaths. — The poll clerk shall keep a prescribed
record of challenges and oaths taken in connection therewith and the resolution of
the board of election inspectors in each case and, upon the termination of the
voting, shall certify that it contains all the challenges made . . .

he was credited with less votes than he actually received and that the control date
of the election returns was not filled up

Remedy : Protest by the watchers before the Board of Election Inspectors
Section 179, Art. XV, of the Omnibus Election Code clearly provides for the rights
and duties of watchers —
Sec. 179.Rights and duties of watchers. — . . . The watchers . . . shall have the
right to witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the board of election
inspectors . . . to file a protest against any irregularity or violation of law
which they believe may have been committed by the board of election inspectors or
by any of its members or by any persons, to obtain from the board of election
inspectors#a certificates as to the filing of such protest and/or of the resolution
thereon . . . and to be furnished with a certificate of the number of votes in
words and figures cast for each candidate, duly signed and thumbmarked by the
chairman and all the members of the board of election inspectors . . .
Remedy : petition for correction of election returns with COMELEC by all or a
majority of the members of the board of election inspectors or any candidate
affected by the error or mistake.

the election returns were delivered late and the ballot boxes brought to the Office
of the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal
seals

These bare allegations cannot impel us to declare failure of election. Assuming
that the election returns were delivered late, we still cannot see why we should
declare a failure to elect. The late deliveries did not convert the election held
in Calamba into a mockery or farce to make us conclude that there was indeed a
failure of election.

In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the
instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Mitmug v. Commission on Elections6
before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of
election, at least two (2) conditions must concur:
(a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if
there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and,
(b) the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election.
From the face of the instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took
place and that it did not result in a failure to elect.7

Clearly, all these matters require the exercise by the COMELEC of its
administrative functions. Section 2, Art. IX-C, of the 1987 Constitution grants
extensive administrative powers to the COMELEC with regard to the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
Sec. 52 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, states:
Sec. 52.Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections. — In addition to the
powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the Commission shall
have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections of the purposes of ensuring free, orderly and honest
elections . . .
Quite obviously, it is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by
Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is
when it is jurisdictional.

Castromayor v. Commission on Elections11 thus —
It should be pinpointed out, in this connection, that what is involved here is a
simple problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per
precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election
returns. In making the correction in computation, the MBC will be acting in an
administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence,
any question pertaining to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the
COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions
affecting elections.

Rule 27, Sec. 7, of the Comelec Rules of Procedure that any party dissatisfied with
the ruling of the board of canvassers shall have a right to appeal to the
COMELEC en banc:
Sec. 7.Correction of Errors in Tabulation or Tallying of Results by the Board of
Canvassers. — (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation that manifest
errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying or election returns, or
certificates of canvass, during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election
returns of one precinct or two or more copies of a certificate of canvass were
tabulated more than once, (2) two copies of the election returns or certificate of
canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying
of the figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by
precinct, or (4) so-called election returns from non-existent precincts were
included in the canvass, the board may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by
any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties,
after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed . . . (h) The appeal
shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent
Commission on Elections, the petition is DISMISSED and its Resolution en banc of 23
May 1995 dismissing the petition before it on the ground that the allegations
therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election is AFFIRMED.
Dumayas vs COMELEC, 2001 (Protest not cognizable by MBC)

Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for the
position of mayor in Carles, Iloilo last 11 May 1998 synchronized
elections.1âwphi1.nêt
During the canvassing on 13 May 1998, election returns for precinct nos. 61A, 62A,
and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan was protested for inclusion in the canvass
before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC for brevity) by petitioner-appellant
Dumayas Jr. The grounds relied upon for their exclusion are all the same- that is,
"violation of Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election
laws; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by
law."

the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner’s objection to the inclusion of
the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass.
Dumayas 7,777
Bernal 7,904

Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given due course by
the COMELEC Second Division3 which rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998
WHEREFORE, finding the preparation of the contested election returns to be tainted
with irregularities, this Commission (SECOND DIVISION) RESOLVED, as it hereby
RESOLVES, to EXCLUDE Election Return No. 3000976 from Precinct No. 61-A; Election
Return No. 3000977 from Precinct No. 62-A; and Election return No. 3000978 from
Precinct Nos. 63-A/64-A (clustered).
Respondent Mun(i)cipal Board of Canvassers is hereby directed to RECONVENE and
FINISH the canvass of the remaining or uncontested returns and thereafter, PROCLAIM
the winning mayoralty candidate of Carles, Iloilo
On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for
reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 12, 1998, an order certifying that the motion for reconsideration and
records of the case were elevated to the COMELEC en banc was signed by Commissioner
Julio F. Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the resolution
of the COMELEC Second Division, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening
of the MBC on August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings and
proclamation of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors of
Carles, Iloilo. No winner for the position of Mayor was proclaimed since private
respondent was able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before the
MBC. The MBC then reset the date for reconvening of the board on August 17, 1998,
after confirming by phone with COMELEC-Manila that a motion for reconsideration was
indeed filed by private respondent. Thereafter, the MBC ruled that proclamation of
the winning candidate for Mayor would proceed on August 17, 1998 unless private
respondent could present a certification from the COMELEC that the motion for
reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
On August 17, 1998, despite presentation of the August 12, 1998 order, petitioner
was proclaimed winner of the election after excluding from the canvass the election
returns from the three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC Second
Division Resolution. The MBC, with its Vice-Chairman dissenting, justified its act
by reasoning that it did not receive an official copy of the order directing the
elevation of the case to the banc.
The following day, private respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to declare
void ab initio the proclamation of petitioner on the ground that the resolution of
the COMELEC Second Division was not yet final and executory. For his part,
petitioner opposed both the motion for reconsideration and motion to declare
void ab initio his proclamation as Mayor of Carles, asserting that private
respondent failed to show palpable errors to warrant reconsideration of said
resolution and maintaining, at the same time, that his proclamation was legal since
respondent failed to produce the certification required by the MBC.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed
an action for quo warranto5 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo, Branch 66. Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included
respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-Mayor Betita.

On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to
expunge respondent Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and motion to declare
petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal
should be deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of Spl. Civil Action
No. 98-141 which, according to petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo
warranto brought before the regular courts.
In a resolution dated August 24, 1999 but promulgated on March 2, 2000, the
COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion to expunge, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Second Division is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the proclamation of Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby
ANNULLED. A new Municipal Board of Canvassers of Carles, Iloilo is hereby
constituted with the following members: Atty. Nelia Aureus, Chairman; Atty. Rosel
Abad, Vice-Chairman; and Atty. Manuel Lucero, Third Member – all of Election
Contests and Adjudication Department of the Commission. They are directed to
convene at Session Hall of the COMELEC – Main Office, Manila on the tenth (10th)
day from the date of promulgation of this Resolution with notice to the parties.
The new board of canvassers shall complete the canvassing of all the returns and
proceed with the proclamation of the true winner for the position of mayor of
Carles, Iloilo. Petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby directed to cease and
desist from performing the functions of the office of mayor of Carles, Iloilo.
Election Officer Rolando Dalen is hereby directed to bring to the Commission’s Main
Office the election returns of Carles, Iloilo which need to be canvassed and the
other election documents necessary for the canvassing and proclamation and turn
them over to the new board of canvassers.1âwphi1

special civil action, petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr., seeks to nullify the
Resolution promulgated March 2, 2000 by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en
banc, reversing that of the Second Division dated August 4, 1998, which annulled
the petitioner’s proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Carles, Iloilo.

Issues

(1) Should respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in the quo
warranto proceedings commenced before the regular court, be deemed to have
abandoned the motions he had filed with respondent Commission?

(2) Did the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns
in the canvassing of ballots?

(3) In view of the retirement of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani before the date
of the promulgation of the assailed resolution on March 2, 2000, should said
resolution be deemed null and void for being violative of Article IX-A, Section 7
of the 1987 Constitution?


Jamil vs. Commission on Elections,8 we held that a decision becomes binding only
after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated, a judge or member of the
collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated office,
his vote on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly,
the votes of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be considered as
withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the resolution’s
promulgation. The effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had
not signed the resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners
would be properly considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.


As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo
warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or
amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity
of his proclamation.

Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as
where:
(a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted;
(b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy;
(c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election
protest but a petition to annul a proclamation;
(d) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made
without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and
(e) the proclamation was null and void
Samad vs. COMELEC11 , we explained that a petition for quo warranto under the
Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the
winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not
necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. An election protest is a
contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the ground of frauds or
irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of
the returns. It raises the question of who actually obtained the plurality of the
legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office.

Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the COMELEC, or any other
administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are
binding on this Court.18 In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers
and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns
which are on their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues
the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of
election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper remedy is a regular
election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.19

petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, public respondent having committed no
grave abuse of discretion.
Its challenged resolution dated August 24, 1999 is AFFIRMED
Guevara vs COMELEC, 1958 (Contempt)
Relampagosvs COMELEC, 1995 (Certiorari)
Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC
Cua vs COMELEC, (majority vote)#
Certificate of Candidacy
Rullodavs COMELEC, 2003 (substitution)# #
Hayudini vs COMELEC, 2014 (cancellation)# #
Nuisance Candidates
Timbolvs COMELEC, 2015#
De la Cruz vs COMELEC, 2012#
Pre-proclamation Controversy
Ututalum vs COMELEC, 1990
Failure of Election#
Basher vs COMELEC, 2000#
Petition for Disqualification
Abundo vs COMELEC, 2013
Quo Warranto#
Bengzon III vs HRET, 2001
Election Offenses#
Election Offenses#
ELECTION OFFENSES

Section 261, paragraphs (a) to (dd), Section 262, BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code)

Amendments

Section 261 (g) applies only to appointments covered by the Civil Service Law, and
not to those governed by special laws, such as the Local Government Code. Thus, the
prohibition does not apply to the filling up of vacancies in the sanggunian of
local government units (Ong vs Herrera, 188 SCRA 830)
Section 261 (h). Two elements must be establsihed to prove its violation : (1) the
fact of transfer or detail within the election period, and (2) the transfer was
effected without prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance with its implementing
rules and regulations.
Section 261 (p). To support a conviction under the Section 261 (p), it is not
necesary 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 weapon in the polling place and within a radius of 100
meters thereof during any of the specified days and hours [Mappala vs Nunez, 240
SCRA 600 (1995)]
Section 261 (t) has been repealed by Sections 32, 33, 34 of Republic Act 7166
Section 261 (y) and (z) have been repealed by Section 1, Article V of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which makes the exercise of suffrage voluntary and no
longer compulsoary as provided for in the 1973 Constitution
Section 262 has been repealed with retroactive effect by Section 39 of Republic Act
No. 7166 as far as the inclusion of Sections 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, and 112
as among election offenses
Section 263, 264, Omnubus Election Code
Section 27, paragraphs (a) to (f), Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law
of 1987)
Election Offenses#
ELECTION OFFENSES

Section 27, paragraphs (a) to (f), Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law
of 1987)

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act)

Section 24.1 to 24.9 of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003)

Section 45 (a) to (j), Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996)
Faelnar vs People, 2000#
Jalosjos vs COMELEC, 2012#
Javier vs COMELEC#January 12, 2016 G.R. No. 215847

On December 3, 1985, the Batasang Pambansa enacted the Omnibus Election
Code (Election Code). Section 261(d) and (e) of this Code prescribe coercion as an
election offense
Coercion, as an election offense, is punishable by imprisonment of not less than
one year but not more than six years. Notably, Section 68 of the Election Code
provides that the Commission may administratively disqualify a candidate who
violates Section 261(d) or (e).
Javier vs COMELEC#January 12, 2016 G.R. No. 215847

On February 20, 1995, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7890 amending the
definition of Grave Coercion under the Revised Penal Code. It increased the penalty
for coercion committed in violation of a person’s right to suffrage to prision
mayor. Further, Section 3 of R.A. 7890 expressly repealed Section 261, paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of the Election Code.
On April 3, 2012, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9385 fixing the calendar of
activities for the May 2013 elections. The resolution set the election period from
January 13, 2013 until June 12, 2013.
On September 3, 2012, Valderrama Municipal Vice-Mayor Christopher B. Maguad filed
an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct/Dereliction of Duty and Abuse of
Authority against Valderrama Mayor Mary Joyce U. Roquero (Mayor Roquero). This
complaint was docketed as Administrative Case No. 05-2012.

Election Laws

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

Election Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTION LAWS

Batas Pambansa Blg. 881#Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines#December 3, 1985#

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Section 13. Board of Election Inspectors

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

Section 27. Election Offenses

Republic Act No. 6646#The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987#January 5, 1988

after due notice

30 days after the day of the election,

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

3.1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

Republic Act 9006#FAIR ELECTION ACT#February 12, 2001

QUINTO vs. COMELEC #G.R. No. 189698 December 1, 2009

QUINTO vs. COMELEC#G.R. No. 189698 February 22, 2010

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law

at least eighteen (18) years of age,

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Insane or incompetent persons

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Oppositions to contest a registrant’s application for inclusion in the voter’s list

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

fifteen (15) days before the start of the campaign period

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

file with the Board an application for reinstatement or correction of name.

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

Republic Act No. 8189#The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996#

not be subject to probation

disqualification to hold public office and

PARAS vs COMELEC#G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996#

PARAS vs COMELEC#G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996#

PARAS vs COMELEC#G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996#

PARAS vs COMELEC#G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996#

Any voter, candidate, or representative of a registered political party

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective