Election Laws 2020 - PH ZEN EDITION

ELECTION LAWS
AND
JURISPRUDENCE
2020 EDITION
002: Election Laws, Rules, Regulations

064: Jurisprudence
185: History
Page 1
Charm Tan AY 2015-2016
ELECTION LAWS
Part I: ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
1. Election, defined.
- It is the means by which the people choose their officials for a definite and fixed period and to whom they
entrust for the time being the exercise of the powers of the government.
a) Election defined under jurisprudence.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people.
It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote. Specifically, the term
"election," in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing
of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes which do
not characterize the election of officers in the Katipunan ng mga barangay. (Taule v. Santos)
b) Election defined within the context of the Constitution.
The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all
matters affecting the validity of the contestee's title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can say that
"election" referred to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes; "returns" to the canvass of the returns and the
proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board of
canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns and "qualifications" to matters that could be
raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy. (Javier v. COMELEC)
2. Election, purpose.
a) The purpose of an election is to give the voters a direct participation in the affairs of their government,
either in determining who shall be their public officials or in deciding some question of public interest;
and for that purpose all of the legal voters should be permitted, unhampered and unmolested, to cast
their ballot. (Luna v. Rodriguez)
3. Election laws, purpose.

a) Private respondent argues that inasmuch as the barangay election is non-partisan, there can be no
substitution because there is no political party from which to designate the substitute. Such an
interpretation, aside from being non sequitur, ignores the purpose of election laws which is to give
effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters.[12] It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and
unmistakable mandate of the people. It is well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws must be so
construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. (Rulloda
v. COMELEC)
4. Election laws, how construed.

a) Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be
allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in
the choice of their elective officials. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to
the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere
technical objections. In an election case, the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means
within its command who is the real candidate elected by the electorate. The Supreme Court frowns
upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and
intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results. (Carlos v.
Angeles)
b) This Court has time and again liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to
give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people,66 for in case of doubt, political laws must be
1
Page 2
interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. (Frivaldo
v. COMELEC)
5. Election, classified.
a) Regular Election
i. SK Election is not a regular election
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference
to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts,
and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. The evident intent of Section
74 is to subject an elective local official to recall election once during his term of office. Paragraph
(b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local
official may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year of his term of office.
Thus, subscribing to petitioners interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include the SK
election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the Local Government Code on recall, a
mode of removal of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of his term. And if the
SK election which is set by R.A. No. 7808 to be held every three years from May 1996 were to be
deemed within the purview of the phrase regular local election, as erroneously insisted by
petitioner, then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the
Local Government Code. (Paras v. COMELEC)
- The SK election is not a regular election because its members do not even possess suffrage
under the Constitution.
- If the SK election was a regular election, there would be no more recall election because it
always falls within the second year of term of office, the only time when a recall election is
allowed.
- The SK is nothing more than a youth organization. Its elected officers are not one of those
enumerated as elective local officials under the law.
b) Special Election to fill our vacancy

c) Special election after failure of election
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.
(Omnibus Election Code)
- Pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), a special election may be held
in Precinct No. 13 only if the failure of the election therein "would affect the result of the election." This
"result of the election" means the net result of the election in the rest of the precincts in a given
constituency, such that if the margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival in the latter
precincts is less than the total number of votes in the precinct where there was failure of election, then
such failure would certainly affect "the result of the election"; hence, a special election must be held.
Consequently, the holding of a special election in Precinct No. 13 can only be determined after the
votes in Precinct No. 7 shall have been included in the canvass by the Provincial Board of
Canvassers. (Lucero v. COMELEC)
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. — The postponement, declaration of
failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority votes of its
2
Page 3
members. The 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. (RA No. 7166)
- There are, therefore, two requisites for the holding of special elections under Section 6 of the
Omnibus Election Code, viz.,
(1) that there is a failure of election, and
(2) that such failure would affect the results of the election.
6. Systems of Election
a) Manual System of election (BP 881, Omnibus Election Code)
b) Automated system of election (RA No. 8436)
- a system using appropriate technology for voting and electronic devices to count votes and
canvass/consolidate results
c) Manual count during automated election
Sec. 9. Systems breakdown in the counting center. — In the event of a systems breakdown of all
assigned machines in the counting center, the Commission shall use any available machine or any
component thereof from another city/municipality upon the approval of the Commission En Banc or
any of its divisions.
The transfer of such machines or any component thereof shall be undertaken in the presence of
representatives of political parties and citizens' arm of the Commission who shall be notified by the
election officer of such transfer.
There is a systems breakdown in the counting center when the machine fails to read the ballots or
fails to store/save results or fails to print the results after it has read the ballots; or when the computer
fails to consolidate election results/reports or fails to print election results/reports after consolidation.
(RA 8436)
SEC. 11. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follow:
"SEC.13. Continuity Plan. - The AES shall be so designed to include a continuity plan in case of a
systems breakdown or any such eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or
nonperformance of the electoral process. Activation of such continuity and contingency measures
shall be undertaken in the presence of representatives of political parties and citizen's arm of the
Commission who shall be notified by the election officer of such activation.
"All political parties and party-lists shall be furnished copies of said continuity plan at their official
addresses as submitted to the Commission. The list shall be published in at least two newspaper of
national of circulation and shall be posted at the website of the Commission at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the electoral activity concerned." (RA 9369)
- In the case at bar, the COMELEC order for a manual count was not only reasonable. It was the only
way to count the decisive local votes in the six (6) municipalities of Pata, Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan,
Tapul and Jolo. The bottom line is that by means of the manual count, the will of the voters of Sulu
was honestly determined. We cannot kick away the will of the people by giving a literal interpretation
to R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did not prohibit manual counting when machine count does not work.
Counting is part and parcel of the conduct of an election which is under the control and supervision of
the COMELEC. It ought to be self-evident that the Constitution did not envision a COMELEC that
cannot count the result of an election. (Loong v. COMELEC)
7. Constitutional basis of Election

SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them. (Article II, 1987 Constitution)
8. Elective Officials, enumerated.

a) 1987 Constitution
i. Article VII
1. President
3
Page 4
2. Vice President
ii. Article VI
1. 12 Senators
2. 1 House of Representative per Legislative district
3. Party-list Representatives
4. * 1 SP Lalawigan per legislative district
iii. Article X
1. RA 6734 (Organic Act for ARMM)
- 1 ARMM Governor
- 1 ARMM Vice-Governor
- 3 ARMM Assemblymen per assembly district
2. RA 6766 (Organic Act of CAR)
3. Ordillo v. COMELEC
The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
From these sections, it can be gleaned that Congress never intended that a single province
may constitute the autonomous region. Otherwise, we would be faced with the absurd
situation of having two sets of officials, a set of provincial officials and another set of regional
officials exercising their executive and legislative powers over exactly the same small area.
b) Local Government Code

- 1 Governor per province
- 1 Vice- Governor per province
- 1 Mayor per City and municipality
- 1 Vice-Mayor per city and municipality
- 12 or 10 or 8 SP members per city
- 8 SB Members per municipality
- 1 Punong Barangay per barangay
- 7 Barangay Kagawad per Barangay
- 1 SK Chairman per Barangay
- 7 SK Councils per Barangay
c) COMELEC Res. No. 9982 (August 18, 2015 as amended)

For the May 9, 2016 elections:
- 1 President
- 1 Vice-President
- 12 Senators 238 House Representatives
- 81 Governors
- 81 Vice-Governors
- 776 SP Members (Sangguniang Panlalawigan; these are actually provincial board members)
- 145 City Mayors
- 145 City Vice-Mayors
- 1,624 SP Members (Sangguniang Panlungsod)
- 1,489 Municipal Mayors
- 1,489 Municipal Vice-Mayors
- 11,916 SB Members (Sangguniang Bayan)
- 1 ARMM Regional Governor
- 1 ARMM Regional Vice-Governor
- 24 ARMM Assemblymen
- 18,083 contested seats
9. President, how elected, term of office and term limit.
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six
years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end
4
Page 5
at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person
who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time. (Article VII, 1987 Constitution)
a) President term limit

- six years, not eligible for re-election
Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a President who has been
duly elected in the May 10, 2010 elections, the same is no longer true today. Following the results of
that elections, private respondent was not elected President for the second time. Thus, any discussion
of his reelection will simply be hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose.
(Pormento v. Estrada)
b) Difference of effects of succession on term limit between the Vice-President and Vice-Mayor.
The framers of the Constitution included such a provision because, without it, the Vice-President, who
simply steps into the Presidency by succession would be qualified to run for President even if he has
occupied that office for more than four years. The absence of a similar provision in Art. X, 8 on elective
local officials throws in bold relief the difference between the two cases. It underscores the
constitutional intent to cover only the terms of office to which one may have been elected for purpose
of the three-term limit on local elective officials, disregarding for this purpose service by automatic
succession.
To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected
as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an
individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been
elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. (Borja
v. COMELEC)
10. Vice President and Vice-Mayor

There is another reason why the Vice-President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves in that
office for more than four years is ineligible for election as President. The Vice-President is elected
primarily to succeed the President in the event of the latters death, permanent disability, removal or
resignation. While he may be appointed to the cabinet, his becoming so is entirely dependent on the
good graces of the President. In running for Vice-President, he may thus be said to also seek the
Presidency. For their part, the electors likewise choose as Vice-President the candidate who they think
can fill the Presidency in the event it becomes vacant. Hence, service in the presidency for more than
four years may rightly be considered as service for a full term.
This is not so in the case of the vice-mayor. Under the local Government Code, he is the presiding
officer of the sanggunian and he appoints all officials and employees of such local assembly. He has
distinct powers and functions, succession to mayorship in the event of vacancy therein being only one
of them.[16] It cannot be said of him, as much as of the Vice-President in the event of a vacancy in the
Presidency, that in running for vice-mayor, he also seeks the mayorship. His assumption of the
mayorship in the event of vacancy is more a matter of chance than of design. Hence, his service in
that office should not be counted in the application of any term limit. (Borja v. Comelec)
11. President, qualifications

Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. (Article VII,
Constitution)
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. (Article IV,
5
Page 6
Constitution)
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; (Ibid.)
a) Natural-born Filipino, defined

Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption
that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870,
when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of
residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his
place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse
Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if
acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935
Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate. (Fornier v. Comelec)
b) Residence, defined
For political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of
political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally
emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. (Marcos
v. Comelec)
It is doctrinally settled that the term residence, as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as domicile, which imports not only an intention
to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for
business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return. Domicile is a question of intention
and circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind, namely:
(1) that a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once established it remains
until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time. ( Domino
v. Comelec)
c) Residence requirement, rationale

The pertinent provision sought to be enforced is Section 39 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of
1991, which provides for the qualifications of local elective officials, as follows:
"SEC. 39. Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered
voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province x x x where he intends to be elected; a resident
therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and
write Filipino or any other local language or dialect."
Generally, in requiring candidates to have a minimum period of residence in the area in which they
seek to be elected, the Constitution or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a "stranger or
newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the
latter from [seeking] an elective office to serve that community." Such provision is aimed at excluding
outsiders "from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral
gain." (Torayno v. Comelec)
d) Property qualification
That said property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican
system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same, for said
political system is premised upon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government
6
Page 7
authority emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be
voted for shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned, whereas social justice
presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by
reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office. (Maquera v. Borra)
12. Vice-President, how elected, term of office and term limit

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six
years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end
at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person
who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for
which he was elected. (Article VII, Constitution)
13. President & Vice-President, basis for proclamation

Section 4. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the
Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days
after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. (Ibid. )
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before
it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
(Article IX, Constitution)
a) Winner, defined.
The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.
Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of
votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is
that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives
a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (Rulloda v. Comelec)
14. Presidential and vice-presidential tie, how broken

Section 4. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or
more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote
of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. ( Article VII,
Constitution)
15. Presidential succession, in case of vacancy at the start of the term

Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect
shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall
have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall
have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been
chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected
7
Page 8
until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of
the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph. (Article VII, Constitution)
16. Presidential succession, in case of vacancy on mid-term

Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-
President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in
case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President. (Ibid.)
17. Permanent disability of the President

Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and
until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by
the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his
office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President
of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that
purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules
and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve
days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as
President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. (Ibid.)
In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving
Malacañang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the
respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was
leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process
of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind inability and that he was going to re-
assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears: (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for
the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the
people as President (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the
same service of our country. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the
president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioner's
valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the part tense. (Estrada v. Desierto)
18. Resignation of the President

8
Page 9
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble:
there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.78 The validity of a
resignation is not government by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be
express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he
evacuated Malacañang Palace in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo.
Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his act and omissions before,
during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President. (Estrada v. Desierto)
19. Vacancy in the office of the Vice-President, how filled.

Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was
elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Article VII, Constitution)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 Article VII of the Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy
shall nominate a Vice President from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all members of both Houses voting separately.
(Estrada v. Desierto)
20. Vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency, how filled.

Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of
the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within
seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not
earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special
election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall
become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be
charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section
25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special
election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the
date of the next presidential election. (Article VII, Constitution)
Section 25. (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding
revenue proposal therein. (Article VI, Constitution)
Sec. 14. Special election for President and Vice-President. - In case a vacancy occurs for the Office of the
President and Vice-President, the Batasang Pambansa shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after
the vacancy occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days enact a
law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five
days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed
certified under paragraph (2), Section 19, Article VIII of the Constitution and shall become law upon its
approval on third reading by the Batasang Pambansa. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged
against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph (4), Section 16 of
Article VIII of the Constitution. The convening of the Batasang Pambansa cannot be suspended nor the special
election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within seventy days before the
date of the presidential election of 1987. (Article II, Omnibus Election Code)
21. Senators, number, how elected, term of office and term limit.
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified
9
Page 10
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. (Article VI, Constitution)
Section 2. The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials first elected under
this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the elections in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall
serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years. (Article XVIII, Constitution)
In the instant case, Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645 itself provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special
election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election.
Accordingly, the special election to fill the vacancy in the Senate arising from Senator Guingonas appointment
as Vice-President in February 2001 could not be held at any other time but must be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding regular elections on 14 May 2001. The law charges the voters with knowledge of this
statutory notice and COMELECs failure to give the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special
election, much less invalidate it.
More than 10 million voters cast their votes in favor of Honasan, the party who stands most prejudiced by the
instant petition. We simply cannot disenfranchise those who voted for Honasan, in the absence of proof that
COMELECs omission prejudiced voters in the exercise of their right of suffrage so as to negate the holding of
the special election. (Tolentino v. Comelec)
22. Senator, qualifications.

SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural - born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the
day of the election, is at least thirty - five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident
of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. (Article VI,
Constitution)
Pimentel's contention is well - taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as,
unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that
issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform;
no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three
departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution.
Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.
In the same vein, the COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or
promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36(g), validly impose qualifications on candidates for
senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to
meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen
in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not
otherwise specified in the Constitution. (Pimentel v. Comelec)
23. Members of the HOR, number, how elected, term of office and term limit.
a) Constitution
SECTION 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years
which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election.
No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. (Article VI)
SECTION 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
10
Page 11
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of
this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided
by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. (Article VI)
b) Omnibus Election Code

Sec. 24. Apportionment of representatives. - Until a new apportionment shall have been made, the
Members of the Batasang Pambansa shall be apportioned in accordance with the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
National Capital Region: Manila, 6; Quezon City, 4; Caloocan, 2; Pasay, 1; Pasig and Marikina, 2; Las
Piñas and Parañaque, 1; Makati, 1; Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela, 2; San Juan and
Mandaluyong, 1; Taguig, Pateros and Muntinglupa, 1.
Region 1: Abra, 1; Benguet, 1; Ilocos Norte with Laoag City, 2; Ilocos Sur, 2; La Union, 2; Mountain
Province, 1; Pangasinan with the cities of Dagupan and San Carlos, 6; Baguio City, 1.
Region II: Batanes, 1; Cagayan, 3; Ifugao, 1; Isabela, 3; Kalinga-Apayao, 1; Nueva Vizcaya, 1;
Quirino, 1.
Region III: Bataan, 1; Bulacan, 4; Nueva Ecija with the cities of Cabanatuan, Palayan and San Jose,
4; Pampanga with Angeles City, 4; Tarlac, 2; Zambales, 1; Olongapo City, 1.
Region IV: Aurora, 1; Batangas with the cities of Batangas and Lipa, 4; Cavite with the cities of Cavite,
Tagaytay and Trece Martires, 3; Laguna with San Pablo City, 4; Marinduque, 1; Occidental Mindoro, 1;
Oriental Mindoro, 2; Palawan with Puerto Princesa City, 1; Quezon with Lucena City, 4; Rizal, 2;
Romblon, 1.
Region V: Albay with Legaspi City, 3; Camarines Norte, 1; Camarines Sur with the cities of Iriga and
Naga, 4; Catanduanes, 1; Masbate, 2; Sorsogon, 2.
Region VI: Aklan, 1; Antique, 1; Capiz with Roxas City; Iloilo with Iloilo City, 5; Negros Occidental with
the cities of Bacolod, Bago, Cadiz, La Carlota, San Carlos and Silay, 7.
Region VII: Bohol with Tagbilaran City, 3; Cebu with the cities of Danao,
Lapu-Lapu, Mandaue and Toledo, 6; Negros Oriental with the cities of Bais, Canlaon and Dumaguete,
3; Siquijor, 1; Cebu City, 2.
Region VIII: Leyte with the cities of Ormoc and Tacloban, 5; Southern Leyte, 1; Eastern Samar, 1;
Northern Samar, 1; Samar with Calbayog City, 2.
Region IX: Basilan, 1; Sulu, 1; Tawi-Tawi, 1; Zamboanga del Norte with the cities of Dapitan and
Dipolog, 2; Zamboanga del Sur with Pagadian City, 3; Zamboanga City, 1.
Region X: Agusan del Norte with Butuan City, 1; Agusan del Sur, 1; Bukidnon, 2; Camiguin, 1; Misamis
Occidental with the cities of Oroquieta, Ozamis and Tangub, 1; Misamis Oriental with Gingoog City, 2;
Surigao del Norte with Surigao City, 1; Cagayan de Oro City, 1.
Region XI: Surigao del Sur, 1; Davao del Norte, 3; Davao Oriental, 1; Davao del Sur, 2; South
Cotabato with General Santos City, 3; Davao City, 2.
Region XII: Lanao del Norte, 1; Lanao del Sur with Marawi City, 2; Maguindanao with Cotabato City, 2;
North Cotabato, 2; Sultan Kudarat, 1; Iligan City, 1.
Any province that may hereafter be created or any component city that may hereafter be declared by
or pursuant to law as a highly urbanized city shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at
least one Member or such number of Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of
the inhabitants and on the same uniform and progressive ratio used in the last preceding
apportionment. The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which the new province
was created or where the new highly urbanized city is geographically located shall be correspondingly
adjusted by the Commission, but such adjustment shall not be made within one hundred twenty days
before the election. (Article III)
11
Page 12
c) Number of Party-list (see own notes)

Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec
BANAT v. Comelec
24. Three-term limit.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined
by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. (Article X, Constitution)
25. Term limit, purpose of.

Borja v. Comelec
Two ideas thus emerge from a consideration of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission. The
first is the notion of service of term, derived from the concern about the accumulation of power as a result
of a prolonged stay in office. The second is the idea of election, derived from the concern that the right of
the people to choose those whom they wish to govern them be preserved.
The purpose of this provision (Art. 8) is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms
an elective official may serve. Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was elected because he
is simply continuing the service of the official he succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully
served the term now withstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior to its expiration.
Latasa v. Comelec
An examination of the historical background of the subject Constitutional provision reveals that the
members of the Constitutional Commission were as much concerned with preserving the freedom of
choice of the people as they were with preventing the monopolization of political power.
An elective local official, therefore, is not barred from running again in for same local government post,
unless two conditions concur: 1.) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms
to the same local government post, and 2.) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.
The framers of the Constitution, by including this exception, wanted to establish some safeguards against
the excessive accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms.
26. Succession, effect on term continuity.

Borja v. Comelec
To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as
well as the right to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual
has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same
position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.
Montebon v. Comelec
Thus, for the disqualification to apply, it is not enough that the official has been elected three consecutive
times; he must also have served three consecutive terms in the same position.
Succession in local government offices is by operation of law.
Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term
limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by
law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service.
Thus, succession by law to a vacated government office is characteristically not voluntary since it involves
the performance of a public duty by a government official, the non-performance of which exposes said
official to possible administrative and criminal charges of dereliction of duty and neglect in the performance
of public functions. It is therefore more compulsory and obligatory rather than voluntary.
27. Preventive suspension, effect on term continuity.

Aldovino v. Comelec
28. Disqualification, prior to term end, effect of.

12
Page 13
Lonzanida v. Comelec
29. Disqualification after term end, effect of.
Ong v. Alegre
Rivera v. Comelec
30. Recall, effect on three-term disqualification.

Adormeo v. Comelec
Socrates v. Comelec
31. Conversion of municipality to city, effect of.
Latasa v. Comelec
32. Election protest, effects of.
Abundo v. Comelec
33. Members of HOR, qualifications.
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of
a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum. (Article VI, Constitution)
34. Party-list Representatives or Nominees, qualifications.
Section 5 (2). The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women,
youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. (Ibid.)
SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not
be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or
other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
(Article IX, (C))
Bagong Bayani-OFW v. Comelec

BANAT v. Comelec
Bayan Muna v. Comelec
Atong Paglaum v. Comelec
35. Sectors to be represented by party-list, enumerated.
Article VI, Section 5(2) of Constitution
RA 7941
Section 5. Registration. Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the
election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list
system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers,
coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the
sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the
date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election.
36. Sectors to be represented by party-list, classified.

Atong Paglaum v. Comelec
37. Nature of constitutional and statutory enumeration of sectors.

Ang Ladlad v. Comelec
38. Nature of list of nominees.
BA-RA 7941 v. Comelec
39. Vacancy in the Senate or HOR, how filled.
13
Page 14
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may
be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. (Article VI, Constitution)
Sec. 22. Special election for Members of the Batasang Pambansa. - In case a vacancy arises in the
Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission shall call a
special election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the
unexpired term.
The Batasang Pambansa through a duly approved resolution or an official communication of the Speaker
when it is not in session shall certify to the Commission the existence of said vacancy. (Omnibus Election
Code, Art. III)
RA 6645
Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of
Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election for Members of Congress, the
Commission on Elections, upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as
the case may be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy and calling for a special election, shall hold a
special election to fill such vacancy.f Congress is in recess, an official communication on the existence of
the vacancy and call for a special election by the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such purpose. The Senator or Member of
the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the special election, which shall not be earlier
than forty-five (45) days not later than ninety (90) days from the date of such resolution or communication,
stating among other things the office or offices to be voted for: provided, however, that if within the said
period a general election is scheduled to be held, the special election shall be held simultaneously with
such general election.
RA 7166
Section 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. - The postponement, declaration of
failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus
Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members. The
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.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur 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.
However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the
succeeding regular election.
40. Elective local officials, term of office and term limit.

Constitution
SECTION 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
Local Government Code

Section 43. Term of Office. -
(a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected after the effectivity of this Code shall be three
(3) years, starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for by law, except that of
elective barangay officials: Provided, That all local officials first elected during the local elections
immediately following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
14
Page 15
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.
(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for
three (3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of
May 1994.
David v. Comelec
41. Elective local officials, qualifications.
Section 39. Qualifications. -
(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any
other local language or dialect.
(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, or
mayor, vice-mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities, component cities,
or municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must be
at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.
(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay must be at
least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.
(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15) years of age but not more than
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
RA 9164
Section 7. Section 428 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 428. Qualifications. – An elective official of the sangguniang kabataan must be a Filipino citizen, a
qualified voter of the katipunan ng kabataan, a resident of the barangay for at least one (1) year
immediately prior to election, at least fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years of age on the day
of the election, able to read and write Filipino, English, or the local dialect, and must not have been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude."
Frivaldo v. Comelec
Labo v. Comelec
42. Elective local officials, disqualifications.

Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local
position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
15
Page 16
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
a) Dual Citizenship
Constitution, Article IV
SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law.
RA 9225
Valles v. Comelec
Mercado v. Manzano
Labo v. Comelec
Roseller de Guzman v. Comelec
Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec
Macquiling v. Comelec
b) Fugitives from justice.
Marquez v. Comelec
c) Permanent residents in foreign country.
Caasi v. Comelec
Omnibus Election Code
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any
offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has
been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the
declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the
expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he
again becomes disqualified.
Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is
declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a)
given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials
performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in
his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or
made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of
Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified
from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a
permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective
office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant
of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
43. Vacancy in elective local offices, grounds.
44. Vacancy in elective local offices, how filled.

Section 45 (c). In case or permanent vacancy is caused by a sanggunian member who does not belong to
any political party, the local chief executive shall, upon recommendation of the sanggunian concerned,
appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
45. Date of election.

Constitution
16
Page 17
Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on the
second Monday of May, 1987.
The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President, which may be
simultaneous with the election of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of all Members
of the city or municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila area. (Article XVIII)
Section 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7,
1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the
second Monday of May, 1992.

Section 42. Date of Election. - Unless otherwise provided by law, the elections for local officials shall be
held every three (3) years on the second Monday of May.
RA 7166
Section 1. Statement of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to synchronize elections so that there shall be
simultaneous regular elections for national and local officials once every three (3) years.
Section 2. Date of Elections. - In accordance with the policy hereinbefore stated, there shall be an election
for 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;
while the 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.
RA 9164
Section 1. Date of Election. – There shall be synchronized barangay and sangguniang kabataan elections
which shall be held on July 15, 2002. Subsequent synchronized barangay and sangguniang kabataan
elections shall be held on the last Monday of October and every three (3) years thereafter.
46. Adjustment period of pre-election requirements.

RA 6646
Section 29. Designation of Other Dates for certain Pre-election Acts. - If it should no longer be reasonably
possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts, the Commission
shall fix other periods and dates in order to ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be
deprived of their right of suffrage.
RA 8436
Section 28. Designation of other dates for certain pre-election acts. - If it shall no longer be reasonably
possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts, the Commission
shall fix other periods and dates in order to ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be
deprived of their suffrage.
Akbayan v. Comelec
47. Nature of Barangay elections.

Sec. 38. Conduct of elections. - The barangay election shall be non-partisan and shall be conducted in an
expeditious and inexpensive manner.
No person who files a certificate of candidacy shall represent or allow himself to be represented as a
candidate of any political party or any other organization; and no political party, political group, political
committee, civic, religious, professional, or other organization or organized group of whatever nature shall
17
Page 18
intervene in his nomination or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or support, directly or
indirectly, material or otherwise favorable to or against his campaign for election: Provided, That this
provision shall not apply to the members of the family of a candidate within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity nor to the personal campaign staff of the candidate which shall not be more than
one for every one hundred registered voters in his barangay: Provided, however, That without prejudice to
any liability that may be incurred, no permit to hold a public meeting shall be denied on the ground that the
provisions of this paragraph may or will be violated.
Nothing in this section, however, shall be construed as in any manner affecting or constituting an
impairment of the freedom of individuals to support or oppose any candidate for any barangay office.
Occena v. Comelec
48. Postponement of election, grounds.
Sec. 5. Postponement of election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a
nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any political
subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested party, and after due
notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of
the cause for such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
RA 7166
Section 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. - The postponement, declaration of
failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus
Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members. The
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.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur 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.
However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the
succeeding regular election.
RA 6679
Section 2. When for any serious cause such as rebellion, insurrection, violence, terrorism, loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia, and any analogous causes of such nature that the holding of a free,
orderly and honest election should become impossible in any barangay, the Commission on Elections
motu propio or upon sworn petition of ten (10) registered voters of a barangay, after summary proceedings
of the existence of such grounds, shall suspend or postpone the election therein to a date reasonably
close to the date of the election that is not held or is suspended or postponed, or which resulted in a failure
to elect, but not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause for such suspension or
postponement of the election or failure to elect, and in all cases not later than ninety (90) days from the
date of the original election.
Montesclaros v. Comelec
a) Postponement of election, jurisdiction.

Benito v. Comelec
Sumbing v. Davide
Basher v. Comelec
49. Failure of election, grounds.

18
Page 19
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.
RA 7166, Section 4
Mitmug v. Comelec
Canicosa
Batabor v. Comelec
Sardea v. Comelec
a) Declaration of failure of election, jurisdiction.

Benito v. Comelec
Loong v. Comelec
Carlos v. Angeles
50. Postponement or failure of election in Barangay elections, grounds.

Sec. 45. Postponement or failure of election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism,
loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of
such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any
barangay, the Commission, upon a verified petition of an interested party and after due notice and hearing
at which the interested parties are given equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election therein
for such time as it may deem necessary.
If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes, the election in any
barangay has not been held on the date herein fixed or has been suspended before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of the voting therein and such failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election, the Commission, on the basis of a verified petition of an interested party, and after due notice and
hearing, at which the interested parties are given equal opportunity to be heard shall call for the holding or
continuation of the election within thirty days after it shall have verified and found that the cause or causes
for which the election has been postponed or suspended have ceased to exist or upon petition of at least
thirty percent of the registered voters in the barangay concerned.
When the conditions in these areas warrant, upon verification by the Commission, or upon petition of at
least thirty percent of the registered voters in the barangay concerned, it shall order the holding of the
barangay election which was postponed or suspended.
51. Special election.

Constitution
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be
called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. (Article VI)

Sec. 7. Call of special election. - (1) In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months
or more before a regular election, the Commission shall call a special election to be held within sixty days
after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term.
19
Page 20
(2) In case of the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa, the President shall call an election which shall
not be held earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.
The Commission shall send sufficient copies of its resolution for the holding of the election to its provincial
election supervisors and election registrars for dissemination, who shall post copies thereof in at least
three conspicuous places preferably where public meetings are held in each city or municipality affected.
RA 7166, Section 4
a) Fixing date of special election

Pangandaman v. Comelec
b) Notice of special election.

Hassan v. Comelec
Tolentino v. Comelec
52. Special election after failure of election

Omnibus Election Code, Section 6
RA 7166, Section 4
a) Special election after failure of election, requisites.
Lucero v. Comelec
53. Calling of special election, jurisdiction.
Benito v. Comelec
Part II: SUFFRAGE
1. Suffrage, defined.
Nolasco v. Comelec
People v. San Juan
2. Constitutional basis.
Constitution
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law,
who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year
and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election.
No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well
as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the
assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as
the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot. (Article V)
3. Nature of suffrage.
1973 Constitution
Section 4. It shall be the obligation of every citizen qualified to vote to register and cast his vote. (Article V)

Sec. 4. Obligation to register and vote. - It shall be the obligation of every citizen qualified to vote to
register and cast his vote.
Sec. 261. (y) On Registration of Voters:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(1) Any person who, having all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications of a voter, fails without
justifiable excuse to register as a voter in an election, plebiscite or referendum in which he is qualified to
vote.
20
Page 21
Sec. 264. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished
with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to
probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and
deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be
enforced after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a
fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has
been instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty.
In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period
as provided in Section 261, paragraph (n) of this Code, the director of prisons, provincial warden, keeper
of the jail or prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said prisoner in their custody shall, if
convicted by a competent court, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
if the prisoner or prisoners so illegally released commit any act of intimidation, terrorism of interference in
the election.
Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to register or failure to vote shall, upon conviction, be fined
one hundred pesos. In addition, he shall suffer disqualification to run for public office in the next
succeeding election following his conviction or be appointed to a public office for a period of one year
following his conviction.
1987 Constitution, Article V, Section 1
4. Suffrage for overseas absentee voters.

RA 9189
Sec. 5. Disqualifications. – The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:
(4) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she
executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she
shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for the removal of the name of the
immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia.
Macalintal v. Comelec
5. Suffrage for local absentee voters.

EO 157
- PROVIDING FOR ABSENTEE VOTING BY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT
WHO ARE AWAY FROM THE PLACE OF THEIR REGISTRATION BY REASON OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS ON ELECTION DAY

Sec. 169. Voting privilege of members of board of election inspectors. - Members of the board of election
inspectors and their substitutes may vote in the polling place where they are assigned on election day:
Provided, That they are registered voters within the province, city or municipality where they are assigned:
and Provided, finally, That their voting in the polling places where they are not registered voters be noted
in the minutes of the board of election inspectors.
RA 7166
Section 12. Absentee Voting. - Absentee voting as provided for in Executive Order No. 157 dated March
30, 1987 shall apply to the elections for President, Vice-President and Senators only and shall be limited to
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police and other government
officers and employees who are duly registered voters and who, on election day, may temporarily be
assigned in connection with the performance of election duties to place where they are not registered
voters.
21
Page 22
RA 10380: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING FOR MEDIA

SEC. 2. Local Absentee Voting for Members of Media. – The Commission on Elections shall extend the
right to vote under the local absentee voting system provided under existing laws and executive orders to
members of media, media practitioners, including the technical and support staff, who are duly registered
voters and who, on election day, may not be able to vote due to the performance of their functions in
covering and reporting on the elections: Provided, That they shall be allowed to vote only for the positions
of President, Vice President, Senators and Party-List Representative.
6. Suffrage for disabled and illiterate voters.

Constitution, Article V, Section 2
RA 10366
SEC. 11. Assistance in the Accomplishment of the Ballot. – A person with disability or senior citizen who is
illiterate or physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself or herself may be assisted in the preparation
of his or her ballot by a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree, or if he or she has
none, by any person of his or her confidence who belongs to the same household, or by any member of
the BEls. For this purpose, the person who usually assists the person with disability or senior citizen, such
as a personal assistant, a caregiver or a nurse shall be considered a member of his or her household:
Provided,That no voter shall be allowed to have an assistor on the basis of illiteracy or physical disability
unless it is so indicated in his or her registration record. Nevertheless, if the physical inability to prepare
the ballot is manifest, obvious, or visible, said voter shall be allowed to be assisted in accomplishing the
ballot by a qualified assistor, even if not stated or indicated in the registration record:Provided, further, That
the assistor must be of voting age.
The assistor shall hind himself or herself in a formal document under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in
accordance with the instructions of the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot prepared by him or
her, and shall prepare the ballot for the voter inside the voting booth. Except for the members of the BEIs,
no assistor can assist for more than three (3) times. Any violation of this provision shall constitute an
election offense punishable under Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.
RA 8189
Section 14. Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate person may register with the assistance of the
Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizen’s arms. The Election Officer shall place such
illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions, and record the answers given in order to accomplish
the application form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board. The Election Officer or
any member of an accredited citizen’s arm shall read the accomplished form aloud to the person assisted
and ask him if the information given is true and correct The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the
applicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall
be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of the Board.
The attestation shall state the name of the person assisted, the name of the Election Officer or the
member of the accredited citizen’s arm who assisted the applicant, the fact that the Election Officer placed
the applicant under oath, that the Election Officer or the member of the accredited citizen’s arm who
assisted the applicant read the accomplished form to the person assisted, and that the person assisted
affirmed its truth and accuracy, by placing his thumbmark or some other customary mark on the application
in the presence of the Board.
The application for registration of a physically disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited
citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicated
in the application.
7. Voter’s registration, defined.

RA 8189
Section 3.
a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a
qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the
22
Page 23
same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board
g) Election Registration Board refers to the body constituted herein to act on all applications for registration
Section 15. Election Registration Board.There shall be in each city and municipality as many as Election
Registration Boards as there are election officers therein. In thickly populated cities/municipalities, the
Commission may appoint additional election officers for such duration as may be necessary.
The Board shall be composed of the Election Officer as chairman and as members, the public school
official most senior in rank and the local civil registrar, or in this absence, the city or municipal treasurer.
In case of disqualification of the Election Officer, the Commission shall designate an acting Election Officer
who shall serve as Chairman of the Election Registration Board. In case of disqualification or non-
availability of the Local Registrar or the Municipal Treasurer, the Commission shall designate any other
appointive civil service official from the same locality as substitute.
No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal elective
official within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly
elected city or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, such member is automatically disqualified to preserve the integrity of the Election
Registration Board.
Every registered party and such organizations as may be authorized by the Commission shall be entitled
to a watcher in every registration board.
Section 20. Approval and Disapproval of Application. The Election Officer shall submit to the Board all
applications for registration filed, together with the evidence received in connection therewith. The Board
shall, by majority vote, approve or disapprove the applications.
Upon approval, the Election Officer shall assign a voters identification number and issue the corresponding
identification card to the registered voter. If the Board disapproves the application, the applicant shall be
furnished with a certificate of disapproval stating the ground therefor. In cases of approval or disapproval,
any aggrieved party may file a petition for exclusion or inclusion, as the case may be, with the proper
Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for in this Act.
Yra v. Abano
8. System of continuing registration.
RA 8189
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.
a) Period of registration.
Akbayan-Youth v. Comelec
Kabataan Party List v. Comelec
9. Registration, jurisdiction.
RA 8189, Section 15
10. Registration, qualifications, disqualifications, procedure.

Constitution, Article V, Section 1
Sec. 118. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from voting:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one
year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty: Provided, however,
That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote
upon expiration of five years after service of sentence.
(b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent court or tribunal of having
committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition,
23
Page 24
violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to
his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of five years after service of sentence.
RA 8189
Section 9. Who may Register. All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at
least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year,
and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the
election, may register as a voter.
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 10. Registration of Voters. A qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in a
precinct of the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a
voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration as prescribed by the Commission
in three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired the
qualifications of a voter.
The application shall contain the following data:
a) Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname;
b) Sex;
c) Date, and place of birth;
d) Citizenship;
e) Civil status, if married, name of spouse;
f) Profession, occupation or work;
g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration;
h) Exact address with the name of the street and house number for location in the precinct maps
maintained by the local office of the Commission, or in case there is none, a brief description of his
residence, sitio, and barangay;
i) A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications of a voter;
j) A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any precinct; and
k) Such information or data as may be required by the Commission.
The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen signatures of the applicant, clear and
legible rolled prints of his left and right thumbprints, with four (4) identification size copies of his latest
photograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the expense of the Commission.
Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, the Election Officer shall inform him of
the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see to it that the
accomplished application contains all the data therein required and that the applicant’s specimen
signatures, fingerprints, and photographs are properly affixed in all copies of the voter’s application.
Section 11. Disqualification. The following shall be disqualified from registering:

a) Any person who has been 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: Provided, however, That any
person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;
b) Any person who has been 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: Provided, That he shall automatically reacquire the right to vote
upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and
24
Page 25
c) Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless subsequently declared
by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.
Section 12. Change of Residence to Another City or Municipality. Any registered voter who has transferred
residence to another city or municipality may apply with the Election Officer of his new residence for the
transfer of his registration records.
The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the requirements of notice and hearing and
the approval of the Election Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the
application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the Election Officer of the former residence of
the voter, said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voter’s registration record to the
Election Officer of the voter’s new residence.
Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or Municipality. Any voter who has changed his address
in the same city or municipality shall immediately notify the Election Officer in writing. If the change of
address involves a change in precinct, the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct book
of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new precinct All changes of address shall be
reported to the office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila.
Section 14. Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate person may register with the assistance of the
Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizen’s arms. The Election Officer shall place such
illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions, and record the answers given in order to accomplish
the application form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board. The Election Officer or
any member of an accredited citizen’s arm shall read the accomplished form aloud to the person assisted
and ask him if the information given is true and correct The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the
applicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall
be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of the Board.
The attestation shall state the name of the person assisted, the name of the Election Officer or the
member of the accredited citizen’s arm who assisted the applicant, the fact that the Election Officer placed
the applicant under oath, that the Election Officer or the member of the accredited citizen’s arm who
assisted the applicant read the accomplished form to the person assisted, and that the person assisted
affirmed its truth and accuracy, by placing his thumbmark or some other customary mark on the application
in the presence of the Board.
The application for registration of a physically disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited
citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicated
in the application.
a) Residence
Romualdez v. RTC
11. Deactivation, reactivation and cancellation of registration.

RA 8189
Section 27. Deactivation of Registration. The board shall deactivate the registration and remove the
registration records of the following persons from the corresponding precinct book of voters and place the
same, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, in the inactive file after entering the cause or causes of
deactivation:
a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1)
year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any
person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence as certified by the clerks of courts of the
Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan;
b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having
caused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion,
sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime against national security, unless
25
Page 26
restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law; Provided, That he shall regain his right to
vote automatically upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;
c) Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent unless such disqualification
has been subsequently removed by a declaration of a proper authority that such person is no longer
insane or incompetent;
d) Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections as shown by their
voting records. For this purpose, regular elections do not include the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
elections;
e) Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the Court; and
f) Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
For this purpose, the clerks of court for the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts
and the Sandiganbayan shall furnish the Election Officer of the city or municipality concerned at the end of
each month a certified list of persons who are disqualified under paragraph (a) hereof, with their
addresses. The Commission may request a certified list of persons who have lost their Filipino Citizenship
or declared as insane or incompetent with their addresses from other government agencies.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a certified list of those persons whose
registration were deactivated and the reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of
political parties, the national central file, provincial file, and the voter concerned.
Section 28. Reactivation of Registration. Any voter whose registration has been deactivated pursuant to
the preceding Section may file with the Election Officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
registration in the form of an affidavit stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any time
but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a
special election.
The Election Officer shall submit said application to the Election Registration Board for appropriate action.
In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the registration record from the
inactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.
Section 29. Cancellation of Registration. The Board shall cancel the registration records of those who have
died as certified by the Local Civil Registrar. The Local Civil Registrar shall submit each month a certified
list of persons who died during the previous month to the Election Officer of the place where the deceased
are registered. In the absence of information concerning the place where the deceased is registered, the
list shall be sent to the Election Officer of the city or municipality of the deceased’s residence as appearing
in his death certificate. In any case, the Local Civil Registrar shall furnish a copy of this list to the national
central file and the proper provincial file.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a list of those persons who died whose
registrations were cancelled, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties, the
national central file, and the provincial file.
RA 10367
Section 7. Deactivation. – Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of
application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be deactivated pursuant to this Act.
RA 8189
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. Should the second Monday of the month fall on a non-working holiday,
oppositions may be filed on the next following working day. 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.
26
Page 27
Section 20. Approval and Disapproval of Application. The Election Officer shall submit to the Board all
applications for registration filed, together with the evidence received in connection therewith. The Board
shall, by majority vote, approve or disapprove the applications.
Upon approval, the Election Officer shall assign a voters identification number and issue the corresponding
identification card to the registered voter. If the Board disapproves the application, the applicant shall be
furnished with a certificate of disapproval stating the ground therefor. In cases of approval or disapproval,
any aggrieved party may file a petition for exclusion or inclusion, as the case may be, with the proper
Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for in this Act.
Section 32. Common Rules Governing Judicial, Proceedings in the Matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, and
Correction of Names of Voters.
a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours;
b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon the members of the
Board and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending
a copy thereof by personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a person of sufficient discretion in the
residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should the foregoing procedures not be
practicable, the notice shall be posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other
conspicuous places within the city or municipality;
c) A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as respondents;
d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if the court should find
that the application has been filed solely to harass the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it
shall order the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses;
e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings may intervene and
present his evidence;
f) 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; and
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed
to the Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal. In all cases,
the court shall decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision
shall become final and executory.
Section 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed
by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof.
Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal
within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall immediately become final and
executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Section 34. Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. Any person whose application for registration has
been disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a
petition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time except one hundred
five (105) days prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be
supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his petition
upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board shall place the
application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the
application for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the same.
12. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings.

RA 8189
Section 24. National Central File.There shall be a national central file under the custody of the
27
Page 28
Commission in Manila consisting of the third copies of all approved voter registration records in each city
or municipality. It shall be compiled by precinct in each city/municipality and arranged alphabetically by
surname so as to make the file a replica of the book of voters in the possession of the Election Officer.
Thereafter a national list shall be prepared following the alphabetical arrangements of surnames of voters.
There shall be a national file consisting of the computerized voters’ list (CVL), both in print and in diskette,
submitted by the Election Officers in each city and municipality concerned, under the custody of the
Commission in Manila.
The computerized voters’ list shall make use of a single and uniform computer program that will have a
detailed sorting capability to list voters alphabetically by the precincts where they vote, by the barangays,
municipalities, cities or provinces where they reside and by their voters identification number (VIN).
Constitution
C. Section 2 (3). Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors,
and registration of voters. (Article IX)
Pungutan v. Abubakar
Domino v. Comelec
13. Nature of voter’s registration records.

RA 8189
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 that
is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act or was 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.
RA 10367
Section 9. Database Security. – The database generated by biometric registration shall be secured by the
Commission and shall not be used, under any circumstance, for any purpose other than for electoral
exercises.
Comelec Minute Res. No. 13-1132, Oct. 17, 2013
14. Annulment of list of voters.

RA 8189
Ututalum v. Comelec
Sarangani v. Comelec
28
Page 29
ELECTION LAWS l Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde l For the exclusive use of EH 407 A.Y. 2015-2016
OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS

PART IV. ELECTION PERIOD A. Prohibited acts during registration of voters
B. Prohibited acts during voting
ELECTION PERIOD C. Prohibited acts during canvassing
D. Prohibitions common to all BEI & BOC
ELECTION PERIOD E. Prohibitions on candidacy and campaign
Q. When is election period?
90 days before election and ends 30 days after, unless otherwise VOTE BUYING AND SELLING
provided by law.
VOTE BUYING AND VOTE SELLING
Ferdie: Constitution says election period is 120 days, 90 days before election + 30
days thereafter. However, also the Constitution says that in certain special cases,
the Comelec can extend the election period. Whether or not it is a special case, it Who is liable Prohibited acts
is for Comelec to decide. It is a question of fact and finding of facts by Comelec
cannot be disturbed by courts, unless arbitrary or with grave abuse of discretion. A. Giving, offering or promising money or
anything of value
Q. How is it different from campaign period? TN: In cash or in kind. It does not matter.
Peralta v. Comelec
Election period is longer and extends beyond the election day. B. Giving or promising any employment,
franchise or grant, public or private.
Ferdie: Campaign period is part and parcel of election. “Extends beyond election
day” means extends 30 days thereafter. Reason: There are certain reportorial
C. Making or offering to make an
requirements that need to be done after elections.
Any person expenditure, directly or indirectly, or
Q. What happens? causing an expenditure to be made to
Certain private or public acts are prohibited. any person or entity in order.
Q. Why? Purpose: (this is the most important
To ensure the conduct of a free, orderly, honest and credible elections. consideration)
Ferdie: To equalize opportunities between the rich and poor To induce anyone or the public in general:
candidates. (a) To vote for or against any candidate
withhold his vote in the election
ELECTION OFFENSES (b) To vote for or against any aspirant for
the nomination or choice of a
PROHIBITED ACTS DURING ELECTION PERIOD candidate in a selection process of a
political party
PROHIBITED ACTS DURING ELECTION PERIOD
Article XXII on Election Offenses, Section 261, Omnibus Election Code: Ferdie: Vote buying and vote selling do not just
A. Vote buying and vote selling happen in the election day. This also happens during
nomination of candidates and party conventions
B. Conspiracy to bribe voters
because the choice of candidate starts there.
C. Wagering upon result of election
D. Coercion of subordinates Association, group, Soliciting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
E. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other corporation, any expenditure, or promise of any office for
forms of coercion community any of the above.
F. Coercion of election officials and employees
G. Appointment of new employees, creation of new position,
promotion or giving salary increases Bernardo v. Abalos
H. Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service Facts: Father and son were charged with vote buying after they treated
I. Intervention of public officers and employees the public school teachers to free transportation, food and drinks affair,
J. Undue influence during which it was announced that they will be given hazard pay and
K. Unlawful electioneering additional allowance.
L. Prohibition against dismissal of employees, laborers or tenants
M. Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents, Held: A complaint for vote buying must be supported by affidavits of
confidential agents, or the like complaining witnesses attesting to the offer of money or other
N. Illegal release of prisoners before and after election consideration or acceptance of such offer. Self-serving statements and
O. Use of public funds, money deposited in trust, equipment, uncorroborated video and visual recordings and photographs are
facilities owned or controlled by the government for an election insufficient.
campaign
P. Carrying of deadly weapons Ferdie: Because here, they just reported the matter to COMELEC. They did not
Q. Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business gather enough evidence in so far as vote buying is concerned. Also, they did not
R. Use of armoured land, water or air craft present an affidavit of the person who took the recording and that could be fatal.
S. Wearing of uniforms and bearing arms
Kilosbayan v. Comelec
T. Policemen and Provincial guards acting as bodyguards or security
guards It is not the duty of the Comelec to gather evidence in support of your
complaint for election offences. It is incumbent upon the complainant to
U. Organization or maintenance of reaction forces, strike forces or
other similar forces convince the Comelec that there is indeed sufficient basis to hold the
person in trial for a certain election offense.
V. Prohibition against release, disbursement or expenditure of public
funds Lozano v. Comelec
W. Prohibition against construction of public works, delivery of
materials for public works and issuance of treasury warrants and Facts: A candidate for mayor was charged with vote-buying after he
similar devices distributed gift packages and leaflets of his ticket to the constituents
X. Suspension of elective provincial city, municipal or barangay during campaign period. It was part of the annual gift-giving tradition
officer of the city government.
1|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G BASALO l FERNANDEZ l FLORO l GARCIA l IBANEZ l MACAPUGAS l REGENCIA l TARAN
Page 30
Held:
APPOINTMENT OF NEW EMPLOYEES, ETC.
Section 261(a), the law on vote-buying, also penalizes vote-selling.
Thus, a complaint for vote buying must be pursued against both the
APPOINTMENT OF NEW EMPLOYEES, CREATION OF NEW
buyer and seller. It requires more than a tenuous deduction to prove
POSITION, PROMOTION OR GIVING SALARY INCREASES
the offense of vote-buying. There must be concrete and convincing
evidence or at least strong circumstantial evidence.
Person liable
Ferdie: If you try to file a case for vote buying, it must be in tandem with vote Any head, official or appointing authority of a government office,
selling because there is collusion or conspiracy there. You cannot have a buyer agency or instrumentality whether national or local, including GOCC
without a seller or vice versa.
Prohibited acts (only apply to government sector)
Problem in proving vote buying or vote selling is that no one will come forward
to testify. Most of the time, the transaction is beyond public view and the only A. Appointment or hiring of any new employee, provisional, temporary
witnesses are the vote buyer and vote seller. However, both are equally guilty so or casual.
who else would come to tell the story? Rampant as it is, in the absence of a
Ferdie: New employee. The prohibition is only limited to any new employee
witness, a complaint will never prosper.
but if you renew the employment of an employee, it is allowed. CSC says
that casual, temporary, or contractual employees do not have employee-
CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE VOTERS employer relationship with the government. However, CSC also says that it
could be a gray area because even if they don’t maintain EE-ER relationship
CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE VOTERS with gov’t, they are paid out of gov’t funds.
Person liable B. Creation and filling any new position.

Two or more persons, candidates or not. Except:
Prohibited act 1. Upon prior authority from the Commission
Agree to violate paragraph (a) and decide to commit it. 2. Urgent need
TN: Par (a) refers to the vote buying and vote selling. Ferdie: This applies only to the government sector. If there is urgent need,
you can appoint new employee without prior authority from the commission
WAGERING UPON RESULT OF ELECTION but the requirement is within 3 days from appointing the new employee, you
must report the matter to the Comelec and justify why you appointed the
WAGERING UPON RESULT OF ELECTION person without informing the Comelec beforehand.
Person liable Ong v. Martinez

Any person Facts: Two appointees to the vacated position of councilor
challenged each other’s appointment because it fell during the
Prohibited act
prohibitive election period.
Betting upon the outcome of the election
Held: The prohibition does not apply if the appointment is intended
COERCION OF SUBORDINATES to fill out a vacancy in a local elective position which is governed
by the Local Government Code. The appointment referred to in the
COERCION OF SUBORDINATES
election ban provision is covered by the Civil Service Law.
Persons liable Ferdie: In other words, if the appointment is not covered by the Civil
Persons with moral ascendency like public officer, head, superior, Service Rules, then it can be allowed.
employer or landowner
C. Promotion
Prohibited acts
1. Coercion, intimidation or compulsion, or in any manner influence, D. Giving any salary increase or privilege to any government official
directly or indirectly any of their subordinates or employee, including GOCC. (prohibition is absolute)
Purpose of coercion, intimidation or compulsion Period of prohibition – 45 days before a regular election and 30
To aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate or any days before a special election
aspirant for nomination.
Ferdie: VERY IMPORTANT. This is the controlling factor. If the purpose is Ferdie: The prohibition is absolute and cannot ask exemption from Comelec.
something else, the Comelec has no jurisdiction and it can probably be a When you say privilege, remuneration, or benefits of government employee,
criminal offense which can be filed with DOJ. it does not cover those existing or previously given. 13th month pay is alright
or other bonuses already given. Additional bonuses are not allowed.
2. Retaliation or penalty
TRANSFER OF OFFICERS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
COERCION OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE CIVIL
COERCION OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES SERVICE
Person liable Person liable

Any person Any public official
Prohibited acts Prohibited acts

Threatens, intimidates, terrorizes, or coerces any election official or Making or causing any transfer or detail of any officer or employee in
employee in the performance of his election duties. the civil service, including public school teachers, except with prior
written authority from the Commission.
Ferdie: The coercion and intimidation must be in the performance of the duty. If
not, it is something else which the Comelec has no jurisdiction. Ferdie: For 2016 election, the Comelec resolved that, those under the Office of the
President, AFP, PNP, lower courts and SC and COMLEEC are granted continuing
authority to transfer or detail employees by the function of their work. They need
not need authority from the Commission.
Page 31
Prohibition only applies in government agencies PROHIBITION AGAINST DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES

It does not apply to the following government sectors:
1. Office of the President PROHIBITION AGAINST DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES,
2. Supreme Court, including the lower courts LABORERS OR TENANTS
3. PNP/AFP by the nature and function of their work
Persons liable
Period of prohibition Employer or landowner
GR: Election period Prohibited acts
XPN: Upon prior approval of the Commission A. Dismissal of employee for refusing or failing to vote for any
candidate of his employer
INTERVENTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES B. Ejectment from landholdings for refusing or failing to vote for any
candidate of his landowner
INTERVENTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Effects
Persons liable A. Reinstatement
1. Any officer or employee in the civil service, except elective officials B. Restoration of salary or share of harvest
2. Any officer, employee or member of the AFP, PNP and other para-
military units Ferdie: This is the same with Superior trying to retaliate or penalize employee
for not following instruction insofar as choosing a candidate is concerned.
Prohibited acts – direct or indirect
A. Intervention in any election campaign APPOINTMENT OF USE OF SPECIAL POLICEMEN
B. Engagement in any partisan political activity
Except: APPOINTMENT OR USE OF SPECIAL POLICEMEN, SPECIAL
1. To vote AGENTS, CONFIDENTIAL AGENTS, OR THE LIKE
2. To preserve public order, if he is a peace officer
What is partisan political activity? Who is liable Prohibited act

Anything you to promote the triumph or defeat of a particular candidate
Any appointing authority Appointment of special
in the election.
policemen, etc.
Mere liking, sharing, posting, or making a comment on social media on Use of services of special
anything about the candidates is considered partisan political activity. Any person
policemen, etc.
Constitution says that employees under the Civil Service Law are
prohibited in electioneering or partisan political activity. 1. Continuance of acting as
Persons previously appointed as special policemen
How can employees under the Civil Service Law participate in the special policemen, etc. 2. Failure to turn over their
elections?
firearms, uniforms, etc.
They can vote only and keep order in case of a peace officer.
UNDUE INFLUENCE Period of prohibition

Campaign period, eve and day of election
UNDUE INFLUENCE
Reportorial requirement
Person liable
A. Who will report – Local chief executives or any appointing
Any person or entity
authority
Prohibited acts B. What to report – List of special policemen, etc. in the employ of
A. Promise any office or employment their respective political subdivisions and other particulars as the
B. Make or offer to make expenditure or cause an expenditure to Commission may require
be made on any person or entity
C. Which may induce anyone or the public in general, to vote or ILLEGAL RELEASE OF PRISONERS ELECTION
withhold his vote
D. To vote for or against any candidate in any election or aspirant ILLEGAL RELEASE OF PRISONERS BEFORE AND AFTER
for nomination ELECTION
UNLAWFUL ELECTIONEERING Is it not always illegal to release a prisoner without a court

order?
UNLAWFUL ELECTIONEERING Yes. But there are situations before that wardens would release
prisoners to intimidate voters which is why there is such prohibition.
Person liable
The law is silent Persons liable
A. Director of Bureau of Prisons
Prohibited acts B. Any provincial warden
A. Solicit votes C. Keeper of the jail or persons required by law to keep prisoners in
B. Undertake any propaganda for or against any candidate or their custody
political party
Prohibited acts
Period of prohibition Illegally ordering or allowing any prisoner to leave the premises of jail
Day of registration and election day facility
Place of prohibition Period of prohibition
Within the polling place and a radius of 30 meters 60 days before and 30 days after election.
Page 32
USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS DEPOSITED IN TRUST, ETC. USE OF ARMORED LAND, WATER OR AIRCRAFT
USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, MONEY DEPOSITED IN TRUST, USE OF ARMORED LAND, WATER OR AIR CRAFT
EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN What about those cashiers in armored vans?
Allowed, provided that they secure a prior authorization from Comelec.
What about incumbent officials?
How do you define the line between that public official going into official Person liable
business or campaigning already? You cannot. It is so hard to draw the Any person
line.
Prohibited act
Person liable Use of armored land, water or air craft provided with equipment, device
Any person or contraption for the mounting of cannons, machine guns and other
similar high caliber firearms including military type tanks of any model,
Prohibited acts whether new or remodelled.
Use of public funds, property and media facility for any election
campaign or any partisan political activity under any guise whatsoever, Period of prohibition
directly or indirectly GR: Campaign period, eve and day of election
XPN: Banking or financial institutions which may use not more than two
CARRYING DEADLY WEAPONS (2) armored vehicles upon prior authority of the Commission.
CARRYING DEADLY WEAPONS WEARING OF UNIFORMS AND BEARING ARMS

Person liable
WEARING OF UNIFORMS AND BEARING ARMS
Any person
Persons liable
Prohibited acts
A. Any member of security of government agencies or privately
Carrying of any deadly weapon in the polling place and within 100 meter
owned security agencies
radius.
B. Any member of AFP and paramilitary units
Ferdie: Not the only place. Carrying deadly weapons in public places is also
prohibited. The prohibited period is the entire election period. Deadly weapon ANY MEMBER OF SECURITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR
means any bladed instrument. However, for bladed instruments necessary for a
legitimate undertaking, such as sickle for farmers, ice pick for icemen, farmers and
PRIVATELY OWNED SECURITY AGENCIES
icemen can bring their respective bladed instruments as long as it is required in
their legitimate activity. It will be a different matter if it is a law student bringing
Prohibited acts
such weapon inside the college law. A. Wearing of uniform
B. Use of insignia, decorations or regalia
Period of prohibition C. Bearing arms outside immediate vicinity of place of work
Days and hours fixed by law for:
Except:
A. Registration of voters in the polling place
1. Pursuit of a person who committed crime
B. Voting, counting of votes
2. Escorting transport of payroll or valuables
C. Preparation of election returns
3. Guarding private persons or residences, offices
Except:
Peace officer or public officer authorized by the Commission to maintain Rimando v. Comelec
peace and order. A security guard performing duties inside a subdivision, which is his
place of work, may carry licensed firearm without need of prior written
Ferdie: What is a deadly weapon? authority from the Commission.
Any bladed instrument. You can bring it outside but only if it is a necessary
undertaking. IE. Farmer with a sickle. It is only when the firearm is brought outside of the place of work that
gun ban exemption is required.
CARRYING OF FIREARMS OUTSIDE
Ferdie: If you are a security guard, you can carry your licensed firearm in the place
of work without the need for certificate of authority from the Comelec, but you
CARRYING OF FIREARMS OUTSIDE RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF
can also get a prior authorization from Comelec to be safe.
BUSINESS
Person liable Period of prohibition

Any person, even if with permit to carry firearms Campaign period, eve and day of election.
Ferdie: If you have firearms and you are clothed with the power to bring them, ANY MEMBER OF AFP AND PARAMILITARY UNITS
prior to the election period, at the onset of the election period, all permits are
deemed revoked/cancelled since January 10, 2016. You can bring them only Prohibited acts
outside of the residence if it is to secure authority from the Commission. The Wearing of uniform or bearing of firearms outside the camp to which he
checkpoint of the Comelec should only be visual search. is assigned or detailed or outside his home, in case of para-military
forces.
Prohibited act
Carrying any firearm outside his residence or place of business. Provided Ferdie: If you are a police or a military officer and you are not in the performance
motor vehicles, water or air crafts shall not be considered a residence of your duty or function, you should not wear your uniform. The reason is, election
or place of business or its extension. is a purely civilian political exercise. We should not militarize that. The reason to
ban guns is that they guns may be used to terrorize, intimidate or influence the
Period of prohibition conduct of the elections.
GR: During the election period
XPN: If authorized in writing by the Commission Except:
A. If with prior authority from the President with notice to the
Commission
Page 33
B. If with prior authority from the Commission to maintain peace the opportunity to employ laborers and buy their votes in the guise of a legitimate
and order engagement of the government.
Period of prohibition Except:

Campaign period and 30 days thereafter. 1. Maintenance of existing and/or completed public works project
2. Work undertaken by contract through public bidding held, or by
negotiated contract awarded before the 45-day prohibited period
POLICEMEN & PROV’L GUARDS ACTIING AS BODYGUARDS 3. Payment for the usual cost of preparation
4. Emergency work to repair damage due to calamity
POLICEMEN & PROV’L GUARDS ACTING AS BODYGUARDS OR Ferdie: Of course the damage should be repaired but only limited to the
SECURITY GUARDS damage done by the calamity.
Ferdie: If you are a candidate, you cannot, anymore, employ bodyguards unless
5. Ongoing public works projects commenced before the campaign
there I a serious threat to your life or security. In which case, you are going to period
apply for exemption from Comelec. 6. Similar projects under foreign agreements.
Who is liable Prohibited Act Period prohibited DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
DEPARTMENTS OR OFFICERS PERFORMING SIMILAR FUNCTIONS
Acting as bodyguard Ferdie: The DSWD is under the tutelage of the LGU. So if you give money to this
Any member of the or security guard of particular department, the incumbent can take advantage of the situation in the
AFP or PNP and any public official, guise of giving relief goods.
para-military forces candidate or any
other person Except:
1. Salaries of personnel
Use of body or Campaign, eve & 2. Routine and normal expenses
security guard day of election 3. Upon prior authority from the Commission
Any public official, Except: Prior
candidate or any In case of calamity – all releases shall be turned over to the PNRC under
authority from the the supervision of COA.
other person Commission where
there is threat to life But, no candidate or spouse or member of family within second civil
and security degree of consanguinity or affinity shall participate in the distribution of
relief goods to calamity victims
ORGANIZATION OF REACTION FORCES, ETC. Does this apply to those who are not incumbent? Yes.
ORGANIZATION OR MAINTENANCE OF REACTION FORCES, HOUSING AND ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT PERFORMING
STRIKE FORCES OR OTHER SIMILAR FORCES SIMILAR FUNCTIONS
Person liable Except:

Any person 1. Salaries of personnel
2. Necessary administrative expenses
Prohibited acts 3. Upon prior authority from the Commission
Organizing or maintaining of reaction, strike or similar forces.
Period of prohibition
No exception
45 days before a regular election and 30 days before a special election
The prohibition is absolute.
Ferdie: The reason why DSWD and Housing are not allowed during elections are
because they provide the basic necessities of those trying to survive.
Election period
Reportorial requirement PROHIBITION AGAINST CONSTRUCTING PUBLIC WORKS

A. Who will report – Heads of reaction, strike or similar forces
B. What to report – Complete list of members PROHIBITION AGAINST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS,
DELIVERY OF MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND ISSUANCE
PROHIBITION AGAINST RELEASE OF FUNDS OF TREASURY WARRANTS AND SIMILAR DEVICES
PROHIBITION AGAINST RELEASE, DISBURSEMENT OR Person liable

EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS Any person
Person liable Prohibited acts

Any public official or employee A. Undertakes construction of any public works not exempted above
B. Issues, uses or avails of treasury warrants or any devices
Prohibited acts undertaking future delivery of money, goods or other things of
Release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds for: value chargeable against public funds
A. Any and all kinds of public works
B. Department of Social Welfare and Development and other Period of prohibition
departments or officers performing similar functions. 45 days before regular election, 30 days before special election
C. Housing and any other government department performing similar
functions SUSPENSION OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
ANY AND ALL KINDS OF PUBLIC WORKS SUSPENSION OF ELECTIVE PROVINCIAL, CITY, MUNICIPAL OR
BARANGAY OFFICER
Ferdie: These public works actually require employment of a lot of laborers. So if
that power is not withheld from the incumbent official, they will take advantage of Person liable
Any public official
Page 34
Prohibited act PROHIBITIONS COMMON TO ALL BEIs and BOCs

Suspension of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official.
Ferdie: The prohibition against suspension refers only to ELECTIVE provincial PROHIBITIONS COMMON TO ALL BEI & BOC
down to barangay positions. Thus, if appointive, you can be suspended. Also,
members of Congress can be suspended by their Houses or by the Sandiganbayan. Who is liable Prohibited Acts
Except: A. Deliberate absence to obstruct or
A. With prior written authority from the Commission delay performance of election duties
Ferdie: Submit the complaint stating why there is a need to suspend even B. Refusal, without justifiable reason, to
during election period. Any BEI or BOC member sign and certify any election form
required although he was present
B. When it involves case of graft and corruption, applying Anti-Graft
during the meeting
and Corrupt Practices Act
Ferdie: Faking sickness is an election offense.
Period of prohibition A. Disorderly conduct that interrupts or
Election period disrupts BEI or BOC proceedings
preventing it to perform its functions,
PROHIBITIONS DURING REGISTRATION, VOTING AND partly or totally.
Any person
CANVASSING, AND ON CANDIDACY & CAMPAIGNING Ferdie: BEI or BOC are empowered to
have you arrested.
PROHIBITIONS DURING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS B. Acceptance, assumption and actual
service of appointment to BEI or BOC
PROHIBITIONS DURING REGISTRATION OF VOTERS despite being ineligible
17 offenses
Relief or transfer of assignment of any BEI
Any public officer or any or BOC member
Section 45, RA 8189 person acting in his
10 offenses, including any violation of Act behalf Except:
Upon prior authority from the Commission
Penalty under RA 8189
If individual –
A. At least 1 year but not more than 6 years of imprisonment PROHIBITIONS ON CANDIDACY AND CAMPAIGN
B. Without probation
PROHIBITIONS ON CANDIDACY AND CAMPAIGN
C. Disqualification to hold public office
D. Deprivation of suffrage Campaign period
90 days for President and Vice-President, 45 days for House of
If political party –
Representatives and local officials.
A. Fine of at least P100k to P500k
Ferdie: For 2016 elections, start of campaign period for President, VP, and
Senators is Feb 9 while for local elective officials and district reps is March 25.
PROHIBITIONS DURING VOTING
Prohibited act
PROHIBITIONS DURING VOTING
Holding party conventions to nominate candidates earlier than the
24 offenses, notably: period fixed by law. (That’s 165 days prior to elections)
A. Voting more than once, or even if not registered
B. Voting in substitution for another, with or without the latter’s
Election day
knowledge or consent
C. Not being illiterate, allows another to prepare his ballot
Who is liable Prohibited Acts
D. Availing of any means of scheme to discover the contents of the
ballot of a voter who is preparing or casting his vote or who has A. Abstraction, destruction or cancellation of the
just voted CoC which has not been cancelled upon order
E. Revealing by assistor of contents of ballot by the Commission
B. Misleading BEI by submitting false CoC to the
PROHIBITIONS DURING CANVASSING prejudice of a candidate
Any political party C. Receipt of CoC outside of filing period and
PROHIBITIONS DURING CANVASSING making it appear that it was filed on time
Ferdie: The CoC must be filed timely, if not, it could
Who is liable Prohibited Act never be reconsidered. There are accusations that
Elections Officers would insert the name to make it
Any Chairman of the Failure to notify candidates, parties and appear that it was filed on time. This is not possible
Board of Canvassers members of the BoC since the CoCs are logged in a logbook sequentially
and chronologically. It cannot be inserted.
(BoC)
Any person Compulsion of such receipt by means of fraud,
A. Canvass and/or proclamation authorized to threat, intimidation, terrorism or coercion
suspended or nullified by the receive CoC
Commission
B. Canvass and/or proclamation without A. Obstruction or interference by any device or
Any member of the BoC quorum or notice means, with a radio or television broadcast of
C. Use of un-official copy of election Any person any lawful political program
returns in the canvass and or B. Soliciting votes
proclamation, without authority from C. Undertaking any propaganda for or against
the Commission any candidate or political part within the
polling place or within 30 meter radius
Page 35
Ferdie: President and Vice-president may or may not be candidates. If

ELECTION OFFENSES ON CAMPAIGN UNDER
President runs for Senator, it is ok for him to apply to be authorized for a
THE FAIR ELECTION ACT firearm.
ELECTION OFFENSES ON CAMPAIGN UNDER THE FAIR This provision presupposes that the Senator who can apply but should not
ELECTION ACT be a candidate is an incumbent senator. On the other hand, the president in
this case means the incumbent president, which means even if he is a
candidate for the Senate, then he can still ask to bear arms
Lawful election propaganda:
1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decal, sticker or other printed 4. Cabinet Secretaries
materials – 8 ½ x 14” 5. Chief Justice, Justices of the SC, Court of Appeals,
2. Handwritten or printed letters 8 ½ x 14” Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Judges of lower courts like
3. Posters- 2 x 3’ RTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC
4. Streamers – 3 x 8’ displayed 5 days before a rally and removed 6. Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsmen
within 24 hours after 7. Chair and Commissioners of the CSC, COA
Ferdie: If you have a streamer, you cannot place it anywhere except if you
8. Chair and Commissioners of the CHR
have a public rally. 9. Security Personnel of Foreign Diplomatic Corps, Missions, and
Establishments under international law
5. Paid ad in print or broadcast media 10. Regular officers, members and agents of the following
(a) Identified by reasonably audible and legible words “political government agencies who are actually performing law
advertisement paid for” followed by the true and correct enforcement and/or security functions:
name and address of the candidate or party  Officers and members of the PNP
(b) If broadcast is free- “airtime for this broadcast was provided  Commissioned and Non-commissioned officers and enlisted
free of charge by” followed by true name and address personnel of the AFP
(c) Donated ads cannot be published without written  NBI
acceptance by the candidate  Provincial and City jails, Bureau of corrections, DOJ
 BJMP
Ferdie: The complete name and address of the donor must be
 Intelligence Division, Investigation Division of the Intelligence and
specified in the campaign materials for purposes of monitoring.
Investigation Service, Customs Police Division of the Enforcement
6. Other forms not prohibited by OEC or the Fair Election Act and Security Service of the Bureau of Customs
 Port Police Department, PPA
GUN BAN  PEZA Police forces
 Government Guard Units regulated by PNP
 Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners, Members of the Law
PROHIBITED ACTS and investigation division, and members of the intelligence
division, Bureau of Immigration
PROHIBITED ACTS  Manila International Airport Authority Police Force
1. Bearing, carrying, transporting firearms or deadly weapons  Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority Police Force
Ferdie: Includes imitation firearm like airguns and airsoft guns.  Law Enforcement Service of LTO
 Philippine Coast Guard
Deadly weapon – includes all types of bladed instruments, hand grenades  Cebu Port Authority Police Force
and other explosives.  Internal Security Operations Group of the Witness Protection,
Security and Benefits Program of the DOJ
Where prohibited: Outside residence or place of business and in all public
 Enforcement and Investigation Division, Optical Media Board
places, even if licensed to possess or to carry.
 Security Investigation and Transport Department, Cash
Except: If authorized by the Commission through the Committee on the Department, Office of Special Investigation, Branch Operations of
Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP) the BSP
 Office of the Sgt.-at-arms of the Senate and House of
2. Employing, availing or engaging services of security personnel or Representatives, including designated regular security escorts of
bodyguards, whether or not regular members of the PNP, AFP Senators and Congressmen
and other government law enforcement agency or private  Inspection Service of the Philippine Postal Corporation
 Inspection, Monitoring and Investigation Service of the
security service provider.
NAPOLCOM
 Forest Officers
Except: If authorized by the Commission through the CBFSP.
 Intelligence and Security Unit, Office of the Secretary, PDEA
 Philippine Center for Transnational Crime
3. Transporting and delivering:
 National Intelligence Coordinating Agency
a) Firearms and/or its parts
 CAFGU, active auxiliaries and special civilian armed forces
b) Ammunition and/or its components geographical units
c) Explosives and/or its components  PSG
Except: If authorized by the Commission through the CBFSP.  Internal Security Division of the Bureau of Treasury, the treasurer
and Deputy treasurers
At the onset of election period  Internal Security of the Office of the Vice-president
Any permit to carry firearms outside residence (PTCFOR), Letter Order  Secretary, Undersecretaries, Asst. Secretaries of the DILG and the
(LO) and Mission Order (MO) – are suspended, ineffective and without Internal Security of the Office of the DILG Secretary
force and effect.  Internal Security of the Office of the Secretary of National
Defense
 Secretary, Undersecretaries, Asst. Secretaries, Prosecutor General,
WHO MAY BEAR, CARRY OR TRANSPORT FIREARMS, ETC.
Chief State Prosecutor, and the State, Regional Provincial and City
WHO MAY BEAR, CARRY OR TRANSPORT FIREARMS AND Prosecutors, DOJ
DEADLY WEAPONS  Solicitor-General
 Investigators and Prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman
1. President  Chief Public Attorney
2. Vice-President  Officers and Members of departments, divisions, offices, units,
3. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives (Who are detachments performing law enforcement and/or security
not candidates) functions
Page 36
Provided, that when in possession of firearms, they are: Ferdie: Now allowed. How many? No specific number but it must not exceed the
campaign expenses allowed by law.
A. In the regular plantilla receiving regular compensation in said
agencies, excluding confidential, temporary, contractual agents,
AIRTIME LIMIT ON POLITICAL ADS
Employees of personnel.
Unless otherwise approved
AIRTIME LIMIT ON POLITICAL ADS
B. Wearing agency-prescribed uniform showing clearly and legibly Allowable airtime and space for national/registered political parties for
the: a NATIONAL elective position:
a) Name, rank, and serial number
b) If rank and serial number are not applicable – display A. TV – 120 minutes per network whether by purchase or donation
prominently the agency-issued identification card showing B. Radio – 180 minutes per network whether by purchase or donation
clearly the name and position C. Print – per newspaper or magazine
1. Broadsheet- ¼ page (max)
C. Duly authorized to possess and carry firearm by virtue of a valid 2. Tabloid- ½ page (max)
permit to carry or a valid mission order or letter order
D. In the actual performance of official law enforcement and/or Ferdie: What about local elections? 60 minute per station. 90 minutes per station.
Broadsheet- ¼ page. Tabloid- ½ page
security duty, or are going to or returning from his
dwelling/barracks or official station GMA v. Comelec
E. Bearing, carrying or transporting a maximum of 2 firearms The intent of the law is to allow such number of minutes on a per station
basis, and not total aggregate. Thus, the Commission cannot reduce the
Who else may be allowed to carry firearms?
number of minutes in the guise of levelling the playing field.
A. Cashiers and disbursing officers or person who by nature of their
official duties, profession, business of occupation habitually carry Ferdie: Supreme Court said that there is no legal basis for Comelec to suddenly
large sums of money or valuables. limit airtime. It has to be per station basis.
Provided, that when in the possession of firearms, they are: RIGHT TO REPLY
a) Currently employed under the conditions stated in the
application RIGHT TO REPLY
b) In the actual performance of official duties It is the right to reply to charges published or aired against claimant.
c) In possession of the Certificate of Authority and other To be given prominence, page or section, time slot
applicable firearms licenses
d) Carrying a maximum of two firearms Who can invoke it?
1. Registered political parties
B. Members of Private Security Service Providers, provided, that 2. Party-list groups or coalitions
when in the possession of firearms, they are: 3. Bona fide candidates
a) In the agency-prescribed uniform
Ferdie: What happens? If there is a column in a newspaper, if a candidate feels
b) In the possession of valid license to exercise Security that it can damage his reputation or chance of winning, the remedy is the right to
Profession (LESP) with Duty Detail Order (DDO) and valid reply. However, in actual practice, this is a toothless provision because when one
firearms license files complaint against the TV station and the station does not respond, one can
c) Deployed by PSA/PDS/CGF licensed by PNP complain with Comelec which will require the station to explain why it did not give
d) In the actual performance of duty the same prominence to the complaint.
e) Carrying one small firearms unless specifically allowed.
When, where, how filed
What about the Commission on Elections? 1. When – Within a non-extendible period of 48 hours from first
The following are allowed to carry firearms: broadcast or publication
A. Chair and Commissioners 2. Where – To the Comelec through ORED
B. Executive Director and Deputies 3. How –
C. Directors and lawyers in the main office (not in the field) (a) File a verified formal claim against the media outlet.
D. Regional election directors and their assistants (b) Detailed enumeration of circumstances
E. Chiefs-of-staff of the offices of the chair and commissioners (c) Supporting evidence
F. Provincial election supervisors (d) Copy furnished to the media outlet
G. Regional Attorneys and election officers
H. Organic Security Officers What does Comelec do then?
A. Review verified claim within 48 hours from receipt
If private individual B. Notify media outlet within 48 hours
Can apply for a Certificate of Authority, provided that you can convince
the Comelec that there is threat to your life and security or that of your What will the media outlet do then?
family’s. A. Submit comment, answer or response explaining action it has taken
to address the claim.
TN: Even if candidate, incumbent or mere individual – may avail of this. B. Furnish copy to the claimant
ELECTION PROPAGANDA Is the right to reply unconstitutional?
PROHIBITED FORMS OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA GMA v. Comelec

A. It is reasonable and therefore not unconstitutional.
PROHIBITED FORMS OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA UNDER SEC. B. To strike a balance between freedom of the press and the right to
85 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE reply, the constitutional mandate of Comelec to ensure a free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections should factor.
A. Balloons and the like of whatever size, shape, form or kind
C. Radio and television broadcasting companies do not own the
B. Pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods, wallets, shirts,
airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast
hats, bandanas, matches, cigarettes and the like
signals and images.
C. Donation of air time by any radio or TV station
Ferdie: SC said we should tilt the balance in favor of Comelec’s power to
TN: Expressly repealed by Section 14 of the Fair Election Act. Hence, enforce election laws as against the freedom of the press.
these are allowed now.
Page 37
POSTER AREAS USE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
POSTER AREAS PRIVATE VEHICLES

Comelec may authorize political parties and party-list to erect common The Comelec resolved that decals and stickers should only be posted in
poster areas for their candidates: authorized common poster areas.
A. In not more than 10 public places such as plazas, markets, Unconstitutional on the following grounds:
barangay centers A. It offends freedom of speech and expression
B. Maximum size of poster area- 12 x 16’ B. It suffers from over breadth
For independent candidates: C. It deprives property without due process of law.
A. In not more than 10 public places
B. Maximum size of poster area- 4 x 6’ Adiong v Comelec
The objective to equalize opportunities for rich and poor candidates is
Private places – with the consent of the owner not impaired by posting of decals and stickers on private vehicles.
Public places or property – designated and allocated equitably and
impartially PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES AND TERMINALS
Lanot v. Comelec 1-UTAK v Comelec

Prohibition of posting of campaign materials violates propriety rights and
Facts: freedom of expression.
In 2004, the deadline for filing of candidacy was set earlier to afford
sufficient time for printing of official ballots for automated elections. Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec (STUDY THIS CASE)
After filing, a candidate engaged in partisan political activity prior to the
campaign period. He was sought to be disqualified for premature Facts:
campaign. The Catholic Church was so vocal in its campaign against RH Bill which
was later on passed. Come election time, the church remembered those
Held: elected officials who voted for RH bill and those against. So, Diocese of
The person who filed candidacy is considered a candidate only for Bacolod made a tarpaulin showing the Pro-RH as Team Patay while Anti-
purposes of ballot printing. Since premature campaign promotes defeat RH as Team Buhay. The tarp was posted inside the premises of the
or election of a candidate, it requires the existence of a candidate. diocese, however, it exceeded the size limitations. The Election Officer
wrote to diocese instructing them to remove the tarp because it exceeds
Technically however, there is no candidate yet despite filing. As such, size limitations. Diocese responded that it is within their premise which
there is no premature campaign under Art. 80 which prohibits election is a private property.
campaign to promote election or defeat of a candidate outside of the
campaign period. Such partisan political activity falls under the freedom Held:
of expression. Sec. 11 of RA 8436 that set the earlier deadline for filing Oversized campaign materials may be posted or placed on private
to afford sufficient time for ballot printing. property. The power to regulate size pertains to candidates and political
parties only.
Ferdie: In automated elections, the reason why the Comelec sets an early date to
file a CoC is to afford Comelec to print the ballots. If you file your CoC, you are
only considered as a candidate for purposes of ballot printing but not for purposes
The content of the tarpaulin is political speech or advocacy, and not
of campaign. In which case, during automated elections, if you file a CoC, can you political advertisement which the Commission is authorized to regulate.
campaign right away? Yes because you are not a candidate. It is not even called Content-based regulation, as opposed to content-neutral regulation,
a campaign. SC calls that freedom of expression. bears a heavy presumption of invalidity.
So, prior to campaign period, Comelec has no jurisdiction to take away campaign Ferdie: Sometimes, the Comelec limits campaign materials as to size, frequency,
materials. This is the reason of proliferation of campaign materials and Comelec and a third one. Even if private property, it is still required to comply with size
cannot act on it. However, the people has remedies such as the law which prohibits limitations. However, in this case, the Court seemingly says that if it invokes private
the tampering, tinkering, or touching of a growing or a planted tree and the Civil property, the Comelec has no jurisdiction to prescribe limitations. In the case,
Code provision on nuisance. These are under the jurisdiction of a government Court says that size matters because by limiting the size, it defeats the purpose of
agency other than Comelec. In case of private property, the owner can assert his advertisement. Comelec resolution still has to be issued on this.
ownership rights. LGUs can also exercise their anti-littering or anti-billboard
ordinance.
NEWS AND OPINIONS REGARDING CANDIDATES
Penera v. Comelec NEWS AND OPINIONS REGARDING CANDIDATES
Facts:
The filing of candidacy was set earlier to afford sufficient time to print NPC v Comelec
ballots. After filing, the mayoralty candidate and her supporters went Section 11 (b) of RA 6646 prohibits:
around the municipality in a motorcade. She was disqualified for A. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
premature campaign. personality who is a candidate for any elective public office shall
take a leave of absence from his work as such during the
Held: campaign period.
Sec. 11 of RA 8436 was amended when it said any person who files B. Reporting of news and news events relating to candidates, their
candidacy is considered a candidate only at the start of campaign period. qualifications, political parties and their platforms of government,
Thus, after filing and before campaign period, anything that she says or is not and should not be restricted.
does falls under freedom of expression. C. Commentaries, expressions of belief or opinion are allowed for as
Ferdie: Caveat, this applies if the premise is, you are only a candidate for ballot
long as they are not in fact advertisements for candidates secretly
printing. Does this apply to barangay candidates? No. If you are running for paid for.
barangay elections, the moment you apply for CoC, you are already considered a
Ferdie: If you’re a media personality, can you run for public office? Yes. What
candidate.
happens to your job? You’ll be required to take a leave of absence or else, you
might take advantage of your job. You can endorse a candidate in your column,
provided that you are not publicly or secretly paid for.
Page 38
Ferdie: A day prior to the elections and election day, liquor ban is enforced. The
MAXIMUM EXPENSES ALLOWED reason is because sobriety is important since you are making important decision
(choosing government officials in the next 3 or 6 years).
MAXIMUM EXPENSES ALLOWED
There was a time when Comelec tried to extend the 2-day period to 5 days on the
A. P3 – candidates with political party, per registered voter in the basis of recommendation of MMDA. Distributors and manufacturers of liquor
constituency you are running. opposed and filed TRO. SC granted the TRO and said that the 2-day period of ban
B. P5 – independent candidates per registered voter in the under the Omnibus Code cannot be expanded by Comelec. At the stroke of 12
constituency you are running. midnight, you cannot drink anymore. However, in the privacy of your home, you
C. P5 – political parties and party-list per registered voter in the can drink to death.
constituency you are running.
Except: Hotel and restaurants –
Amount is based on the total number of registered voters in the A. Duly certified by the Department of Tourism as tourist-oriented.
territorial jurisdiction (This applies only to foreigners)
B. Habitually catering to foreign tourists
Reportorial requirements C. Upon prior authority from the Commission
A. What to report – Statement of Contribution and Expenditures
Expense (SOCE) OPENING OF BOOTHS OR STALLS
B. When to report – Within 30 days from day of election
C. Who will report – Candidate or party treasurer OPENING OF BOOTHS OR STALLS
Ferdie: You have to report and if you exceed the amount that you reported, Prohibited act
that would be very incriminating against you. This is what happened to ER Opening of any booth or stall for the sale, dispensing or display of any
Ejercito. He was running for Governor in Laguna but even if the position was
only for Governor, he placed political ads on national TV. There was a
merchandise by any person
contract with ABS CBN or other network and said network has obligation to
report that contract to the Comelec for monitoring. Because it was reported,
Place of prohibition
it was found out that based in political ads alone, ER Ejercito already Any polling place or within 30 meter radius
exceeded allowable expense.
That is why he was disqualified. His defense was that he did not consent to During election day and counting of votes
the political ads; that someone did it for him. But in the contract of
advertisement, there’s a part where the candidate consents or agrees to the HOLDING OF FAIRS, COCKFIGHTS, BOXING, ETC.
contract. Ejercito claimed that it was a fake signature. Comelec did not
believe him and disqualified him for exceeding the allowable expense. ABS HOLDING OF FAIRS, COCKFIGHTS, BOXING, HORSE RACES,
CBN or any network has a contract and are required to report it to Comelec.
JAI-ALAI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR SPORTS
The disqualification here is after the elections. Because the requirement to
Prohibited acts
report is 30 days after the elections but you can be disqualified in the
succeeding elections if on the third attempt, you still did not file your SOCE.
The holding of:
A. Fairs
Effects of failure to file B. Cockfights
A. Administrative fine of 1-30k on first offense C. Boxing
B. Administrative fine of 2-60k on second offense D. Horse races
C. Paid within 30 days from receipt of notice of failure to file, else E. Jai-alai
enforceable by writ of execution F. Any other similar sports
D. Perpetual disqualification to hold public office
Person liable
E. Winners who fail to file cannot assume office
Any person, on election day
Except: Candidates for elective barangay office
REFUSAL TO CARRY ELECTION MATTER
Duty of election officer
Advise in writing within 5 days from election all candidates within area REFUSAL TO CARRY ELECTION MATTER
of justification to comply with filing requirements.
Prohibited act
Refusal to carry official election matter free of charge
OTHER PROHIBITIONS
Persons liable
OTHER PROHIBITIONS A. Any operator or employee of a public utility or transportation
A. Liquor ban company operating under a certificate of public convenience
B. Opening of booths or stalls B. employers or deputized agents of postal service controlled by a
C. Holding of fairs, cockfighting, boxing, horse races, jai-alai or any GOCC
other similar sports
D. Refusal to carry election matter Period of prohibition
E. Prohibition against discrimination in the sale or air time Election period
LIQUOR BAN DISCRIMINATION IN THE SALE OF AIR TIME
PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMIINATION IN THE SALE OF

LIQUOR BAN
AIR TIME
Prohibited acts
Prohibited act
Selling, furnishing, offering, buying, serving or taking intoxicating
Discrimination against candidate or political party in the sale of air time
liquor by any person
Person liable
Any person who operates a radio or television station
Eve and day of election
Except: when there is justifiable reason
10 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S S L G BASALO l FERNANDEZ l FLORO l GARCIA l IBANEZ l MACAPUGAS l REGENCIA l TARAN
Page 39
OTHER ELECTION OFFENSES IN SEC 262, OEC

Instances of electoral sabotage
OTHER ELECTION OFFENSES IN SECTION 262, OEC When tampering, increase or decrease or refusal to credit or deduct
the votes received by any candidate in any election.
Prohibited acts under Sec 29 RA 8436 as amended by Sec 28 RA 9368
A. Is committed in the election of a national elective office voted upon
A. Unauthorized use, tampering with, damaging, destroying or nationwide and the votes involved adversely affect the result of the
stealing: elections.
1. Official ballots, election returns or certificates of canvass
used in automation Ferdie: If it does not adversely effect, then it is not electoral sabotage, it is
just a simple election offense.
2. Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or
supplies such as counting machine, memory pack and
B. Regardless of elective office involved, it is accomplished in a single
computer set used in automation
document, or election results are transposed from one election
B. Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, document to another involves a number of votes exceeding 5,000
preventing the installation or use of computer counting devices and the votes adversely affect election results.
and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of
election results, data or information C. If the number of votes involved exceeds 10,000 and adversely
affect the results of the election.
C. Gaining, or causing access to using, altering, destroying or
disclosing any computer data, program, system software, Penalty
network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or Life imprisonment
equipment, whether classified or declassified
Other persons liable
D. Refusal of citizen’s arm to present for perusal its copy of election Any and all persons in conspiracy or in connivance with any member of
returns to the BOC the BEI or BOC.
Ferdie: Remember the penalty. General rule is 1 year to 6 year imprisonment.

Under automated elections, there are penalties that are higher. CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ELECTION OFFENSES
Penalty under this Act: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

1. Imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day to 12 years
2. Without possibility of parole PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR ELECTION OFFENSE
3. Perpetual disqualification to hold public office Principals, accomplices and accessories as defined by the Revised
4. Deprivation of suffrage Penal Code
5. Perpetual disqualification to hold any non-elective office.
Penalties:
ELECTORAL SABOTAGE A. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but not more than 6 years
B. Not subject to probation
ELECTORAL SABOTAGE C. Disqualification to hold public office
D. Deprivation of suffrage
ELECTORAL SABOTAGE UNDER SEC 27 OF RA 6646
As amended by Section 42 of RA 9369 If foreigner – deportation after service of sentence
It is a special election offense If political party – fine of not less than 10k
Prohibited act PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES

Causing the printing of official ballot and election returns by any printing
establishment which is not under contract with the Commission PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES
Shared or concurrent jurisdiction with DOJ and other government law
enforcement agencies.
Who is liable Prohibited Acts
Election Offenses, Rule 34, Section 1, Comelec Rules of Procedure
A. Undertaking such unauthorized
printing
Any person Authority of the Commission to Prosecute Election Offenses
B. Tampering, increasing or decreasing
the votes received by any candidate A. Exclusive power to investigate and prosecute unless otherwise
in any election provided by law
B. Continuing delegation of authority to other prosecution arms of
Refusal to credit the correct votes or
the government in their capacity as deputies of the Commission
deduct tampered votes, after proper
verification and hearing C. To investigate and prosecute complaints for election offenses
An BEI or BOC member under election laws filed directly with them or indorsed to them
Provided: If committed on a large scale, by the Commission
it is considered electoral sabotage
punishable by life imprisonment Such authority may be revoked and withdrawn anytime to:
1. Protect the integrity of the Commission
2. Promote the common good
Electoral sabotage defined
3. When it believes successful prosecution can be done by the
It is a special election offense committed by any person, BEI member
Commission
or BOC member who, on a large scale or substantial numbers:
A. Tampers, increases, decreases votes received by a candidate Section 265, Omnibus Election Code, as amended by RA 9369
B. Refuses after proper verification and hearing to credit correct The Commission, through its duly authorized legal officers, has power:
vote or deduct tampered vote committed.
A. To investigate and prosecute election offenses punishable under
Ferdie: Otherwise known as dagdag-bawas. the Omnibus Election Code.
Page 40
TN: Concurrent with other prosecuting arms of the government. Held:

The act of decreasing the votes of one candidate, even if not credited
PRESCRIPTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES to another, is inherently immoral, because it is done with malice and
After 5 years from date of commission intent to injure another. As such, it is mala in se, even if as a general
rule, violation of election law is mala prohibita.
Can there be a time when it can be reckoned from the date of
discovery? But while lack of intent may be a defense in mala in se, it is negated
Yes. If discovered during election contest proceedings, period during trial in this case where she admitted that she:
commences when judgment on such proceedings becomes final and A. Announced 1,921 instead of 6,921.
executory B. Prepared the COC even if it was not her duty thus indicating intent
to manipulate the results.
Comelec v. Espanol
And, she could not explain how the votes were decreased, which is
Facts:
inconsistent with her bounden duty ensure accuracy of the entries in the
The Commission authorized the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute
Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass, sensitive election
a case for vote-buying. It later decided however to exempt from
documents which entries must be thoroughly scrutinized.
prosecution the witnesses who testified about vote-buying and to
dismiss the cases against them. Ferdie: Inherently immoral, it means that it involves lying, cheating and stealing.
Remember these acts especially in elections.
The prosecutor opposed on the ground that exemption applies only to
vote-buying whereas the witnesses are charged with vote-selling. The Domalanta v. Comelec
trial court denied the motion on the ground that the power to exempt is Facts:
not absolute as the court has authority to decide. The PBOC and their support staff were accused of conspiracy to pad
votes. The results form municipalities were padded by retaining the last
Held: 3 digits but changing the first digit to add as low as 1,000 and a high as
The Commission has the sole power to investigate and prosecute 10,000 votes amounting to at least 44,000 benefiting at least 3
election offenses like vote-buying and vote selling. Its delegated senatorial candidates. They argued it was an honest mistake.
authority to the prosecution may be revoked anytime, expressly or
impliedly, at any stage of the proceedings. Held:
Magnitude of error belies honest mistake in the performance of election
Likewise, it has the sole power to exempt witnesses from prosecution duty. If computation discrepancies are too substantial, it cannot be
for vote-buying and vote-selling. These powers cannot be interfered categorized as mere computation error resulting from fatigue.
with by the trial court, much less opposed by the prosecutor, absent
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
NATURE OF ELECTION LAWS
ELECTION LAWS: MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

GR: Election laws are special statutes and as such, any violation is
considered mala prohibita. They are wrong not because they are
inherently wrong, but because they are prohibited by law. Thus, lack of
intent therefore is not a defense.
XPN: If the election offense is something inherently immoral such as

lying, cheating and stealing – they are mala in se. Thus, lack of intent is
now a defense.
People v. Bayona
Re: Election laws are mala prohibita as a general rule.
Facts:
A person was convicted for carrying a firearm within 50 meters from the
polling place. He argued that he merely alighted form his car when his
friend called him. He had no intention to go inside the polling place,
much less to vote or campaign for anybody. In short, he had no intention
to intimidate the voters or in any manner influence the conduct of
election.
Held: Election laws are statutory or special laws hence they are mala
prohibita. As such, lack of intent is not a defense.
Garcia v. Comelec
Re: Decreasing the votes of one candidate is mala in se.
Facts:
The MBOC Chairman was convicted for decreasing votes by at least
5,000. She argued she has no motive to cheat. As a matter of fact, it
was not credited to another candidate. She could not explain how the
5,921 votes were reduced to 1,921. It must have been through honest
mistake due to fatigue.
Page 41
PART V. CANDIDATES QUALIFICATIONS/DISQUALIFICATIONS TO FILE COC
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY QUALIFCATIONS TO FILE COC
QUALIFICATIONS TO FILE COC

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
A. It is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
the candidate’s political creed or lack of political creed. 2. At least 40 years old on the day of
Ferdie: “Political creed/ lack of political creed” means the candidate’s election
platform - meaning, you can file with or without a platform. The platform of 3. Resident of the Philippines for at
government is optional. You can file a CoC with or without a platform of least 10 years prior to election
government. 4. Able to read and write
President and 5. Registered Voter
B. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office Vice-President
certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned
Term limit
and he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party which
A. President shall not be eligible for any
he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all
re-election
election purposes being well stated.
B. Vice-president shall not serve for
Ferdie: It means that if you submit your COC to Comelec, it is a public more than 2 successive terms
warrant to the court that you are eligible to run for public office. Thus,
your COC may be cancelled on the basis of falsity because a COC is a 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
public document. 2. Registered voter
3. Able to read and write
C. It is the document which formally accords upon a person the status
4. At least 35 years old on the day of
of a candidate. Without a valid COC, one is not a candidate.
election
Ferdie: Senator 5. Resident of the Philippines for at
GR: You can never be a candidate w/o a COC. least 2 years prior to election
XPN: That isolated case where the widow sent a letter addressed to Comelec
that she will replace her dead husband. SC held that letter asking to make
her substitute can be considered a COC. Term limit: Senator shall not serve for
more than 2 successive terms
Note: But this is a very isolated case. Do not use this.
D. A person’s declaration of his intention to run for public office and 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter
his affirmation that he:
3. Able to read and write
(a) Possesses the eligibility for the position he seeks to assume House of Reps 4. At least 25 years old
(b) Followed by the timely filing of such declaration 5. Resident of the district for at least 1
Ferdie: Take note that it says timely. Hence, you cannot be a considered a
year
candidate if you file out of time. 6. Registered voter of the district
GR: There is no way to extend the filing of COC 1. Filipino Citizen
XPN: If it is Comelec itself that says “we’re going to extend” 2. Registered voter of the province, city,
municipality, district or barangay
PURPOSE OF COC Local elective 3. Resident for at least 1 year
officials immediately preceding the date of
PURPOSE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY election
4. Able to read and write Filipino or any
A. To enable the voters to know the candidates among whom they
local language or dialect
are to make the choice
Ferdie: If you go to the polling place, right in front of you in the voting
booth, there’s the certified list of candidates. You choose from there. DISQUALIFCATIONS TO FILE COC
B. To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the
DISQUALIFICATIONS TO FILE COC
votes cast.
This means that you can still file, but will be disqualified later.
Ferdie: These are also the same reasons why there is a deadline for filing
of COC. 1. Acts of terrorism
2. Fugitives from justice
3. Permanent residents aboard
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
ACTS OF TERRORISM
Sec 68 of the Omnibus Election Code states that you are disqualified if
convicted by competent court or found by the Commission to have
violated election laws, you cannot run.
Note, it said found by the COMELEC, meaning findings of facts by the

Comelec. And what did we say about findings of fact by the Comelec?
It cannot be disturbed unless it was arbitrary or grave abuse of
discretion.
Page 42
Diangka v. Comelec immoral. Thus, if the crime involves this, most likely involves moral
Forced, threatened and intimidated watchers of other candidates to turpitude.
leave the ballot box and election paraphernalia for one precinct to give
her followers free hand to fill out the official ballots Examples: Bribing, fencing, estafa
Swooped down and assaulted one barangay, creating tumultuous There must be a conviction with finality
commotion or disturbances scaring away and preventing voters casting If there is still a pending motion for reconsideration or appeal, that is
their votes, snatching ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia not conviction with finality so you can still run for public office.
including official ballots and stuffing ballot boxes with spurious ballots.
Example: GMA was still able to run in Pampanga despite being under
Ferdie: In this case, her husband was the incumbent mayor. He was already in house arrest.
his 3rd term. Of course, he asked his wife to run in his place. The acts alleged were
directly and indirectly committed by the lady candidate. ECCLESIASTICS
 Directly – identified positively that she ordered her supporters to commit such Religious sects are prohibited from running for party list representation
acts for her only. Priests and nuns may run for public office.
 Indirectly – through her husband who was the incumbent mayor
Pamil v. Teleron
The conflict in this case – these were very serious allegations and very specific.
You know what she did? She merely issued a general denial and a general denial Facts:
is basically an admission and can be taken against you.
A priest in Bohol ran for public office and won. Quo warranto
Bottom line: There might not have been that exact body of evidence that positively proceedings was filed on the ground that it was a violation of the non-
points to her, but she was still the recipient of the acts of terrorism , making it establishment clause of the Constitution. (separation of church and state
enough to disqualify her. Comelec said that if you are the recipient, logically, you is inviolable)
could have been there to perpetrate the acts of terrorism.
QUINTO Held:
There may be questions as to findings of fact, but remember, findings of facts by Seven members affirmed the right of the priest to be elected to public
the Comelec cannot be disturbed, for so long as not arbitrary and supported by
office because the challenged provision was superseded by the 1935
substantial evidence, with no presence of grave abuse of discretion.
Constitution as opposed to five members who ruled that such a
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE prohibition against an ecclesiastic running for elective office is not
tainted with any constitutional infirmity.
Marquez v. Comelec
Ferdie: Old law – Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (a certain provision
Who are fugitives from justice?
prohibits ecclesiastics from running. The constitutionality of this provision was
A. One who flees after conviction to avoid punishment challenged)
B. One who flees after filing of case to avoid prosecution
The seven justices approached the problem from a free-exercise point
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ABROAD of view and considered the law a prohibited religious test while five
Caasi v. CA justices approached it from the non-establishment point of view and
Application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. upheld the law as a safeguard against the constant threat of union of
and possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive church and state that has marked Philippine history.
proof of being a permanent resident of the US. You abandon not only
residence but also domicile in the Philippines. Ferdie:
In this case, the SC was very indecisive.
A. 7 justices voted in favor (can run because of the free exercise clause)
CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE B. 5 justices voted otherwise (cannot run because it violates the Constitution)
Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of For you to nullify a law and declare as unconstitutional, it has to be the majority
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence. votes of the Supreme Court. “Tyranny of minority” – 8 votes is needed to nullify a
law. In this case, the 5 justices actually prevailed.
Ferdie: Does not talk about the length of time by which you are going to be in
prison. Instead it talks about the kind or nature of the offense – must be one
While five members of the court constitute a minority, the vote of the
involving moral turpitude.
remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged provision
ineffective. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, as far as
Zari v. Flores
ecclesiastics are concerned, is valid and must be accorded respect.
Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private
duties which a person owes his or her fellow men, or to society in
Ferdie: This is the last case that the SC treated the subject matter squarely.
general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honestly, You may ask – why are we still giving credit to the very old Revised Administrative
Law of 1917? Hasn’t the current Administrative Code of 1987 repealed the old
modesty, or good morals.
Admin Code?
Villaber v. Comelec No. Remember the rule on statutory construction.

Issuance of a bouncing check is a crime involving moral turpitude, A. The 1987 Code did not expressly repeal the 1917 Code
B. Implied repeal is not favored. It only works if there is irreconcilable
because the accused knows at the time of the issuance of the check that
discrepancies between two laws – there is none here, so the Revised Admin
he did not have enough funds. Code of 1917 is still controlling.
There is no hard and fast rule in determining if the crime How to reconcile the fact that priests and nun can already run
involves moral turpitude today?
Generally crimes classified as mala in se are the ones involving moral
A. US Supreme Court in one case – ecclesiastics should be allowed to
turpitude. Mala prohibita are bad not because they are inherently
run because of the free exercise clause
immoral but because they are prohibited. But sometimes, the court
usually checks on a case-to-case basis. It doesn’t matter whether it is B. Philippine jurisprudence – reconcile Pamil case with Bagumbayani
mala in se or mala prohibita, for as long as it is inherently immoral. But case
basically, anything about lying, cheating or stealing is inherently
Page 43
Bagumbayani case C. Name to be used is the one he is baptized. If not baptized, the
What the law prohibits are religious sects running for party list name appearing in the record of birth
representation. It does not extend to a priest or nun who wants to run
for public office. Name to be used is the one he is baptized with
If not baptized – the name appearing in the record of birth.
Ferdie: Basically, a priest or nun can run. Whether or not the church allows them
to run is something between them and the church. It does not concern the Ferdie: This is an old rule, because now we use the following:
Comelec and the court. The point is – the law allows them to run. 1. Name in birth certificate
2. If none, name in baptismal certificate
WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE COC; DUTY TO RECEIVE COC How about Isko Moreno?
That’s his screen name, didn’t we say that we should use the name in the birth
WHEN TO FILE COC certificate?
This was treated as his nickname – not necessarily one word. It can be a phrase,
WHEN TO FILE COC example: Luigi Guisumbing’s nickname was big brother Luigi because Pinoy Big
Brother was popular at that time.
Ferdie: Never mind this, the Comelec sometimes changes the period when to file.
Barangay election EFFECT OF FILING COC

Any day from start of election period but prior to campaign period
(Sec. 35, OEC) EFFECT OF FILING COC BY ELECTIVE OFFICIAL
Applies to any elective official, whether national or local, running for any
National and local election other office other than the one he holds in a permanent capacity, except
A. Within the period fixed President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
B. Not later than the day before the date fixed for the beginning of upon filing of COC.
his campaign period
A. Old law: If you are an elective local official, and you file a COC –
Purpose for deadline for Filing of COC ipso facto considered resigned upon filing of COC.
A. To enable the voters to know the candidates among whom they
are to make the choice B. Current law: Expressly repealed by RA 9006, The Fair Elections
B. To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the Act – If you are the incumbent elective official, and you run for the
votes case same position or another position (higher or lower), you are not
ipso facto resigned anymore upon filing of the COC.
WHERE TO FILE COC
Example: That’s why if a current senator runs for President, if he
WHERE TO FILE COC loses, he can still continue as senator.
Position Where to file EFFECT OF FILING COC BY APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL

Any person holding public appointive office shall be considered ipso
President, vice-president, Law Department, COMELEC, facto resigned upon filing of COC.
senator and party-list Intramuros, Manila
Ipso facto – means automatic, need not even write a resignation letter.
House Representative, Office of the Provincial Election But if you want to write a resignation letter out of courtesy, fine. But the
Governor, Vice-governor and SP Supervisor date of filing of COC operates as date of resignation and not the letter.
member
Who are considered public appointive officials?
City and Municipal Mayor, Vice- Those who receive compensation from the government. Thus, mere
Mayor and Members, Office of the Election Officer filing of COC – ipso facto resignation. Even if you’re a worker of a GOCC
Sangguniang Panglungsod or a public hospitals.
Punong Barangay and Kagawad Office of the Election Officer Ferdie: This effect applies only to people in the government, not the private sector.
Thus, if you work in a call center and you run for office, you’re not deemed
resigned. If you were removed, that’s already between you and your employer.
DUTY OF COMELEC TO RECEICE COC
Quinto v. Comelec
DUTY OF COMELEC TO RECEIVE COC Facts:
It is a ministerial duty on the part of the Comelec to receive and A group of law challenged the law which provides that appointive public
acknowledge receipt of COC. officials are deemed ipso facto resigned upon filing of COC, as
Ferdie: Ministerial means you do not exercise discretion in so far as substance. unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. They said –
But, acceptance can only be done if COC is complete, so Comelec checks if the Why not include elective officials when in fact both elective and
COC is complete – if it followed the prescribed form, if signed, if notarized, etc. If appointive officials receive compensation from the government.
complete, we have no choice but to accept. We can’t ask if the candidate is
qualified or not. The SC initially granted the petition and thus struck down the law as
unconstitutional. Therefore, appointive officials can now run without
CONTENTS OF COC AND EFFECT OF FILING being deemed resigned.
Ferdie: What happened after – a lot of public workers filed their COCs because
CONTENTS OF COC even if they lose, they can still have their jobs. They have a fallback. (Military men,
public school teachers, police, even election officers)
CONTENTS OF COC
Thus, upon motion for reconsideration, the SC reversed itself.
A. Name, political party, office, eligibility, age, civil status, profession
or occupation, residence, citizenship, among others
Held:
B. Undertaking that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a
The law is constitutional as it does not violate equal protection clause.
foreign country among others
Substantial distinctions exist between appointive and elective officials.
Page 44
Elective officials occupy their position by virtue of the mandate of the Filipino citizens whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate or
electorate while appointive officials are designated by appointing illegitimate.
authority. The Constitution prohibits civil service employees from
engaging in electioneering and partisan political activity. The grandfather, Lorenzo Pou, would have been born sometime in 1870
when the Philippines was under Spanish rule. As such he would have
Since elective officials are elected into office for a definite term, their been Filipinized by the 1902 Philippine Bill.
exclusion from the deemed-resigned rule is in deference to the Such acquired citizenship was extended to his son Allan Poe, the father
sovereign will. There is no such expectation from appointive officials of FPH, hence he is a Filipino citizen. As such, FPJ was born to a Filipino
because they are not elected to a definite term. Some of them serve in father. Thus, he is a natural-born citizen from birth because he did not
permanent capacity with security of tenure. need to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine Citizenship.
Bottom line – if you occupy an appointive position in the government, While the totality of evidence may not be conclusive, still, it is enough
you are considered resigned upon filing of COC. to preponderated in favor of FPJ that he did not make a material
misrepresentation in his CoC. Any misrepresentation in the CoC must
Ferdie: For anyone who has a friend working in the government, please help the not only be material, it must also be deliberate and willful.
Comelec remind your friends never to like, share, or comment anything about
Ferdie: Falsity means you lied about your qualifications. When you lie, it must be
candidates in Facebook during campaign period. That’s already considered as
deliberate and willful. Similar to what happened to Imelda. Now Poe is claiming
political partisan activity, as mentioned by the Constitution. That’s not covered by
the same thing that she believed that she was a natural-born citizen which is in
the freedom of expression, even if your relative is running. Your only participation
fact a difficult question of law. It seems like they lied but did they actually do it
during elections is to vote. This includes campaigning for or against a certain
wilfully?
candidate.
Tecson v. Comelec
Q. The law says “upon filing of COC”. What if he gets
While it is true that the SC is the sole judge of all contests relating to
disqualified? Will he still have his position?
qualifications of the President, it applies only to the elected President
No. He has to re-apply because he lost the position already.
and not the candidate for president, over which the Commission has
PETITIONS jurisdiction.
A. PET’s jurisdiction pertains to elected President or Vice-President.
RULE 23. PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL B. Comelec’s jurisdiction pertains to candidates.
PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL COC Dumpit-Michelina v. Boado

Facts:
Ground Falsity of any material representation The CoC of a mayoralty candidate was sought to be cancelled or denied
When to file Within 5 days from last day of filing due course on the ground of material misrepresentation for falsely
claiming residence.
Who may file Any citizen of voting age or a duly
Ferdie: This was a valid ground for cancellation since CARLV (residence)
registered political party
Where to file Law department She argued she is already a resident of the place after she purchased a
Nature of proceedings Summary parcel of land over which a beach house was eventually built. Thus, it
Reception of evidence May be delegated can be said that she abandoned her domicile of origin and acquired a
new domicile of choice.
Salcedo v. Comelec
Held:
Facts:
Domicile of origin is not easily lost. That she acquired a property in the
In her COC, a candidate used the surname of her husband. But it was
new place is not sufficient. Mere Property ownership is not the sole
sought to be cancelled on the ground of material misrepresentation
indicia of right to vote and be voted for. She failed to establish
because the husband she married was already married. Bigamous, her
abandonment of her domicile of origin. A beach house is not a residence,
marriage is void. Thus, she cannot use the surname of the husband.
it is more of a temporary place for relaxation.
The designation of caretaker indicates she does not regularly stay there.
Held:
Also, witnesses retracted claiming that they did not know what they
Material misrepresentation involves qualifications to hold public office
signed for.
like age, residence or citizenship. It does not involve innocuous mistakes
of surname because it does not deceive or mislead the voters about Ferdie: She tried proving her residence through affidavits of witnesses saying she
qualification. resided there. However, these were taken back by the witnesses later on.
Ferdie: Material representation involves only CARLV. Mistakes of surname can be
a ground for perjury, but not for cancellation of COC. Requisites for change of domicile
A. Actual removal or change of domicile
Fornier v. Comelec B. Bona fide intention to abandon the former residence and establish
Facts: a new one
FPJ filed his COC for president where he stated that he is a natural-born C. Acts which correspond with the purpose
Filipino. A petition to deny due course or cancel CoC based on Ferdie: This means bodily presence in the new locality.
misrepresentation was filed against him because he is not a natural born Clarified:
Filipino. Born to unmarried parents, he is an illegitimate child thus he (a) Domicile of origin – no need for bodily presence since as what was said
follows the citizenship of his mother who is American. before, actual intent to return to that place establishes domicile of
origin
Ferdie: This was a valid ground cancellation since citizenship is the issue (involves (b) Domicile of choice – you need to establish bodily presence to prove
CARLV). your intent to stay
Held:
FPJ is a natural-born Filipino Citizen. He was born under the 1935
Constitution which confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Page 45
Comelec case Her new domicile by operation of law, by virtue of her marriage is
Rapasun. Under the old Civil Code, the husband and wife are obliged to
Facts:
live together. Failure to show that she maintained separate residence
A permanent resident in the US waived her status by surrendering her
from her husband makes way for the civil code presumption that she
green card. She returned to the country for good, registered as a voter,
and her husband live together in Rapasun, and not Pantar.
paid taxes and even won a first term as mayor.
Ferdie: Under the New Civil Code, there is no more compulsion to live together.
When she won the second time, a petition for quo warranto was filed Thus, you can live apart even if you are husband and wife. In one instance here
against her on the ground that permanent residents abroad are in Cebu, Inday Neri (Soon Ruiz) ran for congress here in Cebu and her husband
disqualified to run for public office under Sec. 40 (f) of the LGC which ran for congress in Lapu-Lapu city. They were being challenged since her
does not provide waiver as remedy. Thus, sec. 68 (e) of the OEC husband’s domicile couldn’t be Lapu-Lapu since his wife lived in Cebu. However,
allowing it is repealed. nothing really happened to this case since the husband lost.
Held: RULE 24. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NUISANCE CANDIDATE

Sec. 40 (f) did not repeal sec. 68. Both provide that permanent residents
abroad are disqualified to run for public office except that section 68 (e) NUISANCE CANDIDATE
provides waiver as an exception or remedy to the disqualification. Any person who filed a COC to:
A. Put the election process in mockery or disrepute
The requisites to reacquire domicile are complied with: TN: Election is supposed to be sacred.
1. Intent to abandon the old domicile, by the surrender of green card B. Cause confusion among voters by the similarity of names of
2. Intent to remain in the new domicile, by her continued stay for good candidates
and even election TN: Example is having another person with the same surname run to stray
the votes of a certain candidate.
3. Bodily presence, by continued stay for good, engagement in
business and even election C. Clearly demonstrate to have no bona fide intention to run
Ferdie: There’s change of domicile, that’s when we need bodily presence
A person may be declared a nuisance candidate and his CoC may
If the evidence of lack of residence is weak, and the purpose of the law be denied due course or cancelled.
is not thwarted in upholding the right to public office, the will of the When to file Within 5 days from the last day
electorate should be respected. of period to file
Who may file Any registered candidate for the
Ferdie: What the Supreme Court is saying here is, even if the evidence is weak,
and if upholding the right to public office does not thwart will of people, resolve in
same elective office
favor of the candidate. Where to file Law Department
Nature of proceedings Summary
The purpose of residency requirement is to ensure that the person Reception of evidence May be delegated
elected into office is familiar with the needs and problems of his or her
constituency. In this case, she is familiar and is in fact the incumbent How come Comelec is given the power to declare a nuisance
mayor. candidate?
Didn’t we say that for so long as you are qualified, you can run? Didn’t
Second placer rule the Constitution say that everybody has equal opportunities to run for
In the event the proclaimed winner is disqualified, the second placer public office?
cannot assume office because he or she is not the choice of the people.
The Constitutional provision is not self-executing. It is a mere privilege,
To clarify: and not a right that cannot be revoked. What if there are a million
A. If CoC is cancelled (because of material representation, falsity or presidential candidates and the Comelec has no power to disqualify
nuisance candidate) – you were never a candidate at any time, so them as nuisance candidates? That would be logistically impossible.
the 2nd placer is the rightful winner. That’s why Comelec can screen the candidates, to ascertain if the people
filing are serious.
B. If disqualified – you were a candidate at some time. Thus, the 2nd
placer cannot win because he was never the choice of the people. Comelec can also declare you as a nuisance candidate on the ground of
lack of capacity to mount a national campaign.
Limbona v. Comelec
Does it not amount to a property qualification?
Facts: Not necessarily. Lack of capacity does not only pertain to money, but
Husband and wife both ran for mayor in Pantar but they were sought to also logistics – people, machinery. Bottom line is, reality check – you
be disqualified for not being residents and registered voters. The wife can never be a candidate under the circumstances.
withdrew and the husband was disqualified for lack of residence. Even
if she withdrew, the wife was also disqualified for lack of residence. So can a poor person be always declared a nuisance candidate?
Not necessarily. If they have a clear and good platform of government
The wife substituted the husband, which was the reason why she or are well known, we let them run.
withdrew her candidacy. She was sought to be disqualified on the same
grounds. Determination of facts by Comelec
This is a determination of facts by the Comelec. Thus, they cannot be
Contention of the wife: There is a separate ruling which says her disturbed unless supported by substantial evidence or arbitrary.
husband is a resident of Pantar and could run as a candidate there.
Thus, as a wife, she follows the residence of her husband. Pamatong v. Comelec
Facts:
Held: Pamatong ran for president in 2004. But his CoC was denied due course
There was already an earlier ruling that she is disqualified for lack of by the Commission because he is a nuisance candidate. He has no party
residence. The fact that she withdrew her candidacy while the case was or movement to back his candidacy. He argued that it violates his right
heard does not change the finding of lack of residence to equal access to opportunities for public office. It indirectly amends
Page 46
constitutional provisions on electoral process and limits the power of the 2. Disqualification – you are not qualified but there is no falsification or
sovereign people to choose their leaders. lying involved
B. Commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualifications

Held:
Equal access to opportunities for public office is not a right, but a mere GROUNDS UNDER COMELEC RESOLUTION
privilege. As such, it is subject to many limitations. Prohibitions against
nuisance candidates is aimed at ensuring a rational, objective and A. Any candidate, who in an action where he is a party, is declared by
orderly electoral exercise. Thus, the State must take into account final decision of a competent court, guilty of any disqualification.
practical considerations Ferdie: It must be a declaration of competent court. You are found guilty,
probably you offended an election law.
The greater the number of candidates, the greater the possibility for
logistical confusion, aside from increased allocation for government time B. Any candidate found by the Commission to be suffering from any
and resources in the preparation for the election. The prohibition avoids disqualification under the Law or the Constitution/
confusion, deception and even frustration of the electoral process. Ferdie: This is easier to do because “any disqualification as may be found by
the Comelec”. In the first ground, there must be a final conviction by the
Martinez v. HRET court – guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the second round, there is no
need for conviction. It is enough that there is substantial evidence.
Facts:
In the 2007 elections, Celestino Martinez and Benhur Salimbangon were Any day after the last day of filing of COC
candidates for 4th district representative in the province of Cebu. Edilito When to file
but not later than the day of proclamation
C. Martinez however filed his candidacy for the same position. Celestino Any citizen of voting age or any registered
sought to declare him a nuisance candidate but the petition was still Who may file
political party
pending on the day of election. Where to file Law Department
Ferdie: So there were two Martinez – Celestino Martinez and Edilito C. Martinez. Nature of proceedings Summary
So the Martinez and C. Martinez votes = stray votes.
What if petition is unresolved with finality on election day?
Thus, the Boards of Election Inspectors strayed 5401 votes for Martinez Votes cast in favor of respondent may be counted or canvassed.
or C. Martinez. As a result, Benhur was proclaimed the winner over Ferdie: This is what happened in Poe’s case. She can still be voted for despite the
Celestino by 104 votes. pending case of disqualfiication, if there is no decision yet on election day.
Celestino filed an election protest with the HRET but the HRET sustained What will you do if you’re the lawyer of the 2nd placer?
the straying of such votes since at the time of election, both Celestino Move for suspension of proclamation of winner on the basis of the pending
Martinez and Edilito C. Martinez were listed in the official list of disqualification case, but you must prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.
candidates. As such, there was no way of knowing the true intent of the
EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER RA 6646
voters. Hence, Celestino filed a petition for certiorari with the SC on the
ground that the HRET gravely abused its discretion when it refused to If disqualified with finality on election day
count the votes in his favor despite finality of the Comelec decision Candidate shall not be voted for. If voted for, the votes shall not be
counted. They shall be treated as stray votes.
Contention of Salimbangon: As far as the voters are concerned, there
TN: Stray vote is different from marked ballot.
are 3 candidates on election day, Celestino, Edilito and him. It would be (a) Stray vote – only the vote for that disqualified candidate will not be counted.
illogical and unfair to appreciate the ballot in favor of Celestino based The rest of the ballot remains valid.
on a supervening event of declaring Edilito as nuisance. (b) Marked ballot – the whole ballot will not be counted.
Held: If not disqualified with finality, voted for and obtains winning
The belated declaration of nuisance retroacts to the day of election, number of votes
especially where grounds for such declaration are clear and conclusive. The trial and hearing shall continue, but the proclamation may be
It now voids the proclamation. The inefficiency or lethargy of Comelec suspended upon motion if evidence of guilt is strong.
should not prejudice the petitioner. He had no opportunity to segregate
the votes in anticipation of straying because the decision came out after
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES
election.
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES
Unlike in Bautista v. Comelec where the declaration, though not final,
was issued before election day, hence the petitioner was alerted of the An official candidate of a registered political party may be substituted by
possibility. But even if the facts in Bautista somehow differ from this a person belonging to the same party, if the official candidate after the
case in so far as the date of finality is concerned, the adverse effect is last day of the filing of COC:
the same. That is, the disenfranchisement of the voters and the (a) Dies
suppression of the true will of the electorate. (b) Withdraws
(c) Disqualified for any cause
Ferdie: This decision of the SC became final a month prior to the expiration of the
Ferdie: It must be after the last day of the filing of COC, since if before, the
term of Salimbangon. Celestino was able to take his oath of office a week before
property remedy is not substitution but rather ask the candidate to withdraw the
the expiration of the term. He might’ve been vindicated, but that interrupted the
COC, and the other one to file a new one.
term of Salimbangon. That’s why up to now, Salimbangon is in his 4 th term.
A. Within the period of filing COC – withdraw, file a new one
B. After period of filing COC – substitution
RULE 25. DISQUALIFICATON OF CANDIDATES
Q. Until when can you be replaced?
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION Not later than midday on election day. Thus, even if voting started
A. Does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided already, substitution can still take place.
for by the Constitution or by existing law.
In case of valid substitution after ballots have been printed
Ferdie: Note the difference. Vote for the substituted is vote for the substitute.
1. Cancellation – you are not qualified, and you falsified or lied
Page 47
Tagolino v. Comelec RA 8295 LONE CANDIDATE LAW

Facts: Richard Gomez was disqualified for lacking residency, a fact he
misrepresented in his CoC. He said he was a resident of Ormoc, when LONE CANDIDATE LAW
he wasn’t. Hence, Lucy Torres substituted him. She won convincingly.
What is the rule if a candidate runs unopposed?
Ferdie: Richard’s COC was cancelled because he lied about his residency because It depends if you are running in a regular elections or a special elections.
he said he was a resident of Ormoc but in reality, when Gomez and Torres were
married, it was Torres who went to Manila with Gomez, not the other way around, If regular elections
which is why Gomez cannot be resident of Ormoc. The elections shall take place. The lone candidate needs only one vote
to win. This is because a winner is one who obtains the highest number
Held: Substitution is not proper. Misrepresentation warrants cancellation of votes.
of COC, not disqualification. When cancelled, there is no valid CoC. As
such, there is no candidate. Ergo, there cannot be substitution. If special elections
Substitution is proper only when the substituted is disqualified, because In case of a special election to fill vacancy of an elective position, except
he or she was considered a candidate until ordered discontinued. President and Vice-President, and the period to file CoC has expired with
only one qualified candidate for the position having filed a valid CoC –
Ferdie: If cancelled, you were never a candidate at all and there is no candidate
to substitute. This is why Lucy cannot substitute Richard. The lone candidate may be proclaimed winner, without the special
election being conducted, after the Commission certifies that he or she
WITHDRAWAL OF COC is the only candidate. He or she assumes office not earlier than the
scheduled special election.
WITHDRAWAL OF COC
A person who filed a CoC, may withdraw his or her CoC: TN: Not applicable if President or Vice-President. In which case, the special
elections shall push through.
A. Prior to election day
TN: You cannot withdraw anymore after election day, because the people
have spoken.
B. In writing
C. Under oath
D. Filed personally
TN: This cannot be delegated because the opponent may fabricate a
withdrawal.
 Filing of CoC – need not be done personally (via SPA)
 Withdrawal – must be personal
Monsale v. Comelec
Facts: After lapse of period to file candidacy, a candidate withdraws his
withdrawal to revive candidacy
Held: Withdrawal is allowed anytime to prior to election day. But

withdrawal of withdrawal with the effect of revival is allowed only during
the period to file candidacy to ensure prior notice to voters and avoid
confusion and inconvenience in tabulation of votes.
MULTIPLE COCS
MULTIPLE COCs
GR: Filing for more than one office is prohibited. If he or she files for
more than once office, he or she shall not be eligible for any.
XPN: When he declares under oath the office he desires and cancels the
other prior to the expiration of period to file CoC.
During the period to file CoC, can you file multiple CoCs?
Yes, if you are undecided. Provided, that before the lapse of the period
to file CoC, you cancel either. Otherwise, all will be cancelled.
Can a candidate who withdraws run for another position?

Yes. A candidate who withdraws can still run for another position. The
old law which prohibited a candidate who withdraws from running for
another position was declared unconstitutional for lack of legal basis.
Ferdie: Fun case in a municipality here in Cebu. He had his helper run to see
whether the opponent was strong. If not, his plan was to substitute the helper.
After discovering that the opponent was not that strong, he asked his helper to
withdraw. What happened was fatal. The helper did not personally appear before
the Comelec to withdraw her CoC, so she stayed as a candidate and no substitution
took place. Hahahaha!
Page 48
GUIDELINES ON COMELEC CHECKPOINTS RN 10029 GUIDELINES IN ESTABLISHMENT OF CHECKPOINTS
PURPOSE OF COMELEC CHECKPOINTS GUIDELINES IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHECKPOINTS

A Comelec checkpoint must be:
PURPOSE OF COMELEC CHECKPOINTS A. Well-lighted for identity
Comelec checkpoints are done to enforce the gun ban. B. Properly identified
C. Manned with uniformed personnel
Gun ban
Pertains to illegal possession of a firearm in public places since it might A Comelec checkpoint must have:
be used to intimidate the voters. Comelec checkpoints are done to A. Signboard measuring 3 ft. x 4 ft. printed on both sides (“Stop
enforce the gun ban. Comelec Checkpoint”, Name of election officer and commanding
officer, bold letters against white background)
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH CHECKPOINTS B. Signboards directing motorists to slow down
C. A different signboard 20 ft. prior to the signboard above
AUTHORIY TO ESTABLISH CHECKPOINTS forewarning the motorists to slow down
During Election Period (January 10 to June 8, 2016)
The personnel manning must:
Ferdie: January 10 to May 9 is already 120 days. But the Constitution says it must A. Require the motorist to slow down
be 90 Days. However, it also says that the Comelec (in special cases) can expand
the election period for special reasons and the Comelec cannot be questioned on
B. Courteously request to DIM the headlights and turn on the cabin
questions of fact. lights
TN: Motorists cannot be compelled to step out of the vehicle.

There shall be at least one Comelec checkpoint in each city/municipality Ferdie: Motorists can be requested which means they can decline. Once motorists
decline but the officers insist – this amounts to compulsion.
Notice of locations shall be posted in the:
A. Office of the Election Officer Only Visual search is required
Ferdie: Sanctioned by the Election Officers because the AFP and PNP are A. This is equivalent to the plain view doctrine.
mere deputies of Comelec B. They may be aided by flashlights
B. Respective offices of the PNP and AFP C. This includes the authority to ask the motorists to roll down the
window if tinted
SPOT CHECKPOINT
No physical or body search in the absence of a reasonable
SPOT CHECKPOINT ground
May be established in locations other than those mentioned in the Reasonable ground finding upon the discretion of the officers. Officers
previous section. enjoy the presumption of regularity which means that without clear
convincing evidence, this presumption cannot be overturned.
Requirements to establish a spot checkpoint:
The personal manning cannot compel the motorists to open the
A. Coordinating officer must give prior notice to the Election officer glove compartment, trunk or bags
having jurisdiction over the area Because they are only allowed visual search, unless there is reasonable
Ferdie: Only to notify not to secure the approval of the election officer. ground.
B. Establishment of spot checkpoint must follow the guidelines for Ordinary/Routine questions may be asked
Comelec Checkpoints Checkpoints may involve only a brief detention of travellers. This is to
ensure that the least inconvenience is done.
PERSONNEL TO MAN CHECKPOINT
Reportorial requirement
PERSONNEL TO MAN CHECKPOINT Violations, incidents or untoward circumstances must be reported to the
Election Officer within 24 hours.
Team Leader
Any regular member of the AFP or PNP with a rank of at least a SEARCHES AT COMELEC CHECKPOINT
Lieutenant/Inspector
SEARCHES AT COMELEC CHECKPOINT
If there is no available AFP/PNP Member with said rank:
Highest ranking officer shall make a special designation of a lower Any search at a Comelec checkpoint must be made:
ranking officer. A. Only by members of the unit designated to man the same in a
manner that will impose minimum inconvenience and that will not
Requirements: violate any civil, political and human rights.
A. In complete service uniform
B. Name plates and other identification tags clearly visible and B. With a valid search warrant
readable for identity (must know who they are) Ferdie: Usually impracticable so they do warrantless search
C. Not to be under the influence of liquor or drugs
When may a warrantless arrest be done
TN: Any violation shall make the offender and the commanding officer A. When police observes unusual conduct which convinces him that
jointly liable for administrative action. a criminal activity exists.
Ferdie: Any violation of election laws as well as Comelec resolutions will result in B. On the basis of prior confidential information reasonably
an election offense, unless the Comelec specifies that it is an administrative offense corroborated by other attendant matters.
(ex. failure to file SOCE). If you think your reputation or person is maligned, file
A civil case for damages.
Page 49
RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARRESTED B. Follow SOP of PNP under the PNP Handbook in cases of:
1. Spot Checks
RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARRESTED 2. Regular Police Checkpoint
A person caught with a gun and thereafter arrested shall have the 3. When Checkpoint is ignored
following rights. 4. Hostile situations
A. Right to be silent – To remain silent and be informed that anything
C. Follow SOP of PNP under the PNP handbook in cases of valid
he/she says may be used against him/her in court.
arrests and searches
B. Right to be counsel – To have competent and independent counsel
PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ARREST
of his own choice. If he cannot afford one, he must be provided
with one.
PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ARREST
1. Any arrest at a Comelec Checkpoint must be recorded at a log
C. Right to be informed – To be informed of the rights above.
book.
2. The arresting officer must execute an affidavit of arrest
D. To be released from detention if no charges are filed within the
3. The following must be turned over:
allowable period, unless charged under PD 1866, RA 10591 or
a) Person arrested
other penal laws.
b) Confiscated material and weapon
TN: Period cannot exceed 36 hours from arrest. c) Affidavit of Arrest
Ferdie: However, in actual practice the 36 hours do not begin to run until on
working days Ferdie: Still has to be prepared in the police station.
4. Chief of police/detachment commander must conduct a preliminary
Rights cannot be waived examination and submit it to the provincial/city prosecutor
These rights cannot be waived, except in writing and in the presence
of counsel. Ferdie: Preliminary examination as opposed to preliminary investigation.
Preliminary examination is merely gathering evidence and does not
determine the existence of probable cause. Once preliminary examination is
IF WOMAN OR CHILD IS ARRESTED submitted, the prosecutor now has to determine probable cause.
A. Arresting officer shall task the Women’s and Children’s Protection
This means that the Chief of Police is without authority to file a criminal case
Desks (WCPD) officer or a policewoman familiar with women and directly before the court, otherwise the Information may be quashed on the
children protection desk duties to conduct a pat-down search. ground that the person who filed is without authority to do so.
Ferdie: Terry search – reason why a woman has to do this.
B. A separate police blotter shall be maintained to protect their privacy PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
Ferdie: Because a police blotter is available for public consumption.
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
C. Person manning must ensure respect for the rights of any child in 1. Take the affidavit of the arresting officer indicating the fact of
conflict with the law. arrest and circumstances surrounding it.
2. Take the statement of the respondents within the context of the
IF PERSON WITH DISABILITY IS ARRESTED right to remain silent.
The prohibitions on verbal, non-verbal, ridicule and vilification under RA 3. Confiscate the firearms or other prohibited items (pursuant to valid
9442 shall be strictly be observed. warrantless search) and issue the proper receipt.
Ferdie: Never embarrass anyone under any circumstance. 4. Cause the respondent/s to sign an affidavit binding himself to be
present at the preliminary investigation at a later date before the
IF ELDERLY OR PREGNANT WOMAN IS ARRESTED prosecutor and that failure to do so shall constitute a waiver to
Due respect, courtesy, and consideration shall be accorded. present evidence in his defense.
5. Take the statement of witnesses, if any.
PROCEDURE IN CASE CHECKPOINT IS IGNORED 6. Submit the investigation report, together with all documents and
evidence, within 3 days from arrest to provincial/city prosecutor,
PROCEDURE IN CASE CHECKPOINT IS IGNORED furnishing the law department of Comelec with copies.
If a person ignores the checkpoint, the team leader must:
A. Immediately report to the adjacent teams/police stations station The team conducting the checkpoint may document through:
the particular details of the person evading the checkpoint. 1. Photo, or
2. Video
B. Immediately coordinate with stations to establish a roadblock in
accordance to the existing SOP of PNP. TN: To ensure rights of persons are respected, if not intrusive. In
fact, you yourself can also record the proceeding.
Ferdie: They will do a road block since flight is always an indication of guilt.
Once you are intercepted, the officers are no longer limited to visual search since
there is already a reasonable ground to believe that a crime is being committed.
PROCEDURE IN CASE OF AN APPARENT VIOLATION
PROCEDURE IN CASE OF AN APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE

BAN ON FIREARMS
A. Ask for the corresponding Certificate of Authority (CA) applicable
to the apparent violation.
TN: Any person not in possession of any CA is presumed to be without
authority to bear, carry or transport firearms, ammunition, explosives or
any parts/components
Ferdie: Burden of proof is on you who has the firearms.
Page 50
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF BEI
PART VI. ELECTION
Relationship within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to:
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS A. Any member of same BET.

Ferdie: In other words, you can’t belong to the same BEI in the same
polling place if you are related. One of you must transfer to another polling
COMPOSITION place.
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS/TELLERS (BEI/BET) B. Any candidate (national or local)

It is the body tasked to conduct voting and counting of votes in a polling Ferdie: Example: In the local, you have a relative 1st cousin falling within the
place during election day. 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, you can’t serve as BEI there.
A. BEI – National Local Elections Q: If you don’t have a relative locally, can you automatically serve as BEI?
B. BET – Barangay Elections Not necessarily cause there might be some relative in the national level. (ex.
you are the 1st cousin of Binay, the votes for Binay in that jurisdiction of
Ferdie: There is really no difference between the two. Only that BEI is for city/municipality will also be counted by you as BEI. In such case, you are
Presidential and Local Elections and BET is for Barangay elections. Polling place - disqualified to be BEI)
classroom where you cast your vote. BEI/BET administers voting and counting of
votes. These are the teachers. There are some public school teachers who don’t want to serve because of
the threat to their life and security as well as possible litigation later on. What
they do in order for them not to serve is they ask a relative to run so that
Composition of BET they will be disqualified, and that works.
All public school teachers composed of:
A. Chair
POWERS OF THE BEI
B. Poll Clerk
C. Third Member POWERS OF THE BEI
Ferdie: Under the law, it is mandatory for public school teachers to serve as BEI Q. How powerful is the BET inside the polling place?
during elections. However, it also says that in case of shortage of public school The power is so massive. It has supreme authority inside the polling
teachers, we can actually tap those who are employees of Civil Service and also place during election period. It has the power to:
private school teachers.
A. Issue warrant of arrest
As a matter of fact in special cases, in ARMM, there were instances when the B. Administer oath
Comelec was constrained to secure the services of PNP as well as AFP to be the C. Order detail of PNP or AFP
BEI because of the threat to violence. That is allowed even if the law says that it D. Remove from the polling place any person who disrupts its
has to be the public school teachers. Power of the Comelec during election period proceedings screen watchers
is massive so as not to be disturbed by the courts unless there is grave abuse of E. Prohibit lawyers from the polling place
discretion or arbitrariness.
TN: Its decision is final and executory. There is no remedy for motion
QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS for reconsideration nor appeal. As a matter of fact, its discretion is final,
that even the election officer has no authority to supersede. It is
QUALIFICATIONS OF BEI
supreme on election day. Whatever they say is the law whether or not
A. Of good moral character and irreproachable reputation. it makes sense.
Ferdie: This is because they are tasked to determine the will of the people.
But the DepEd merely gives us a list of names of those who are willing to Issue warrant of arrest
serve in the election and we are going to appoint them or sign them to a A warrant of arrest can only be issued by a judge and the Bureau of
particular polling place. Immigration and Deportation with respect to deportation cases.
Constitution law tells us, these are the only instances when you can
Q: Are we tasked by law to investigate whether they are of good moral
character?
order the arrest of a person.
Not necessarily. What we do is just appoint right away and wait for any
opposition to such appointment on the ground that they lack good moral However, on election day, suddenly a public school teacher can order
character. So far no opposition so presumption is if you are appointed you your arrest inside the polling place if you disrupt the proceeding of the
are of good moral character. BEI. In other words, you have to behave inside the polling place and
follow the lawful orders of BEI. Otherwise, you can be ordered arrested.
Q: But how to define GMC in the 1st place?
Hard to define. The presumption stays.
Administer oath
Under the Admin Law, there are only specific persons who can
B. Registered voter of city or municipality. administer oath. Most popular is Notary Public. But suddenly again
Ferdie: E.g. if a BEI wishes to serve in Cebu City, then he must be registered during election day, the public school teachers acting as BEI can
in Cebu City. If not a registered voter, then he can’t be a BEI. administer oath.
C. Able to speak and write Filipino, English or the local dialect. These oaths however are of election related statements only. You
cannot bring a document and tell the BEI that since he already has the
D. Never been convicted of any election offense or any other crime power to administer oath to sign and notarize a Deed of Sale.
punishable by more than 6 months of imprisonment.
Ferdie: The conviction need not be of an election offense. It can be of any Order detail of PNP or AFP
other crime that carries a penalty imprisonment of 6 months imprisonment During the entire election period, the PNP or AFP are deputies of the
or more. Commission. BEI are representatives of the Commission. So they have
authority to order detail of AFP/PNP.
E. No pending case for election offense.
Ferdie: It involves an election offense. There is no need for conviction, no AFP/PNP are not allowed inside the polling place on election day.
need for finality. The mere pendency of an election offense is sufficient to However, they have to be in a certain radius in the polling place so they
disqualify a public school teacher from serving as BEI.
can be called by the BEI anytime if there is a need for peace and order.
Page 51
Remove from the polling place any person who disrupts its GUIDLING PRINCIPLES IN BALLOT APPRECIATION
proceedings
Remove but what if arrested? At 1st they can just probably call your GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN BALLOT APPRECIATION
attention and if you insist, they would just probably ask you to be
removed from the premises. Still if you insist then they can already order A. Every ballot is presumed valid unless there is clear and good reason
your arrest. to justify its rejection.
B. In case of doubt, the intention and expression of the voter’s will
Prohibit lawyers from the polling place must be carefully determined.
The law specifies or enumerates who are allowed inside the polling place
on election day. None of them is a lawyer. Before, lawyers will just barge C. Questions decided by majority of BET (since it’s a collegial body).
in the polling place, intimidate the public teachers thinking they are over D. No watcher, candidate or any other person is allowed to participate
and above the BEI because they are lawyers. Ferdie: So you can’t say that the vote should be counted in favor of a
particular candidate. You cannot argue. The power exclusively belongs to
BALLOT APPRECIATION the BET.
Except: When the watcher files a written protest if he thinks that the BEI
BALLOT APPRECIATION misappreciated the ballots. The protest will be the basis for an election
protest later on. Without such protest duly received by the BEI on election
BALLOT APPRECIATION day, the election protest is going to be treated as a fishing expedition.
It is the determination of the vote using the information written on the E. Recorded in the Minutes
official ballot by the voter, his or her intention, and for whom it is, or
should be counted based on existing rules.
BASIS RULES IN BALLOT APPRECIATION
Ferdie: The definition is not found in the law nor in jurisprudence. This is my
own definition. Whether or not it makes sense up to you. BASIC RULES IN BALLOT APPRECIATION
Purpose of ballot appreciation Ferrer v. Comelec

It is to obtain the expression of the voter’s will 1. Intent rule (intention of the voter is determined)
2. Neighbourhood rule
Ferdie: Here’s a ballot. You are going to appreciate it, count them, you 3. Idem sonans rule (sounds alike)
determine the will of the people.
4. Equity of the incumbent rule
Person tasked to appreciate the ballots Atty. Gujilde’s addition based on experience:
BEI is the one tasked to appreciate the ballots. The time they appreciate 5. Superiority of surname rule
the ballots is the time the watchers should watch out. It might be that
the appreciation of the ballots is without legal basis. Thus, it now RULES
becomes misappropriation of ballots which is the best ground for an 1. If only the first name or surname of the candidate is
election protest case. written – vote is valid, provided there is no other candidate
with the same first name or surname for the same office.
Function of the watchers
Ferdie: If you only place there Juan, it is alright, provided there is no other
It is the function of the watchers, in the polling place, to document Juan who also filed for CoC. Because if there are 2 Juans, the vote will be
misappropriation of ballots and submit it to the lawyer or paralegal. The strayed. The vote cannot be counted for either, unless the other one is
paralegal or lawyer can then decide whether or not there is ground to incumbent, in which case it goes to him, equity of the incumbent rule.
believe that there has to be an election protest case to overturn the
proclamation or the results of that particular polling place. 2. If only the first name of the candidate is written which
when read, sounds similar to the surname of another
Where and how ballot should be appreciated candidate – vote is counted in favor of the candidate with
A. It must be public such surname. (Superiority of surname rule)
B. At a designated polling place Candidate A – First name “Juan”
C. Watchers are afforded unimpeded view of the ballot, without Candidate B – Surname is “Huwan”
touching it.
Here, if what is written in the ballot is the correct spelling Juan, but when
Ferdie: If chair reads or appreciates the ballot, she does it in a way that the read sounds similar to Huwan, the vote doesn’t go to Juan but to Huwan.
watchers behind her can see what is written in the ballot. It is to verify
whether or not what she is appreciating is the same as what is written in the 3. If there are two (2) or more candidates with the same full
ballot. RULE: watchers can’t touch the ballot.
name, first name or surname, and one of them is
incumbent – vote is counted in favor of the incumbent.
D. The BET acts through the Chair.
(Equity of the incumbent rule)
Ferdie: BET is composed of the Chair, Poll Clerk and a third member. They
must act according to a majority vote (2 is to 1). However, in actual practice Candidate A – Juan Cruz
only the Chair decides right away. That is allowed, because what is said is Candidate B – Juan Cruz (incumbent)
that the BEI acts through the Chairman. In other words, whatever the BEI
decides on is promulgated by the chair. The vote goes to the incumbent if it is a single slot position (e.g. mayor).
However, if it is for multiple slots like councilor and both are written, both
Thus, it might seem that they are not actually deliberating. It is not gets the vote. If only one is written, it goes to the incumbent.
necessary. For as long as the decision promulgated by the chair is without
objection form the poll clerk and 3rd member. 4. If there is a woman who uses her maiden name or married
surname or both and there is another with the same
E. Its decision is final and unappealable surname – the ballot bearing such surname only shall be
counted in favor of the incumbent.
Candidate A (Woman candidate) – Leviste
Candidate B (Incumbent) – Leviste
The vote goes to the incumbent because it was not specified. Equity of the
incumbent principle applies.
Page 52
5. If two (2) or more surnames are written on the same line 11. If the name of the candidate is erased and another clearly
on the ballot – vote shall not counted for either of them, written – vote shall be counted in favor of the new name.
unless one of them is an incumbent who has served at least Example: Osmena Rama. Here the vote goes to Rama because obviously,
1 year. the voter changed his mind at the last minute.
Ferdie: This is tricky so take note. If two surnames are written on the same
line because the voter cannot decide – cannot be counted for either, unless 12. If the initial of the first name, middle name or surname
one of them is an incumbent who has served at least 1 year. is incorrect – vote is valid and shall be counted.
Example: “Rama” and “Osmena” (both surnames) are written on the same Example: Juan S. Dela Cruz is the full name. What is written is Juan R. Dela
line because the voter wants to please both. The rule says it goes to Rama Cruz (wrong middle initial). Here, vote is valid, unless there is another
because he is the incumbent and served for at least 1 year. If what is written candidate that matches with the name. In which case, it should counted in
is mixed first name and surname – the next rule applies. favor of that candidate.
6. If two words are written on the same line, one of which is 13. If the name of a candidate is the same as the name of
the first name of a candidate and the surname of another another who is not a candidate – vote is counted for
– Vote shall not be counted for either. candidate.
Candidate A – Michael Rama Candidate – Juan Dela Cruz
Candidate B – Tomas Osmena Non-candidate – Juan Dela Cruz
If “Michael Osmena” is written on the same line, the vote shall not be You can’t say it is stray. Obviously, he is voting for the candidate. COC is
counted in favor of any one, even the incumbent. Nobody gets the vote. there to guide in the tabulation of votes. (Hello!? Obvious naman kaayo ni
na rule oy!!! #goeswithoutsaying)
7. If two or more similar surnames are written on different
lines for an office which authorizes election of more than 14. If there are prefixes or suffixes – vote is still valid.
1, and there are the same number of candidates with the Examples:
same surname – votes shall be counted for all. Sir Michael Rama, Don Tomas Osmena, Hilario Davide Jr., Cong. Pablo John
Ferdie: If the slots for councilors are 8 and you placed two Cruz on different Garcia
lines, each Cruz gets one vote. If only one Cruz is written, it goes to the
Nicknames and appellations of affection and friendship accompanied by
incumbent, if there is one. If there is no incumbent, the vote will not be
first name or surname is valid.
counted.
If nickname only – valid if candidate is generally or popularly known in the
8. If a single word is written, which is the first name of a locality. Examples: Michael “Mike” Rama, Tom Osmena, Junjun (for Junjun
candidate and the surname of another – vote shall be Davide), PJ (for Pablo John Garcia)
counted for the candidate bearing the surname. These are allowed, provided no other candidate is with that nickname and
Candidate A’s first name – Rodrigo Gomez. surname.
Candidate B’s surname – Alphonso Rodrigo
15. Initials only – does not sufficiently identify candidate.
If only Rodrigo is written, the vote goes to Candidate B because that is his Will be considered stray vote but will not invalidate the
surname. Superiority of the surname rule.
whole ballot.
9. A name or surname incorrectly written, which when read, Examples: MR (for Michael Rama), TRO (for Tomas R. Osmena), Sir, Mayor.
has a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate
If BEI says it does not sufficiently identify the candidate, then BEI can say
– vote shall be counted in favor of such candidate. it is strayed. The initials Sir or Mayor may probably be counted to the
Cruise instead of Cruz incumbent if the BEI decides so.
Huwan instead of Juan
16. Correct first name with different surname. Correct
Idem Sonas rule. It sounds alike. It is counted in favor of that candidate.
The reason is to accommodate the less educated voters or those who are
surname with different first name – Stray vote but will
poor in spelling. not invalidate the whole ballot.
Michael Rama – Michael Jackson
Even if a syllable is cut off Jonas Cortes – Jonas Burgos
Ex. DIVINAGRACIA, it is long, so what is written is only DIVINA and there is
no other candidate with the name Divina. Then it is counted for Charles. Or
only written is GRACIA and no other candidate with Gracia 1 st name, surname
17. Ballot written with crayon, lead pencil, or ink, wholly or
or nickname. It is counted in favor of Charles because it sounds alike even in part – valid, unless used to identify the ballot.
if 1 syllable is missing. Ferdie: If BEI says arte kaayo maybe this is a marked ballot, then it can
be invalidated.
Ex. Candidate with surname that is GARCIA and another with
DIVINAGRACIA. What is written is only GRACIA. It is up to the judgment call
of the BEI who the vote goes for. But it could be counted for GARCIA, idem
18. If there are two or more candidates written in a single
sonas rule. Mas duol kaysa sa natangtang na Divina. position – vote shall not be counted for either or all, but
does not affect validity of the others.
10. If a name of the candidate for the position he aspires for Punong Barangay – TOMAS OSMENA MICHAEL RAMA. This vote does not
is written and on another position he does not aspire for count for either even if 1 of them is an incumbent.
– vote shall be counted in the position he aspires for, but
TN: Only instance counted if both are surnames and one of them is an
if it is intended to identify the ballot, it becomes void.
incumbent who has served for at least 1 yr.
Punong Barangay – Cruz
Barangay Kagawad – Cruz 19. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those
to be elected – ballot is valid but counted only for those
This voter is loyal to a candidate. Ex. RAMA ran for Mayor. But even in the
VM and the councillors, the loyal voter placed RAMA. Is that allowed? Yes,
firstly written until the authorized number is covered.
but the vote is counted only once to the position he aspires for. But if BEI Barangay Kagawad (7 allowed) but voter wrote 8. What is counted for is
says MARK BALLOT then everything is invalidated. Whether or not mark the first 7 only, the 8th one will be strayed.
ballot it is up to the judgment call of the BEI.
Page 53
20. Vote for non-candidate and for a candidate for an office 28. Accidental tearing or perforation of ballot does not
he did not aspire for – stray vote but does not invalidate invalidate it.
the entire ballot, unless BEI says it is a marked ballot.
29. Failure to remove detachable coupon does not annul the
21. Ballot containing name of candidate printed, pasted or ballot.
affixed through any mechanical process – totally null
and void. TAKE NOTE:
If one rule results to straying the votes for two of the candidates,
Ferdie: When you vote and some give stickers, if you peal it you can stick
it on the official ballot – not allowed because it is considered as
another rule can be used. It is really up to the judgment call of the BEI.
mechanical process. IT VOIDS ENTIRE BALLOT. The discretion of the BEI can be decided either way and still be valid.
22. Circles, crosses or lines on blank spaces – indicate For ballot appreciation, as long as the BEI has legal basis for their
desistance from voting and shall not invalidate the ballot decision, that will be respected. But if that legal basis is found by the
court later on to be insufficient, the court will supersede the previous
Osmena decision in ballot revision.
Rama
Davide
Garcia (if you don’t want to add anymore because only the 4 passed your
BALLOT APPRECIATION APPLIES ONLY TO MANUAL
standards, you can place lines or crosses) ELECTIONS
---------- There is no more ballot appreciation in automated elections because it
xxxxxxx is the machine that counts.
Some place line because of fear that BEI might write some more. Write to
indicate desistance.
Dangers:
1. If you do not properly shade the oval next to the candidate you
23. Commas, dots, lines or hyphens between the first name intended to vote for, the machine might not count it.
and surname or in other parts of the ballot, traces of the 2. If you over shade that it might hit another oval, it might invalidate
letter “T” , “J”, two or more kinds of writing, use of both votes.
accidental flourishes, strokes or strains - does NOT 3. If you over vote. Instead of shading 12 senators, you shaded 16,
invalidate ballot. those 16 senators cannot get your vote. Machine will not count.
Everything is nullified but only in that certain position.
Examples 4. But if you under vote, 8/12 only, the machine will count it.
Tomas – Osmena
Michael. Rama
WATCHERS
These are accepted, unless it clearly appears to have been deliberately
done to identify the ballot. In which case, it can be considered as a
QUALIFICATIONS OF WATCHERS
marked ballot by the BEI.
24. Ballot which appears to have been filled by 2 distinct QUALIFICATIONS OF WATCHERS
persons – NULL AND VOID
Q. Who may be designated as watchers?
25. If the space for Punong Barangay is blank, but the name A. Registered voter of the barangay or municipality where he or she
of the candidate for Punong Barangay is written in the is assigned
first line for Barangay Kagawad – vote is counted in favor B. Of good reputation
of the candidate pursuant to neighbourhood rule. C. Not convicted by final judgment for any election offense or any
Official Ballot looks like this: other crime
Punong Barangay _____________ D. Knows how to read and write Filipino, English or any of the
Barangay Kagawad prevailing local dialect
1) Rama (Punong Barangay candidate) right under the space provided E. Not related within 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to
for. any member of the BET where he or she is assigned
2) Gullas
3) Osmena
4) Durano
Registered voter of the barangay or municipality where he or she is
5) Cortes assigned
6) Martinez If you are assigned as watcher in another part of the province and you
7) Garcia are not registered there, you cannot be a watcher. Most you can be is
8) Yapha paralegal which is good. As law students, you should be a paralegal,
Here, the vote for Rama in the Punong Barangay is counted for him even being outside just collate data and give instructions to watchers.
if it is not written in the space provided for.
Reason: Neighbourhood Rule. Placed really near the space it was provided Of good reputation
for. Neighborhood rule is not found in OEC but in jurisprudence. The vote Good reputation is presumed as long as there is no opposition.
for Yapha is counted for him because it goes up. Reverse domino effect.
Not related within 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any
If Rama instead is written in the second spot, can it be counted for
neighbourhood rule? Probably yes, or not. It really depends on the BEI.
member of the BET where he or she is assigned
But for me, not anymore because it is not neighbourhood already since If the BEI is your relative in that polling place, you can’t be a watcher
there is a vacant slot in between. there. You must be transferred to another because of conflict of
interest.
26. Vote for candidate disqualified by final judgment – stray
vote but will not invalidate the entire ballot.
27. Ballots wholly written in Arabic in localities where it is of

general use – valid
If you write Arabic in Cebu – not counted because presumably BEI does
not know how to read Arabic.
Page 54
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A WATCHER TRANSFER OF VENUE OF COUNTING
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A WATCHER TRANSFER OF VENUE OF COUNTING

A. Stay in the space reserved for them inside the polling place
Q. Can the BET transfer the venue of counting?
B. Witness the proceedings of the BET Yes. BET by unanimous vote, recommends the transfer of venue in
writing. Majority of watchers present endorses in writing.
C. Take note of what they may see or hear
Ferdie: Can actually document-can take notes, photograph or videos. Ferdie: Only in rare instances where decision of the watchers are considered as a
Provided, you don’t violate secrecy and sanctity of ballot. factor in deciding whether or not it can transfer venue of counting.
D. Take photographs of the BET proceedings, election returns, ballot Grounds for transfer of venue of counting
boxes, tally board Imminent danger of widespread:
Ferdie: But never the official ballots because it will violate secrecy and a) Violence
sanctity of the ballots. b) Terrorism
E. File a protest against any irregularity or violation of law he believes c) Disorder
may have been committed by BET or any person (important) d) Similar causes of comparable magnitude
Ferdie: Not those whimsical grounds like according to feng shui or it is too hot.
Ferdie: The ground is mere belief on the watcher’s part that there is a Must be of compelling circumstances like violence, terrorism, disorder and similar
violation of law or any irregularity committed by any person including BEI or causes of comparable magnitude. This is because the polling place is actually your
voter. Watcher must file a protest in writing. territory and if you transfer that without sufficient ground, you are destroying the
territorial integrity of the polling place.
As paralegal, what you should do is to prepare a template. Give it to the
watchers so that the watchers can only write as to matters they believe were Q. Where to?
committed as an irregularity by the BEI. Format is up to you. Leave the
Nearest safe barangay or school building, not located within perimeter
ground blank.
of or inside —
Watchers are only there to watch. Can’t even orally argue with the BEI. If a) Military or police camp, reservation
watcher insists, he might be considered a person who disrupts proceedings b) Headquarters, detachment or field office
and you may be ordered arrested by the BEI. c) Within premised of prison or detention compound of any law
F. Obtain from BET certificate of its filing and/or its resolution. enforcement or investigation agency
Ferdie: Make sure that it was copy received/duly received by BET because TN: The Comelec through the Election Officer may authorize transfer of
that will be your evidence that you filed a protest against some irregularity. counting of votes. Must be recorded in the Minutes
That can be the basis of your paralegal or lawyer later on whether or not
they should file an election protest.
There is no compulsion on the part of the BEI to resolve your protest.
Ferdie: It may be transferred somewhere else like in the nearest barangay or
school building but not near a military camp or police station. This is because the
Rules says, can file a protest but BEI is not compelled to issue resolution.
election is a purely civilian political undertaking we can’t militarize that.
G. Unimpeded view of the ballot being read, ER and tally board,
without touching them. BEI has minutes. They have journals for the proceedings from the time they
opened the voting booth until the time of closing. Journals are called minutes. So,
H. Be furnished, upon request, with certificate of votes, duly signed if you file a protest for some irregularity, make sure that it’s received by the BEI
and thumb marked by the BET or BET and it must be recorded in the minutes. When you go to an election protest,
the journals made by the BEI is going to be very decisive to determine what really
Ferdie: After counting, there is election return. Election return embodies the transpired during counting and voting.
results coming from that polling place.
PERSONS ALLOWED INSIDE THE POLLING PLACE
Candidate is independent and not entitled collection of copy of election
returns. Alternative is ask for Certificate of Votes. PERSONS ALLOWED INSIDE THE POLLING PLACE
E.g. Candidate is A. Please certify that the number of vote she garnered is
like this. They can certify that. As a matter of fact, If BET/BEI refuses to
A. Watchers who stay in designated area
issue the certificate of votes, it amounts to an election offense. But there B. Voters casting their votes
has to be that request coming from you. C. Voters waiting for their turn to vote
D. Voters waiting for their turn to get ballots
So if the BEI refuses, you can ask that this refusal be put into writing. This E. Jail/prison escorts for detainee voters
is because if you ask them to do that, they will be afraid and issue the F. Members of Special Board of Election Tellers (SBET)
Certificate of Votes cause it amounts to an election offense. In that way G. Others specifically authorized
your watchers coming from the different polling place already have a result
and can already consolidate it certified by the BEI. In that level, prior to TN: The enumeration is exclusive.
consolidation, canvassing and proclamation, you already know whether or
not your candidate won or lost. Watchers who stay in designated area
I. But they shall not speak to any BET, voter, or among themselves, Ferdie: Watchers can’t go around the polling place. There is a
in such a manner as would disturb BET proceedings. designated area for you. There is a restricted area also where the voting
booth is. If a person is casting vote, he cannot be near that person
Ferdie: In other words, you can speak but it should not disrupt the
proceedings. So what can you say? Probably, clarify questions. What is not
because he might influence the person and violate the secrecy and
allowed under the rules is that you argue. If you insist in arguing that is now sanctity of the official ballots.
disrupting the proceedings so can now be ordered arrested.
Others specifically authorized
Ferdie: Who are they? Probably:
a) Election officer in the exercise of his supervisory function
b) Representatives from the Commission
c) Media if they have accreditation card
Page 55
Media can be allowed inside the polling place, provided they get that B. BET member may identify the challenged voter under oath, if the
authority. If they get that authority they cannot be near the voters when BEI member knows the person personally.
they cast their votes. They can’t talk to anyone.
Q. What are illegal acts that can be used as grounds to
Q. Can a lawyer get in the polling place? challenge the right to vote?
GR: No. A lawyer is not allowed inside the polling place because the
watcher is already the lawyer of the candidate. That’s why a watcher A. Received or expects to receive, paid, offered or promised,
should at least be a law student so there is quality representation. contributed, offered or promised to contribute money or anything
of value as consideration for the vote.
XPNs:
a) If a lawyers casts his vote and he is registered there. B. Made or received a promise to influence the giving or withholding
b) If he delegates himself as a watcher. Lawyers are not prohibited to of any such vote
be watcher as long as they qualify to be.
Ferdie: Challenge there is: I object to this particular voter for he is suffering
from an illegal act. He is going to sell his votes. Somebody is waiting outside for
PERSONS NOT ALLOWED INSIDE THE POLLING PLACE him. After he votes, someone will pay him. This is however, easily circumvented.
The following, except if they vote, are not allowed inside the polling Under the rules. what this challenged voter has to do is only state under oath
place: that the accusation is false. After that allowed to vote.
A. Any officer or member of the AFP or PNP
B. Any peace officer or armed person belonging to any extra-legal Q. What happens next?
police agency, special reaction, strike forces, CAFGU, paramilitary The challenged voter may take an oath denying the allegations. If the
forces, special forces, security guards, special policemen challenged voter refuses to deny under oath, the challenge is sustained
C. All other kinds of armed or unarmed extra-legal police forces and the voter is not allowed to vote.
D. Barangay tanods
E. Incumbent barangay or SK official, whether elected or appointed All the challenges and decisions must be recorded in the minutes.
Ferdie: As a watcher, any challenge or protest you make, make sure it must be
Q: If not listed among those persons not allowed, does it follow duly received by the BEI and you have that copy. So later, it can be collated by
that you are already allowed? the paralegal or lawyer and they will decide whether or not they file an election
Not necessarily, because we also have an exclusive list of persons who protest. Without these documents, your election protest is a mere fishing
are allowed the polling place. expedition that even the lawyer does not know where to go. Function of the
watcher is to document everything for the benefit of the lawyer in case later on
Purpose of having this list of persons not allowed in the polling place he decides to file an election protest.
For emphasis. TN that police/military are not allowed. Because election
is a purely civilian political undertaking and we can’t militarize the BOARD OF CANVASSERS
proceedings.
WHO CONDUCTS CONSOLIDATION, CANVASSING, ETC.
ILLEGAL VOTERS
WHO CONDUCTS CONSOLIDATION, CANVASSING AND
ILLEGAL VOTER DEFINED TRANSMISSION
ILLEGAL VOTER Automated elections:

A. A person who offers to vote but is: A. Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC)
B. Not registered B. City Board of Canvassers (CBOC)
C. Uses the name of another C. Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC)
D. Suffers from existing disqualification D. National Board of Canvassers (NBOC)
Ferdie: If you are the watcher and you think that person is not the person he Manual elections:
claims to be, by all means file a protest against an illegal voter. Watcher should
be alert in the possibility that there is an impostor there and casts his vote.
Barangay Board of Canvassers (BBOC)
Chances are slim because BEI would really require a valid ID before one can vote. Disqualification
Now it is fully automated, biometrics based. So BEI already carries the identity of Must not be related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
the voters. affinity to:
A. Each other
Or maybe you can say he suffers from existing disqualification because voter just B. Any candidate whose votes will be canvassed by the Board
got out of prison, cant exercise suffrage – the watcher can file a protest.
Ferdie: Voting and counting in the polling place. Who administers? Board of
If the protest is on the ground of lack of identity, the only remedy is for the BEI
Election Inspectors. All results coming from each polling place will be transmitted
to ask for a valid ID and if voter can establish with sufficiency his identity, he shall
or consolidated for canvassing. Who canvasses? Board of Canvassers.
be allowed to vote.
Q. Can an illegal voter be prevented to vote? COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF CANVASSERS

Yes, through a written challenge filed by the watcher. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS
Q What happens next? Municipal Board of Canvassers
A. The BET requires challenged voter to present proof of: A. Chairman – Election Officer
B. Registration B. Vice-Chairman – Municipal Treasurer
C. Identity C. Member-Secretary – District School Supervisor
D. Qualification Or, in his absence, most senior principal of the school district
Q. What if voter cannot present proof of identity? City Board of Canvassers

A. BET identifies the voter through photograph and specimen A. Chairman – Election Officer or a lawyer of the Commission
signature in the EDVCL (Election Day Certified Voters List). Your B. Vice Chairman – City Prosecutor
face, signature and thumb mark is there. C. Member-Secretary – Schools Division Supt.
Page 56
Provincial board of canvassers

PERSONS NOT ALLOWED INSIDE CANVASSING VENUE
A. Chairman – Provincial Election Supervisor or a lawyer of the
Commission
PERSONS NOT ALLOWED INSIDE CANVASSING VENUE
B. Vice-Chairman – Provincial Prosecutor
C. Member-Secretary – District School Superintendent A. Any officer or member of the AFP or PNP
Except:
Ferdie: Once it is a city or province, the election officer must be a LAWYER. If
the election officer is not a lawyer, then there’s an illegal composition. In which
a) When they are directed in writing
case, you can have the results nullified. b) To stay outside canvassing venue, in proper uniform
c) To maintain peace and order
Barangay Board of Canvassers d) To protect the BOC and its staff
All are BET Chairmen e) To protect election paraphernalia and documents
Ferdie: If you are a barangay candidate, the Comelec is without jurisdiction to
proclaim you as a candidate because Comelec does not sit as members of the Brgy
B. Any peace officer or any armed or unarmed persons belonging to:
Board of Canvassers, only public school teachers. The Comelec has no jurisdiction a) Extra legal police agency
to proclaim you as an elected barangay official. b) Special, reaction, strike or civilian armed forces
C. Any member of:

VACANCY IN THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS
a) Security or police organizations of government agencies and
VACANCY IN THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS instrumentalities
b) Privately owned security, intelligence, protective or
Q. When is there vacancy in the BOC? investigative agency
A. Non-availability
B. Absence D. Barangay tanod or self-defense units
C. Disqualification
D. Incapacity for any cause RIGHT OF WATCHERS
TN: But feigning illness is an election offense. RIGHTS OF WATCHERS
A. Be present, and take note of all proceedings
QUORUM REQUIRED B. Stay behind BOC Chairman near enough to observe the canvass,
Simple majority, or 2 out of 3: without touching the CCS
A. To transact official business C. File a protest against any irregularity noted in the canvass of
B. To render decision election returns and certificate of canvass
C. Thus, from election day until proclamation D. Obtain from the Board a resolution in writing
D. No member is transferred out of, or leaves station, without
authority from the Commission
ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING CANVASSING
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOC
ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING CANVASSING
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOC No more pre-proclamation controversy.
A. Full authority to keep order – if you disrupt proceedings can be Pre-proclamation controversy refers to
ordered arrested Anything questioning the proceedings of the BOC raised by any
B. Enforce obedience to its lawful orders candidate or party before the BOC or the Commission.
C. If any person disobeys or interrupts
D. The Board may order in writing any peace officer to take that Or any other matter raised in relation to the:
person in custody until adjournment Preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election
E. If there is no peace officer, any other competent and able person returns under:
may be deputized to enforce such order  Section 223, OEC – when election returns are delayed, lost or
Ferdie: BOC can ask a private person who has big body built to take into destroyed
custody a person who disrupts proceedings.  Section 234 – material defects in the election returns
F. Canvass/consolidated electronically transmitted results  Section 235 – when election returns appear to be tampered with or
G. Proclaim the winner and perform other duties – they have authority falsified, not authentic, not prepared by the BEI, or if prepared, it
was under duress, force or intimidation
 Section 236 – discrepancies in election returns
PERSONS ALLOWED IN CANVASSING VENUE
Ferdie: Pre-proclamation controversy is not allowed to be raised during the
PERSONS ALLOWED INSIDE CANVASSING VENUE canvassing by the Board of Canvassers for it will just delay the proceedings.
A. Candidates, representative of political parties, party-list groups
Ferdie: In the BEI level in voting and counting – candidates are not allowed
Belac v. Comelec
inside, except to vote. But during canvassing they are now allowed. Facts:
B. Counsels (lawyers) Election returns were sought to be excluded from canvassing on the
 Only one counsel argues ground that they were padded, tampered or falsified or manufactured
 Have the right to observe proceedings and prepared before voting. The BOC however proceeded to canvass.
 Without touching the CCS (Canvass and Consolidation System) On appeal, the Commission excluded them.
 Dilatory tactics are not allowed Held:
C. Watchers The grounds relied upon are in the nature of a pre-proclamation
 Must know how to read and write controversy which is not allowed to be raised during canvassing. For as
 Not allowed to participate long as the election returns appear to be authentic or duly accomplished
 Barangay officials and tanods not allowed, because it is on their face, they should be included in the canvass. To do otherwise
supposed to be non-partisan. is to go beyond the face of the election returns, over which the
Commission or the BOC have no jurisdiction.
Page 57
As a rule in pre-proclamation controversy, the Commission is restricted Bandala v. Comelec

to the examination of the election returns. It has no jurisdiction to go
beyond its face and investigate irregularities. The proper remedy is Facts:
election protest. If at all, pre-proclamation controversies are resolved Inclusion of election returns were objected on the grounds of lack of
summarily without need to present evidence aliunde as it takes up inner paper seal, lack of party affiliation of watchers who signed and
considerable time. lack of pages listing local candidates. The Comelec en banc ordered their
exclusion and nullified the proclamation.
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
Held:
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY Lack of inner paper seal is a mere formal defect that does not justify
exclusion of election return. It does not affect the authenticity of the
Q. When is there pre-proclamation controversy? election return. It is not a proper subject of a pre-proclamation
If the BOC is constrained to go beyond the face of the election returns, controversy.
it is a pre-proclamation controversy. In which case, it is not allowed to
be raised as an issue in the canvassing. Ocampo v. Comelec
Examples: Facts:
1. Upon the opening of the envelope for an election return coming Inclusion of election returns were objected for being lopsided and
from a certain polling pace, a lawyer objects to the inclusion of that manufactured, lack statistical data and if any, with discrepancy on the
election return on the ground that it is fake. How to know if fake number of votes cast, registered voters and excess ballots and more
or not? BOC is forced or constrained to go beyond the face of the importantly, erasures and super-impositions.
election return. Held:
2. I object to the inclusion of that election return on the ground that Lack of statistical data is a formal defect that does not affect the integrity
it was prepared under duress for BEI was forced. The canvasser of the election return. Superimpositions are intended to make the names
has to go beyond the face of the election return to ascertain if the more legible. That the results were lopsided could only mean the voters
claim is true. did not vote for him.
3. An objection to the inclusion of the election return on the ground Sandoval v. Comelec
that 150 votes there is only 100 but the BEI misappropriated the
ballots. How to know misappropriated? Constrained to go back to Facts: 19 election returns were alleged to have been omitted from
ballots to see if there really is misappropriation. canvassing. Hence, the canvassing and proclamation were sought to be
suspended.
Q. When is it not a pre-proclamation controversy? Held: As a general rule, candidates are not allowed to file pre-
When the BOC is not constrained to go beyond the face of the election proclamation case before the Comelec, except:
returns as the error is manifest. a) Candidates for President, Vice-President, Senator and District
1. An objection to not include the election return in the canvassing Representatives pursuant to Section 15, R.A. 7166
because there is a manifest error in the computation. 50 votes + b) When it involves correction of manifest error. In which case, it may
50 votes = 150 votes suddenly. A manifest error can be seen by be filed directly with the Commission en banc.
the naked eye, within the face of the election returns. This is
allowed. Need not go to other document to make a reference to Ampatuan v. Comelec
make computation.
Issue:
Whether the Commission is divested of the jurisdiction over a petition
Q. If it is under the law, why can’t we avail of it as remedy
to declare failure of election filed by respondent after the petitioner was
during canvassing?
proclaimed.
Yes these are remedies available under the law but these are remedies
available to the BOC and not to the lawyers of the candidates during Contention of petitioner: After proclamation, the only remedy left for
canvassing. respondent is election protest hence jurisdiction lies with the regular
courts pursuant to a long line of cases.
Antonio v. Comelec
Held:
Facts:
Yes, if the ground is pre-proclamation controversy. But in this case, what
Election returns were sought to be excluded on the ground that their
is sought is the annulment of election returns or failure of elections.
preparation, transmission, custody and appreciation were attended by
These remedies are different from each other.
undue influence, extreme pressure, threat and coercion. They affected
the due execution, regularity and authenticity of the election returns
In a pre-proclamation case, the Comelec is restricted to inquire into the
justifying examination of circumstances beyond their face.
regularity as appearing on the face of the election returns. It has no
Held: jurisdiction to investigate the alleged irregularities.
This is in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy. Thus, it must
In declaration of failure of elections, the Comelec is duty bound to
first be heard and decided by the division. The general rule is that the
investigate the allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence or other
Comelec need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate
analogous cases. Thus, it may conduct technical examination of election
irregularities. The exceptional circumstances to justify summary
documents, compare and analyze voter signatures and thumb prints.
annulment of canvass and proclamation are not attendant:
a) Precipitate canvassing Sarangani v. Comelec
b) Terrorism
c) Lack of notice Facts: Certificate of Canvass were excluded by the Board of Canvassers
d) Manifest irregularities in the face on the ground that they are mere photocopy or contained erasures.
Sebastian v. Comelec Held:

Where the resolution of issues warrant piercing the veil of election The Certificates of Canvass should be included despite the seeming
returns that appear prima facie regular, it is election protest. irregularities. The BoC is authorized to improvise election forms in case
of shortage. In this case, BoC was constrained to photocopy the first
Page 58
page of the CoC and use it as the second page to list other candidates MATERIAL DEFECTS IN THE ELECTION RETURNS
whose names could no longer be accommodated due to lack of space. Material defects – omission of name of candidate or omission of votes
obtained
As a matter of fact, it was authenticated by the signatures of watchers BOC orders the BEI to correct
from different political parties and the citizen’s arm. Upon scrutiny, the
erasures were actually intended to reflect the true and actual number of If the omitted votes can only be ascertained by recount
voters garnered by the candidates. The Commission shall order the BEI concerned to open the ballot box
and recount if it is satisfied that:
These findings were made after the Commission investigated the alleged
A. The integrity of the ballot box is not violated
irregularities. The results were even compared with the copies for the
B. The integrity of the official ballots is duly preserved
Commission and were found the same. Extreme caution must be
exercised in the exclusion as it may disenfranchise the voters of an entire Ferdie: 3 gubernatorial candidates, suddenly in 1 polling place/1 election return.
municipality. What is placed is Candidate A - # of votes and Candidate b – # of votes. Candidate
C’s was not tallied. So there is material defect. So constrained to go back to ballot
Lucman v. Comelec box and count again the votes. This is a pre proclamation and not allowed during
Facts: Elections returns were sought to be excluded because they are canvassing. It may be unfair that you don’t go back, but what did your watcher do
in the BEI level?
manufactured. But the BoC included them, as the ground is in the nature
of a pre-proclamation controversy. ELECTION RETURNS APPEAR TO BE TAMPERED WITH
When election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified after they
The candidate appealed with the Comelec and reiterated the grounds
left the hand of BEI, or otherwise not authentic.
but added that the election was tainted with massive irregularities.
Substitution of voters, ballot snatching, voters were forced, threatened, Not prepared by the BEI, or if prepared, under duress, force or
and intimidated to vote, double registrants and flying voters were intimidation
allowed to vote, watchers were threatened and forced to leave, the BoC uses other copies of the election returns. If said copies likewise
inspectors merely copied the tally board prepared by watchers. suffer from the same infirmities, the BoC uses copy from the ballot box
if the Commission is satisfied that its integrity is not violated.
Held:
Issues of fraud and terrorism are not proper in a pre-proclamation Ferdie: Common ground during canvassing. They object because fake or prepared
under duress. These are serious accusations. Tell that the document is spurious.
controversy because their resolution warrants the Comelec to pierce the How to determine? Go beyond the face of the document. So pre-proclamation
veil of the election returns which appear to be prima facie regular. As controversy.
such, they should be filed in an election protest which jurisdiction
pertains to the regular court. DISCREPANCIES IN ELECTION RETURNS
Discrepancies –
As a rule, fraud, vote-buying and terrorism cannot be invoked as a A. In other authentic copies
ground to declare failure of elections. Otherwise, a great number of B. Of votes in words and figures in the same returns
innocent voters will be disenfranchised by the misdeeds of a few. C. Affecting results of elections
Trinidad v. Comelec Ferdie: If it involves recounting, then it is a pre-proclamation controversy. So

unfair, what if the accusations were true. Do you still have a remedy? Yes, but not
Facts: before the BOC but for an election protest later on. If we allow these grounds
A petition to correct manifest errors and annul proclamation was filed during canvassing, it would take canvassing 1 year. It will delay the proceedings.
timely on the ground that 5 election returns were canvassed twice. If You might say it’s unfair but not really because the BEI enjoys the presumption of
corrected, the results would have been different since only 228 votes regularity in their performance of duty.
separated the winner and the loser.
Blank v. Comelec
But a supplemental petition was filed 21 days after to correct the
erroneous copying of the figure 1099 from the Statement of Votes as Facts: Election returns found spurious were excluded from canvass.
1009 into the Summary of Statement of Votes. Held: Outright exclusion after finding they are fraudulent returns is
Held: grave abuse of discretion. Procedure in Sec. 235 must be followed first:
The supplemental petition is a petition to correct manifest error, contrary a) Use other copies of election returns
to the misimpression of the Comelec that it is a petition to nullify b) If other copies are likewise spurious, use copy inside the ballot box
proclamation. Manifest means it is visible to the eye and understanding c) If still spurious, recount if Commission is satisfied the integrity of
that which is open, palapable, un-controvertible, needing no evidence ballot box and ballot is not compromised.
to make it clearer. Thus, error in the mere copying of figures from one
Ferdie: What will lawyers do during canvassing? Look out if there is illegal
document to another is manifest. In this case however, even if the 90 composition of the BOC. Are the members of BOC qualified? But this is a rare issue
votes were credited to petitioner, it is still not enough to overcome the because at Comelec level, they make sure that all members of BOC are perfectly
228 lead of respondent. qualified. If there is illegal composition of BOC, then the results from that
municipality can be nullified on the basis that BOC is without authority.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ELECTION RETURNS
PROPER ISSUES TO BE RAISED
WHEN ELECTION RETURNS ARE DELAYED, LOST/ DESTROYED
PROPER ISSUES TO BE RAISED
A. Missing copy – BoC sends messenger to obtain it from the BEI
B. Lost or destroyed – BoC uses other authentic copies upon prior A. Illegal composition of the BoC
authority from Commission B. Illegal proceedings of the BoC
C. If they do not affect results of elections – terminate canvass and  Precipitate canvassing (gidali-dali)
proclaim  Terrorism
 Failure to notify the venue and time of canvassing to the
Ferdie: If they say, Mr. Chair the election returns from this particular polling place candidates and all other persons interested like BOC
is delayed, lost or destroyed. So there is now a missing copy. BOC now sends a themselves
messenger to obtain it from BEI. That is the remedy. No problem if this is the
reason because election results are in multiple copies so BOC can use other copies.
 Improper venue
Page 59
Ferdie: Automated election canvassing – really boring because you have to wait When does decision become final and executory?
for the transmission to get inside the CCS. There’s a list of all polling places and A. Division – no MR is filed
there’s button there: Red – not yet transmitted; Yellow – transmitted but still in B. En banc – no TRO was issued by SC within 5 days from receipt of
limbo; Green – results are in, transmitted.
decision by the parties
HOW TO RAISE THEM
EFFECT IF DQ REMAINS PENDING DURING CANVASSING
A. Verified petition before BoC or the Commission
B. If before BoC and decision is adverse, appeal to the Commission EFFECT IF DISQUALIFICATION REMAINS PENDING DURING
within 3 days from issuance. CANVASSING
Winner is proclaimed, if there is no order to suspend proclamation issued
MOTIONS by the Commission in division or en banc.
MOTIONS Remedies after proclamation
A. Must be in writing A. Election protest – procedure to contest the election or the return
Ferdie: If not in writing then it would be treated as a mere manifestation in of an elective official
which case not obliged to resolve. When you are in the canvassing and you B. Quo warranto – procedure to prevent assumption or unseat the
are the lawyer, you make an oral motion at the same time submit a written proclaimed winner on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to duly
motion. Without the written motion, the oral motion will not be meritorious. constituted authorities
B. Duly received by the Secretary Ferdie: The difference is if election protest, the only one who can file it is the
C. 24 hours to decide from receipt losing candidate for the same position. If you are a mere registered voter, file a
quo warranto on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to duly constituted
Q. When to proclaim? authorities.
When the winner is known
Q. Who is the winner?

The candidate who obtained the highest number of votes by plurality
A. Top 1 – among candidates for single slot positions
B. Top 12, 10, 8 or 2 – among candidates for multiple slot positions
 12 – HUC councillors
 10 – City councillors
 8 – Cebu City per district
 2 – Provincial board members
EFFECTS OF DECISIONS
EFFECT OF FINALITY OF CANCELLATION, ETC.
EFFECT OF FINALITY OF CANCELLATION OF OR DENIAL OF DUE

COURSE TO CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
A. Votes cast in his favor are considered stray.
B. Hence, the candidate with the second highest number of votes is
proclaimed.
Ferdie: If CoC was cancelled or denied due course, then you are not considered
as candidate at all any point in time. So even if you get highest number of votes,
the 2nd placer will be proclaimed.
EFFECT OF FINALITY DECLARATION AS NUISANCE
EFFECT OF FINALITY OF DECLARATION AS NUISANCE

CANDIDATE
A. Votes cast for the nuisance candidate are added to the candidate
with the same surname.
B. But if two ore more candidates share the same surname other than
the nuisance candidate – votes cast for the nuisance candidate are
stray. The vote is credited to any candidate, incumbent or not.
C. If nuisance candidate does not share surname with any other
candidate – votes are stray.
EFFECT IF WINNER IS DISQUALIFIED
EFFECT IF CANDIDATE WHO OBTAINED HIGHEST NUMBER OF

VOTES IS DISQUALIFIED BY A FINAL AND ECECUTORY
DECISION
A. He shall not be proclaimed
B. But the candidate with the second highest number of votes is also
not proclaimed
C. Rule of succession applies. Otherwise, the position is vacant.
Page 60
Ferdie: However, the best ground is the misreading or misappreciation of ballots.

PARTY VII. ELECTION CONTESTS Irregularities or election frauds cannot alter the result as much as the misreading
of ballots.
ELECTION PROTEST
If the BEI probably made a mistake in the rules in appreciation, they are not liable
since they have the discretion. They can decide whether to count the vote or not.
ELECTION PROTEST However, it should always be based on legal basis, otherwise it will be grave abuse
After the proclamation of the winning candidates, should there be any of discretion.
dispute related to election results, the legal solution is through an
election protest that may be filed only by a losing candidate for the same Electoral Sabotage
position being challenged before a proper electoral tribunal. A. If you manipulate the number of votes for a national elective
position regardless of the number of votes or documents
A. An election protest may only be filed against a duly proclaimed B. If you add or shave at least 5000 votes in a municipal election
winner. which adversely altered the result of the election
B. An election protect can only be filed by a losing candidate who was C. Lower than 5000 simple election offense
voted in the election for the same position. D. If number of votes padded or shaved is at least 10,000, regardless
of the position or the number of documents, provided it adversely
WHEN, WHO, WHERE TO FILE, GROUNDS affects the result of the election (if it did not, election offense)
WHEN, WHO, WHERE TO FILE Where to appeal

A. MTC & RTC – Comelec (within 5 days after promulgation)
When to file Within 10, 15 or 30 days from proclamation B. Comelec, SET, HRET – Supreme Court (via petition for review -
Rules 64 & 65: Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
Who may file Candidate who has duly filed a CoC for the same excess of jurisdiction)
position
Nature of Comelec’s decision
 President & Vice-President – PET within 30 days Final, unappealable and executory.
 Senator – SET within 15 days Ferdie: Final and Executory in so far as questions of fact are concerned, But if
Where to file  Congressman – HRET within 10 days questions of law, the Supreme Court is never divested of its power to review,
 Provincial & city officials – Comelec within 10 days especially, if there exist grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
 Municipal officials – RTC within 10 days of jurisdiction.
 Barangay officials – MTC within 10 days
STRICT PROCEDURAL REQS FOR ELECTION PROTEST
These are all mandatory periods
STRICT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTION
You cannot file election protest even if one day late because election
PROTEST
cases or protest cases are impressed with public purpose. Judges are
A. Must be filed within the reglementary period
mandated to prioritize these cases.
B. All fees must be paid within the same period
C. Must contain all allegations required to make it sufficient in form
GROUNDS FOR ELECTION PROTEST and substance
 Misreading of ballots
GROUNDS FOR ELECTION PROTEST
 Padding or shaving votes
Electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts –
 Terrorism, violence or vote-buying
these can be considered significant badges of fraud.
D. Must be under oath by the protestor or protestant
Ferdie: If RTC/MTC nullifies a proclamation based on these, it cannot be allowed
because it is in the guise of declaring a failure of election, which jurisdiction refers E. Must contain certificate of non-forum shopping
to the Commission en banc only and not RTC. Best ground is misappreciation of
ballots because that is where the documents and the hard copy of the official ANSWER TO AN ELECTION PROTEST
ballots are.
ANSWER TO AN ELECTION PROTEST
The Election protest may include correction of manifest errors Protestee or the proclaimed winner shall file an answer within the
The election protest may include correction of manifest errors in the prescribed period to file it. It may contain a counter-protest. For the
election returns or a statement of votes by precinct, city, and counter protest, payment of fees are also required.
municipality, such that if corrected the results of the election will be
altered such that the losing candidate will have more votes than the If the protestant can show that he has a chance to win the protest, then
winning candidate. the counter-protested precincts are revised.
In this case it seeks to annul the proclamation of the winner and for Revision
the tribunal to proclaim the protestor or protestant the winner. Ballot appreciation so far as BEI is concerned. If it goes to court under
election protest, it is already revision but the essence is the same, they
Ferdie: Manifest error is more or less similar to your plain view doctrine. Meaning
just by looking at the face of the election return, you can already see there is some are going to re-appreciate the ballots.
error in computation. (e.g. Obvious wrong computation, or one precinct tabulated
twice) But if you go beyond the face of the document, then this is no longer
Revision report
manifest error. A revision report is also prepared by the revisers committee to be
submitted to the court.
The election protest may also be grounded on election
irregularities of election fraud such as misreading of ballots, Decision
padding or shaving of votes, terrorism, violence, or vote- After the evaluation of the disputed ballots by the court, the tribunal
buying. makes rulings and prepares the decision.
A. If the protestant wins, the proclamation of the protestee is annulled
In this case, the election protest will entail review or re-reading of ballots and the protestant is proclaimed the winner.
for the tribunal’s evaluation for such precincts identified in the election
B. After finality of the decision, the new winner takes his oath and
protest. assumes his position
Page 61
QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS Q & A WITH ATTY. GUJILDE AND SOME ADDITION DISCUSSION
WHEN, WHO, WHERE TO FILE Discussion on canvassing

During canvassing, two polling place failed to transmit the results for
some reason. The BOC can suspend the canvassing, until the election
WHEN, WHO, WHERE TO FILE, GROUNDS returns for the two polling places arrives, especially if the votes that are
forthcoming can adversely affect the result of the election.
When to file Within 10 days from proclamation
If they don’t adversely affect the results, they can terminate the
Who may file Any voter
canvassing already and proclaim the winner.
 President & Vice-President – PET
 Senator – SET Mere presence of an unauthorized person inside the polling
 Congressman – HRET place is an election offense
Where to file  Provincial & city officials – Comelec The mere presence of an unauthorized person inside the polling place is
 Municipal officials – RTC an election offense. Remember that election laws are mala prohibita.
 Barangay officials – MTC Hence, you cannot say that you did not know that you are not allowed
inside, since in mala prohibita, lack of intent is not a defense.
Grounds Ineligibility and disloyalty to the Republic
Q. In appreciation of ballots, two Cruz ran for councilor. You
Ferdie: If you as a voter thinks that a candidate is ineligible or suffers from a
only placed 1 Cruz. Both of them are incumbent. Who gets the
disqualification, do not file an election protest because you are not a proper party. vote?
Instead, file quo warranto proceedings. Nobody gets the vote.
If ground is lack of residence, it must be raised within 10 days after proclamation Q. Grace Poe faced both DQ and cancellation. In the event that
otherwise it is lost forever. However, if ground is lack of citizenship, it lingers until she wins and the cases are decided on both that she is
end of incumbency. disqualified and COC is cancelled, which will prevail?
One is cancellation meaning she is not a candidate at all. Other is
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS disqualification, meaning she was a candidate at some point. The ruling
on cancellation or the denial of due course prevails because it is worse.
SENATE AND HREP ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
Q. What if Grace Poe was disqualified and case remains pending
SENATE AND HREPS ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS and she already won the elections with overwhelming votes.
SET and HRET What could be the decision of the SC?
Either way. The SC can say the people have spoken or even if the people
Jurisdiction
have spoken, it will not cure the defect of the candidacy.
Sole judge of al contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of their respective members.
Q. If BOC realizes the pre-proclamation controversy. What will
he do next?
Composition
A: He avails for the remedy. There is a step. Example BOC realize it is
A. 9 members (all judges)
fake, they will use other copies cause election returns are in multiple
B. 3 SC justices designated by the Chief Justice
copies. Or they can also call the attention of the BEI to identify the
C. 3 members based on proportional representation from political
election returns to verify if it was prepared by them. If BEI say that this
parties and party-list
is not the one we signed, If the BEI will disown the election returns
D. 3 members each from dominant minority parties
before the BOC then by all means BOC has to maximize the proceedings
E. Senior Justice acts as Chairman
under the pre proclamation controversy if it realizes the mistake.
SUPREME COURT EN BANC AS PET Q. In the event of a conflict between two or more rules in a
ballot appreciation, which will prevail?
SUPREME COURT EN BANC AS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL
It is really up to the judgment call of the BEI, as long as they have a
TRIBUNAL
legal basis for it.
Jurisdiction
Q. If only one word is written on a single line (JUAN), that word
Sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
would either represent the 1st name of one candidate or the
qualifications of the President or Vice-President.
surname of another. And you said the candidate with surname
TN: Incumbent President or Vice-President only. PET does not have jurisdiction HUWAN gets the vote. What if the candidate with JUAN 1 st
over Presidential or VP candidates. name is an incumbent. Which rule to follow?
Good question. It could be either way. The equity of the incumbent rule
or the supremacy of the surname rule.
Ferdie: Ballot Appreciation is VERY TRICKY. That is why it has to be

automated. If automated, all names of candidates are written. There is
no occasion for the voter to commit a mistake in so far as spelling is
concerned or identity. You shade it and it represents the candidate. That
is the beauty of automation.
Q. What will BEI do in automatic election?

Actually, nothing much. In automation, the BEI during voting and
counting, will just wait for the results. It is the voter who will feed the
ballot in the PCOS machine.
Page 62
Q. What happens if the ballot fed by the voter into the PCOS
machine was rejected? What is the remedy?
Remedy is, you have to try the 4 orientations of the ballot. Head 1st
rejected, bottom next rejected, front page rejected, dorsal side rejected.
If all 4 orientations are reject, the remedy is to file a protest for the
ballot rejection because that is really important when you will have
recount.
Probably that ballot that was rejected contain the vote for your
candidate. Example difference of 50 and there are 150 ballots rejected.
That 150 ballots could spell the difference between the winner and the
looser.
So as a paralegal, prepare that template for that protest against

rejection of ballot. So that if you know the number of ballots rejected
per polling place so lawyers can monitor.
Q. You have the template of protest against ballot rejection. Let

the BEI sign it in their level. If the signature of the BEI is
absent, does it follow that there can be no protest?
You can actually file a protest but the lawyer is clueless what happened
in that polling place. That is why it must be duly received by the BEI.
TN that when you file a protest against rejection of ballot, please do not
demand that the BEI will resolve the issue because it was the machine
that rejected the ballot. Do not argue with the machine.
Q. If you over vote in the senators, all votes will not be counted.
If you voted correctly in the President, will it also be not
counted?
Positions there are compartmentalized. For President kana rajud siya. If
you don’t over vote, it is alright, it is counted. If you over vote in the
senators, all votes are not counted. Meaning only the part you over
voted is not counted, the parts you did not are still counted. But if you
over voted for every other position then basically, everything will not be
counted.
Ferdie: There will be one question worth 10 points in the exam for
BALLOT APPRECIATION. Focus on the topics I emphasized, they will
come out in the exam.
Page 63
JURISPRUDENCE
AS OF 2020
Page 64
ELECTION LAW REVIEWER
Atty. Alberto C. Agra
Ateneo de Manila Law School
(Supreme Court Decisions as of July 8, 2020)
I. IMPORTANT POWERS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
A. Have exclusive charge of enforcement and administration of election law.
As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of

enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, COMELEC has the indisputable
expertise in the field of election and related laws (Cayetano v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
166388, 23 January 2006; Manzala v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176211, 8 May 2007).
COMELEC is mandated to shoulder all expenses relative to recall elections. (Goh v.

Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)
The 2014 General Appropriations Act provide the line item appropriation to allow the
COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is
no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall
election for 2014. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)
The 1987 Constitution not only guaranteed the COMELEC’s fiscal autonomy, but also
granted to its head, as authorized by law (as in the 2014 General Appropriations Act, to
its Chairman), to augment items in its appropriations from its savings. (Goh v. Bayron,
G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)
When the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its “Current Operating
Expenditures,” such appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional
functions, including the conduct of recall elections. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584,
November 25, 2014)
To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose.

However, the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related
sub-categories of the same nature. The purpose of the appropriation is still specific –
to fund elections, which naturally and logically include, even if not expressly stated,
not only regular but also special or recall elections. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584,
November 25, 2014)
COMELEC is vested with broad power to enforce all the laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections as well as the plenary authority to decide all questions affecting
elections except the question as to the right to vote (Dibaratun v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
170365, 2 February 2010).
Page 65
The determination of the feasibility of holding a plebiscite on a given date is within the
competence and discretion of the COMELEC (Cagas v. COMELEC, GR No. 209185, 25
October 2013).
COMELEC has wide discretion in adopting means to carry out its mandate of ensuring
free, orderly and honest elections. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, 420 SCRA 438) In the exercise
of the plenitude of its powers to protect the integrity of the elections, COMELEC should
not and must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in resolving election disputes.
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187958, 187961, and 187962, 7 April 2010)
In relation to the Supreme Court, Electoral Tribunals and regular courts:
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has no general powers of supervision over COMELEC
except those which the Constitution specifically grants to it, i.e., to review its decisions,
orders, and rulings within the limited terms of a petition for certiorari. (Aquino v.
COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015)
The findings of fact of COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are final,
non-reviewable and binding upon the Supreme Court. It is the specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country. Once given an issue to resolve, it
must examine the records of the protest, evidence given by the parties, and the relevant
election documents. (Basmala v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176724, 6 October 2012)
A resolution of the COMELEC En Banc may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by

certiorari filed with the latter, within 30 days from the promulgation thereof. (Falnar v.
COMELEC, 331 SCRA 429) The 30-day rule applies to final orders, rulings and decisions of
the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, not in
the exercise of its administrative function to enforce and administer election laws to
ensure an orderly election. The issuance of a Resolution on the allocation of party-list
seats is in the exercise of the administrative, not quasi-judicial powers of the COMELEC.
(Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164702, 15 March 2006)
The phrase "decision, order, or ruling" of constitutional commissions, the COMELEC

included, that may be brought directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-
encompassing, and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. In the case of the COMELEC, this would limit the
provision's coverage to the decisions, orders, or rulings issued pursuant to its authority
to be the sole judge of generally all controversies and contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of elective offices. (Querubin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 218787,
December 8, 2015)
Certiorari will not generally lie against an order, ruling, or decision of a COMELEC
division for being premature, taking into account the availability of the plain, speedy and
adequate remedy of a motion for reconsideration. (Villarosa v. Festin, G.R. No. 212953,
August 05, 2014)
Page 66
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court does not foreclose recourse to the Supreme Court under
Rule 65 of orders of the COMELEC issued in the exercise of its administrative function.
(Macabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152163, 18 November 2002); Rule 64 is not the
exclusive remedy for all Commission on Elections' acts as Rule 65 applies for grave abuse
of discretion resulting to ouster of jurisdiction (Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
205728, July 5, 2016).
In exceptional cases, when the COMELEC's action on the appreciation and evaluation of
evidence oversteps the limits of its discretion to the point of being grossly unreasonable,
the Court is not only obliged, but has the constitutional duty to intervene. When grave
abuse of discretion is present, resulting errors arising from the grave abuse mutate from
error of judgment to one of jurisdiction. The subject land is within the commerce of man
and is therefore a proper subject of an expropriation proceeding (Leodegario A. Labao,
Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016).
The Supreme Court has no power to review an interlocutory order or a final resolution
of a division of COMELEC. Said order or resolution must be reviewed by the COMELEC En
Banc through a motion for reconsideration. (Panlilio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181478, 15
July 2009) However when a party has hardly enough opportunity to move for
reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time for the elections, and the
petition involves transcendental constitutional issues, direct resort to the Supreme
Court is justified. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811) Direct
recourse to the Supreme Court is also allowed when the issue is a pure question of law.
(Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164702, 15 March 2006)
Under the 1993 COMELEC Rules, the COMELEC En Banc is strictly prohibited from
entertaining motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders unless unanimously
referred to the En Banc by the members of the division that issued the same, whereas
under COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, all motions for reconsideration filed with regard
to decisions, resolutions, orders and rulings of the COMELEC divisions are automatically
referred to the COMELEC En Banc. Thus, in view of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804’s
applicability in the instant petition, a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC
En Banc is now available. (Villarosa v. Festin, G.R. No. 212953, August 05, 2014)
Both the Supreme Court and COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general
jurisdiction (regional trial courts) in election cases involving elective municipal officials.
The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
(Carlos v. Angeles, G.R. No. 142907, 29 November 2000)
The urgency posed by the circumstances during respondents' issuance of the assailed
notice and letter-the then issue on the RH Law as well as the then upcoming elections-
also rendered compliance with the doctrine on exhaustion of administrative remedies as
unreasonable (Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, July 5, 2016).
Page 67
Electoral Tribunals. The creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is valid. The
PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution independent,
but not separate, from the judicial department, i.e., the Supreme Court. The present
Constitution has allocated to the Supreme Court, in conjunction with latter's exercise of
judicial power inherent in all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-
presidential election contests, with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power
wielded by PET is a derivative of the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law,
expressly provided in the Constitution. (Macalintal v, PET G.R. No. 191618, 7 June 2011)
It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal, not COMELEC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over
complaints contesting the proclamation of the 12th winning senatorial candidate. (Rasul
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134142, 24 August 1999).
Through VI, Section 17, the Constitution segregates from all other judicial and quasi-
judicial bodies (particularly, courts and the Commission on Elections) the power to rule
on contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the
Senate (as well as of the House of Representatives). These powers are granted to a
separate and distinct constitutional organ. There are two (2) aspects to the exclusivity of
the Senate Electoral Tribunal's power. The power to resolve such contests is exclusive to
any other body. The resolution of such contests is its only task; it performs no other
function (Rizalito Y. David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20,
2016).
The jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) begins once
the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the
nominee has taken his/her oath and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives (Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192474, 26 June 2012; Abayon v. HRET,
G.R. No. 189466, 11 February 2010; Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013).
Once a candidate for the House of Representatives has been proclaimed and has taken
his/ her oath, COMELEC loses jurisdiction over actions to disqualify said representative.
Jurisdiction lies with the HRET (Aggabao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163756, 26 January 2005;
Tañada v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207199-200, 22 October 2013; Bibiano C. Rivera v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016). By failing to acquire a seat, a candidate does
not fall under the jurisdiction of the HRET as he is not a member. (Layug v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 192984, 28 February 2012) This rule applies when the proclamation if valid.
When the decision of the COMELEC Division disqualifying a candidate who obtained the
plurality of votes has not become final, the proclamation of said candidate was valid and
thus COMELEC was divested of its jurisdiction. (Planas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167594, 10
March 2006) However, when a decision of a COMELEC division disqualifying a
congressional candidate is not yet final (a motion for reconsideration having been filed
with COMELEC En Banc), COMELEC En Banc retains jurisdiction, i.e., the HRET cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter. (Codilla v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, 10
December 2002).
Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules requires the presence of at least one Justice and four
members of the Tribunal to constitute a quorum. This means that even when all the
Page 68
Justices are present, at least two members of the House of Representatives need to be
present to constitute a quorum. Without this rule, it would be possible for five members
of the House of Representatives to convene and have a quorum even when no Justice is
present. This would render ineffective the rationale contemplated by the framers of the
1935 and 1987 Constitutions for placing the Justices as members of the HRET. Rule 6(a)
of the 2015 HRET Rules does not make the Justices indispensable members to constitute
a quorum but ensures that representatives from both the Judicial and Legislative
departments are present to constitute a quorum. Members from both the Judicial and
Legislative departments become indispensable to constitute a quorum (Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 221103, October 16, 2018).
HRET Resolution No. 16, Series of 2018 (20 September 2018)
As amended, Rules 17 and 18 now read:
RULE 17. Election Protest. - A verified protest contesting the election or returns of any
Member of the House of Representatives shall be filed by any candidate who has duly
filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office within fifteen (15)
days from June 30 of the election year, if the winning candidate was proclaimed on or
before said date. However, if the winning candidate was proclaimed after June 30 of the
election year, a verified election protest shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from the
date of proclamation. xx xx
RULE 18. Quo Warranto. -A verified petition for quo warranto on the ground of
ineligibility may be filed by any registered voter of the congressional district concerned,
or any registered voter in the case of party-list representatives, within fifteen (15) days
from June 30 of the election year, if the winning candidate was proclaimed on or before
said date. However, if the winning candidate was proclaimed after June 30 of the
election year, a verified petition for quo warranto shall be filed within fifteen ( 15) days
from the date of proclamation. The party filing the petition shall be designated as the
petitioner, while the adverse party shall be known as the respondent. xx xx
The judgments of these tribunals are not beyond the scope of any review. Article VI,
Section 17's stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the "sole" judge must be.read in
harmony with Article VIII, Section l's express statement that "[j]udicial power includes
the duty of the courts of justice ... to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government." Judicial review is, therefore, still possible
(Rizalito Y. David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016).
Regular Courts. The regular courts have jurisdiction to entertain a petition to enjoin the
construction of public works projects within 45 days before an election. (Gallardo v.
Tabamo, 218 SCRA 253)
Page 69
The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari in election protests pending
before inferior courts. (Besso v. Aballe, 326 SCRA 100) The COMELEC, not the Regional
Trial Courts, has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Municipal Trial Court
concerning election protests involving barangay officials (Antonio v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
135869, 22 September 1999), and Sanggunian Kabataan chairpersons (Fernandez v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 176296, 30 June 2008), has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation of election offenses (Pena v. Martizano, 403 SCRA 281), has jurisdiction
over plebiscite protest cases involving the conversion of a municipality to a city (Buac v.
COMELEC, 421 SCRA 92), and has jurisdiction to annul a proclamation. (Gustilo v. Real,
353 SCRA 1) Lower courts cannot issue writs of injunction against COMELEC. (COMELEC
v. Datu-Iman, 304 SCRA 106)
Under the law, grievances relating to the COMELEC rulings in protests over the conduct
of its project procurement should then be addressed to the RTC. However, this rule only
applies to a failed bidder. In the Querubin case, there existed ample compelling reasons
to justify the direct resort to the Court as a departure from the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts not in relation to but under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on certiorari and
prohibition, and to brush aside the procedural issues in this case to focus on the
substantive issues surrounding the procurement of the 23,000 additional OMRs for the
2016 elections. (Querubin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 218787, December 8, 2015)
MTCC retains residual jurisdiction while two conditions concur: ( 1) records of the case
have not yet been transmitted to COMELEC; and (2) the period to appeal has not yet
expired. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 218536, 26 January 2016)
COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to affirm, reverse, vacate, or annul the MTCC's
judgment. The Commission also has jurisdiction to restrain implementation of the
MTCC's judgment through injunctive writs. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 218536, 26
January 2016)
The Commission on Elections is given ample discretion to administer the elections, but
certainly, its constitutional duty is to "enforce the law." The Commission is not given the
constitutional competence to amend or modify the law it is sworn to uphold. Section 6(
e ), (t), and (n) of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, is law. Should there be policy
objections to it, the remedy is to have Congress amend it (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement,
Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 222731, March 8, 2016).
COMELEC commits grave abuse of discretion when it dismisses an initiative petition on

the ground that there were no funds allocated for the purpose (Marmeto v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 213953, 16 September 2017).
It is COMELEC which has the power to determine whether the propositions in an

initiative petition are within the powers of a concerned sanggunian to enact (Marmeto
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 213953, 16 September 2017).
Page 70
B. Hear and resolve cases in Division and En Banc
The prosecution of election violators involves the exercise of administrative function

and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC En Banc, not its divisions (Munoz
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170678, 17 July 2006).
The COMELEC En Banc does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases,
including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance. (Munoz v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 170678, 17 July 2006) The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protests filed with the lower courts falls within the division
of COMELEC. (Soller v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139853, 5 September 2000) The cancellation
of a certificate of candidacy involves the exercise of quasi-judicial function and thus
must be heard in the first instance by the COMELEC division. (Bautista v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 154796, 23 October 2003)
Decisions rendered by a COMELEC division are subject to review via the timely filing of a
motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. The timely filing of a motion
for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc concerning a decision of its divisions
suspending and disqualifying a candidate did not divest the former of its jurisdiction to
review the resolution of the latter. The order of the division was unenforceable and had
not attained finality (Codilla v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, 10 December 2002).
Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution bestows on the COMELEC divisions the authority
to decide election cases. Their decisions are capable of attaining finality, without need
of any affirmative or confirmatory action on the part of the COMELEC en banc. And
while the Constitution requires that the motions for reconsideration be resolved by the
COMELEC en banc, it likewise requires that four votes must be reached for it to render a
valid ruling and, consequently, to grant the motion for reconsideration (Feliciano
Legaspi v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016).
Questions involving findings of fact (i.e., sufficiency of evidence) addressed by a

COMELEC division is a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC
En Banc (Columbres v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 142038, 18 September 2000).
The essence of due process is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and

to submit any evidence in support of one’s claim or defense. The fact that a petitioner
somehow acquired knowledge or information of the date set for the preliminary
conference by means other than the official notice sent by COMELEC is not an excuse to
dismiss his/her protest, because it cannot be denied that he was not afforded
reasonable notice and time to adequately prepare for and submit his/her brief. (Violago,
Sr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194143, 4 October 2011)
The COMELEC En Banc shall decide motions for reconsideration only of “decisions” of a
Division. Interlocutory orders may not be resolved by the COMELEC En Banc. An order is
final in nature if it completely disposes of the entire case. But if there is something more
to be done in the case after its issuance, that order is interlocutory. The exception is
Page 71
when an interlocutory order issued by a Division of COMELEC does not appear to be
specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that the matter is one that
the COMELEC En Banc may sit and consider (Cagas v. COMELEC G.R. No. 194139, 24
January 2012).
The proper way for the COMELEC En Banc to act on a motion for reconsideration when
the first voting was equally divided is to rehear the matter, not merely to hold a re-
consultation amongst themselves. Thus, when the COMELEC En Banc failed to hold a
rehearing required by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, said body acted with grave
abuse of discretion (Juliano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167033, 12 April 12, 2006).
Under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, a majority vote of all the members of
the COMELEC En Banc is necessary to arrive at a ruling. In other words, the vote of four
(4) members must always be attained in order to decide, irrespective of the number of
Commissioners in attendance. Failing this, the case must be re-heard pursuant to Sec. 6,
Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203833, 19
March 2013).
No fault, let alone grave abuse of discretion, can be ascribed to the COMELEC when the
Special First Division issued the questioned writ of preliminary injunction. Contrary to
petitioner’s claim, it cannot be said that the First Division and the Special First Division
are two distinct bodies and that there has been consequent transfers of the case
between the two. Strictly speaking, the COMELEC did not create a separate Division but
merely and temporarily filled in the vacancies in both of its Divisions. The additional
term “special,” in this case, merely indicates that the commissioners sitting therein may
only be doing so in a temporary capacity or via substitution. (Villarosa v. Festin, G.R. No.
212953, August 05, 2014)
C. Exercise supervision and control over officials required to perform duties relative to the
conduct of election
The COMELEC has the authority to effect the transfer of election officers (De Guzman v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, 19 July 2000). No Election Officer shall hold office in a
particular city or municipality for more than four years (Sec. 44, Republic Act No. 8189).
As an agent of the Commission, an election officer is under the Commission's direct and
immediate control and supervision. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 218536, 26 January
2016)
D. Authorize any instrumentality of the government, except civilian home defense forces,
to act as deputies
E. Promulgate rules and regulations
Page 72
The COMELEC has the discretion to liberally construe its rules and, at the same time,
suspend the rules, or any portion thereof, in the interest of justice. Disputes in the
outcome of elections involve public interest; as such, technicalities and procedural
barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the
determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials.
Laws governing such disputes must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the
people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections
(Suliguin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 166046, 23 March 2006)
The COMELEC, in the interest of justice, may suspend the rule on 5-day period to file a
petition to correct manifest errors (Dela Llana v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152080, 28
November 2003).
COMELEC did not encroach upon the authority of the PNP to regulate private security
agencies when it promulgated Resolution No. 10015 which provided for the rules and
regulations on the ban on bearing, carrying or transporting of firearms and other deadly
weapons and the employment, availment or engagement of the services of security
personnel or bodyguards during the election period (Gun Ban) as it merely regulates the
bearing, carrying, and transporting of firearms and other deadly weapons by private
security agencies and all other persons, during election period. Under BP 881 and RA
7166, it is unlawful for any person to bear, carry, or transport firearms or other deadly
weapons in public places during the election period, even if otherwise licensed to do so,
unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC. Section 35 of RA 7166 also uses the
mandatory word "shall" to impose upon the COMELEC its duty to issue rules and
regulations to implement the law. (PADPAO Region 7 Chapter Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
223505, October 3, 2017).
F. Summon parties to a controversy pending before it (Dela Llana v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
152080, 28 November 2003).
G. Determine the true nature of the cases filed before it
H. Punish contempt
The power to punish contempt can be exercised only in connection with judicial
functions and not administrative functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC, 104 Phil. 268;
Masangcay v. COMELEC, 6 SCRA 27)
The DILG cannot be cited in contempt if it acts according to an Order of the

Ombudsman, which may be contrary to a COMELEC ruling if the matter involves two
distinct issues, such that the implementation of one agency's ruling would not
necessarily result in a violation of the other. A finding that a candidate is qualified to run
does not necessarily negate a ruling that he is guilty of an administrative offense
(Undersecretary Austere Panadero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 215548, April 5, 2016).
I. Enforce its decisions and orders
Page 73
J. Prescribe forms to be used in the election.
K. Procure supplies and materials needed for the election.
COMELEC has failed to justify its reasons for directly contracting with Smartmatic-TIM: it
had not shown that any of the conditions under Section 50, Article XVI of the GPRA
exists; its claims of impracticality were not supported by independently verified and
competent data; and lastly, its perceived “warranty extension” is, in reality, just a
circumvention of the procurement law. For all these counts, the conclusion thus
reached is that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. While this Court recognizes that the COMELEC should be
given sufficient leeway in exercising its constitutional mandate to enforce and
administer all election laws, it demands equal recognition that it is the Court’s
constitutional duty to see to it that all governmental actions are legally permissible. In
so doing, the Court decides not only with pragmatism in mind, but pragmatism within
the fair bounds of law. Such is the case in examining the COMELEC’s apprehensions
under the lens of the procurement law, with heightened considerations of public
accountability and transparency put to the fore. (Pabillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216098 &
G.R. No. 216562, April 21, 2015)
L. Prescribe latest technological and electronic devices upon notices to accredited political
parties and candidates not less than 30 days before. COMELEC is authorized to use an
automated election system for the process of voting, counting of votes, and canvassing
of the results (Sec. 6, Republic Act No. 8436).
M. Carry out campaign to educate the public about elections
N. Enlist non-partisan groups to assist
O. Conduct hearings on controversies pending before it
The factual finding of COMELEC, which is supported by substantial evidence, is binding

on the Supreme Court (Badiri v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165677, 8 June 2005).
The COMELEC enjoys the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance
of official duty. The COMELEC can base its ruling on official COMELEC records. (Barbers
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165691, 15 June 2005).
P. Fix periods for pre-election requirements
COMELEC may also prescribe a deadline for registration of party-list organizations

beyond the 90-day period under Republic Act No. 7941. The 90-day period is a minimum
period not subject to reduction but is susceptible to protraction on account of
administrative necessities and exigencies (Aklat Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran ng
Lipunan at Adhikain para sa Tao v. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 712).
10
Page 74
COMELEC can conduct special elections for barangay officials even beyond the 30 days
from cessation of the cause of the failure of election. The 30-day period is directory, and
the deadline cannot defeat the right of suffrage of the people (Sambarani v. COMELEC,
438 SCRA 319).
Q. Recommend the imposition of disciplinary action upon an employee it has deputized for
violation of its order (Sec. 52, Omnibus Election Code).
Since COMELEC can recommend that disciplinary action be taken against an officer it
had deputized, it can investigate an administrative charge against such an officer to
determine whether or not it should recommend that disciplinary action be taken against
him (Tan v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353).
R. Investigate and where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation for election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices
The finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in COMELEC’s
sound discretion (Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170256, 25 January 2010).
S. Make minor adjustments of the apportionment of legislative districts (Sec. 2, Ordinance

appended to the Constitution).
This refers merely to the power to correct an error because of the omission of a
municipality or an error in the name of a municipality and does not include the power to
make a reappointment of legislative districts (Montejo v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415).
T. Adjust the apportionment in case of creation of new province or city (Sec. 3, Ordinance
appended to the Constitution).
The COMELEC is merely authorized to adjust the number of Representatives

apportioned to an old province if a new province is created out of it and is not
authorized to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another (Montejo v.
COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415).
U. Divide a province with only one legislative district into two districts of purposes of the
election of the members of the Sangguniang Kabataan (Sec. 3 (b), Republic Act. No.
7166).
The basis of the division is the number of inhabitants and not the number registered
voters (Herrera v. COMELEC, 318 SCRA 336).
V. Schedule elections if power to do so is delegated by Congress.
Elections for Congress should be held on the 2nd Monday of May unless otherwise
provided by law. The term “unless otherwise provided by law” contemplates two
11
Page 75
situations (1) when the law specifically states when the elections should be held on a
date other than the second Monday of May; and (2) when the law delegates the setting
of the date of the elections to COMELEC. Section 1 of R.A. 11243 categorically states
that the reapportionment of the 1st District of South Cotabato shall “commence in the
next national and local elections after the effectivity of this Act.” R.A. 11243 did not
specifically provide for a different date. Neither did it delegate unto COMELEC the
setting of a different date. The law was passed with the view of implementing the
reapportionment of the First Legislative District of the Province of South Cotabato at the
most feasible and practicable time, i.e., during the next elections on the second Monday
of May 2022. Congress could not have intended to enforce R.A. 11243 during the 2019
general elections as the election period had already begun when R.A. 11243 was
enacted. To require implementation last May 13, 2019 would lead COMELEC to act
precipitously (Bañas-Nograles v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246328, 10 September 2019).
II. POLITICAL PARTIES
A. To acquire juridical personality, to qualify for accreditation, and to be entitled to the

rights of political parties, a political party must be registered with COMELEC (Sec. 60,
Omnibus Election Code, 318 SCRA 336).
B. The following political parties cannot be registered.
1. Religious sects
2. Those which seek to achieve their goals through unlawful means
3. Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
4. Those which are supported by any foreign government (Sec. 2 (5), Article IX-C of
1987 Constitution).
C. A party which fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast in the constituency in which it
nominated candidates shall forfeit its registration (Sec. 60, Omnibus Election Code).
D. COMELEC has the authority to register political parties, organizations or coalitions, and
the authority to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The COMELEC En
Banc, has the prerogative to direct that a hearing be conducted on the petition for
cancellation of registration of the party list. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions
for cancellation of registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition while it is the HRET that has jurisdiction over contests relating to the
qualifications of a party-list nominee or representative (Alliance for Barangay Concerns
Party List v. COMELEC G.R. No. 193256, 22 March 2011).
E. The validity or invalidity of the expulsion of a political party’s officers is purely a

membership issue that has to be settled within the party. It is an internal party matter
12
Page 76
over which COMELEC has no jurisdiction. It may intervene in disputes internal to a party
only when necessary to the discharge of its constitutional functions, such as resolving an
intra party leadership dispute as an incident of its power to register political parties
(Atienza v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188920, 16 February 2010). COMELEC has jurisdiction to
resolve the issue of leadership of a political party (Alcantara v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
203646, 16 April 2013).
III. PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
A. Registration and Accreditation
1. To join electoral contests, a party or organization must undergo the two-step process of
registration and accreditation, Registration is the act that bestows juridical personality for
purposes of our election laws; accreditation, on the other hand, relates to the privileged
participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered parties. Accreditation can
only be granted to a registered political party, organization or coalition; stated otherwise, a
registration must first take place before a request for accreditation can be made. Once
registration has been carried out, accreditation is the next natural step to follow (Magdalo
Para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, 12 June 2012).
2. In determining who may participate in party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the
following parameters:
a. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
b. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector.
c. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The
sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.
d. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and
underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and
underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals,
the elderly, women, and the youth.
13
Page 77
e. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members
of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political
constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of
sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-defined political
constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a
track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national
and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such
parties or organizations.
f. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified
if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified (Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, GR No.
203766, 2 April 2013).
3. The enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive. The crucial
element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. From the
standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the
same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as other political
parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of
general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate
in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented
sectors (Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010).
4. Sectoral parties or organizations are no longer required to adduce evidence showing their
track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the cause of the
sector they represent. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient that the ideals
represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the sector/s,
which they represent. If at all, evidence showing a track record in representing the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is only required from nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented who do not
factually belong to the sector represented by their party or organization (Abang-Lingkod
Party List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206952, 22 October 2013).
B. Nominees
1. A party-list organization’s ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of preference. The law
also provides for their qualifications to be eligible to the said seat. Such requirements must
be possessed not only at the time of appointment but during the officer’s entire tenure. A
nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for
nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least six
months before the elections. Section 15 of R.A. No. 7941 provides the effect of a change in
affiliation and it covers both changes in political parties and sectoral affiliation. Such change
14
Page 78
may occur in the latter within the same party because the Philippine Party-List system
allows multi-sectoral party-list system to participate. A candidate who is more than 30 on
election day is not qualified to be a youth sector nominee. The law provides a nominee of
the youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age
on the day of election. This age limit covers all youth sector nominees vying for party-list
representative seats as mandated by R.A. 7941, the Party-List System Act (Amores v. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, 29 June 2010).
2. The new ground which granted to the party-list organization the unilateral right to withdraw
its nomination already submitted to the COMELEC would not secure the object of R.A. No.
7941 of developing and guaranteeing a full, free and open party-list electoral system. The
success of a party-list system could only be ensured by avoiding any arbitrariness on the part
of the party-list organization, by seeing to the transparency of the system, and by
guaranteeing that the electorate would be afforded the chance of making intelligent and
informed choices of their party-list representative (Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R No. 179431-
32, 22 June 2010).
3. The HRET has the authority to interpret the meaning of this particular qualification of a
nominee of a party-list representative. A nominee must be a bona fide member or a
representative of his party-list organization. They must look in the context of the facts that
characterize such nominees and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they
presumably embody. The authority to determine the qualifications and to examine the
fitness of aspiring nominees belong to the party or organization that nominates them.
However, once an allegation is made that the party or organization has chosen and allowed
a disqualified nominee to become its party-list representative in the lower House and enjoy
the secured tenure that goes with the position, the resolution of the dispute is taken out of
its hand (Abayon v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189466, 11 February
2010).
4. As long as the acts embraced under Sec. 79 of the Omnibus Election Code pertain to or are
in connection with the nomination of a candidate by a party or organization, then such are
treated as internal matters and cannot be considered as electioneering or partisan political
activity. The twin acts of signing and filing a Certificate of Nomination are purely internal
processes of the party or organization and are not designed to enable or ensure the victory
of the candidate in the elections. The act of submitting the certificate nominating
representatives was merely in compliance with the COMELEC requirements for nomination
of party-list representatives and, hence, cannot be treated as electioneering or partisan
political activity proscribed under by Sec. 2(4) of Art. IX(B) of the Constitution for civil
servants (Señeres v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178678, 16 April 2009).
5. The determination of disputes as to party nominations rests with the party, in the absence
of statutes giving the court jurisdiction. Where there is no controlling statute or clear legal
right involved, the court will not assume jurisdiction to determine factional controversies
within a political party, but will leave the matter for determination by the proper tribunals
of the party itself or by the electors at the polls. An election in which the voters have fully,
fairly, and honestly expressed their will is not invalid even though an improper method is
15
Page 79
followed in the nomination of candidates. In the absence of a statutory provision to the
contrary, an election may not even be invalidated by the fact that the nomination of the
successful candidate was brought about by fraud, and not in the manner prescribed by the
statute, provided it appears that noncompliance with the law did not prevent a fair and free
vote (Sinaca v. Mula, G.R. No. 135691, 27 September 1999).
6. A sectoral party’s failure to submit a list of five nominees, despite ample opportunity to do
so before the elections, is a violation imputable to the party under Section 6(5) of RA No.
7941 (COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207026,
6 August 2013).
7. In view of a party’s subsisting registration with the COMELEC as a multi-sectoral

organization, its National Council (which is the entity registered with the COMELEC as a
party-list organization) has not become defunct or non-existent, nor replaced by the BOT of
the SEC-registered entity, whose registration with the SEC will not per se dispense with the
evidentiary requirement under R.A. No. 7941 that its nominees must be bona fide members
and nominees of the party (Bibiano C. Rivera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016).
C. Number of Seats
1. The number of party-list seats is determined using this formula: number of district
representatives/0.80 x 0.20. No rounding off is allowed. Parties other than the first party
(i.e., the party that obtained the highest number of votes based on plurality) may be entitled
to additional seats based on the following formula: number of votes of that party/ number
of votes of first party x number of seats of first party (Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 164702, 15 March 2006).
2. The three-seat cap provided prevents the mandatory allocation of all available seats. The
filling up of all available party list seats thus is not mandatory and is subject to the number
of participants in the party list election. The fixed 2% vote requirement is no long viable due
to the increases in both party list allotment and the creation of additional legislative
districts. The 2% vote requirement cannot be given effect as the 20% of party list seats in
the membership of the House of Representatives as provided in the constitution would be
mathematically impossible to fill up (Banat v. COMELEC, G.R. No 179271, 8 July 2009).
3. Party-list groups garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in
the allocation of additional seats depending on their ranking in the second round. The
continued operation of the two-percent threshold was deemed "an unwarranted obstacle to
the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of the 'broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in
the House of Representatives.’ and has been declared unconstitutional. The 20% share in
representation may never be filled up if the 2% threshold is maintained. In the same vein,
the maximum representation will not be achieved if those party-list groups obtaining less
than one percentage are disqualified from even one additional seat in the second round.
16
Page 80
(Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207134, June
16, 2015)
4. The giving of an additional seat to a party in 2003 was pro hac vice (for this one particular
occasion) (Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164702, 15 March 2006).
5. The COMELEC’s reasoning that a party-list election is not an election of personalities is valid
to a point. It cannot be taken, however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure stance which
comes, as it were, with a weighty presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a
fundamental right to information. While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a
party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases,
would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. (Bantay Republic Act 7941 v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 177271, 4 May 2007).
6. In determining the number of additional seats for each party-list that has met the 2%
threshold, “proportional representation” is the touchtone to ascertain entitlement to extra
seats. In order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary.
Rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that provided by
the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is restricted by the
three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots. The prevailing formula for
the computation of additional seats for party-list winners is the formula stated in the
landmark case of Veterans. (Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
172103, 13 April 2007).
7. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal rules, the
HRET and the CA are bereft of any power to reconstitute themselves. The Constitution
expressly grants to the House of Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally
defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who
may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. However, even
assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to
designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their primary recourse clearly rests
with the House of Representatives and not with the Supreme Court. Under Sections 17 and
18, Article VI of the Constitution, party-list representatives must first show to the House that
they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET and the CA.
Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can the party-list representatives
seek recourse to the Supreme Court under its power of judicial review. Under the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before direct recourse to
the Supreme Court (Pimentel, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
141489, 29 November 2002).
8. The party-list system has been branded as “a social justice tool designed not only to give
more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to
become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the
enactment of laws designed to benefit them. To be entitled to one qualifying seat, a party
must obtain 2% of those ballots cast for qualified party-list candidates. Votes cast for a party
17
Page 81
which is not entitled to be voted for should not be counted. The votes they obtained shall
be deducted from the canvass of the total votes for the party-list (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, 26 June 2001).
D. Delisting
1. Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for delisting; these grounds
cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and the disqualification for failure to
garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should now be understood, in light of
the Banat ruling, to mean failure to qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for
the constituency in which it has registered. (Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v.
2. The law provides for 2 separate reasons for the delisting of any national, regional or sectoral
party organization or coalition. Section 6(8) of the Party-List system Act provides that the
COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral
party organization or coalition. The grounds are : (a) if it fails to participate in the last two
(2) preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast
under the party list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
was registered (Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529,
29 April 2010).
3. Under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941, violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation of registration. However,
not every kind of violation automatically warrants the cancellation of a party-list group’s
registration. Since a reading of the entire Section 6 shows that all the grounds for
cancellation actually pertain to the party itself, then the laws, rules and regulations violated
to warrant cancellation under Section 6(5) must be one that is primarily imputable to the
party itself and not one that is chiefly confined to an individual member or its nominee
(COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207026, 6
August 2013).
E. Standing
1. A party which is still in the process of incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person
or an entity authorized by law to be a party to a civil action and thus cannot pray for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel publication of a COMELEC Resolution. Neither
does such party have locus standi as it is not even a party-list candidate and could not have
been directly affected by the COMELEC Resolution. (Association of Flood Victims v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203775, August 5, 2014)
IV. CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY
18
Page 82
A person files a certificate of candidacy to announce his or her candidacy and to declare his or
her eligibility for the elective office indicated in the certificate (Arlene Llena Empaynado v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016).
A. Deadline for filing
1. Certificates of candidacy must be filed not later than the day before the date for
the beginning of the campaign period (Sec. 7, Republic Act No. 7166).
2. A certificate filed beyond the deadline is not valid (Gador v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA
431).
3. A certificate which did not indicate the position for which the candidate is
running may be corrected (Conquilla v. COMELEC, 332 SCRA 861).
B. Prohibition against multiple candidacies
1. A person who files a certificate of candidacy for more than one office should not
be eligible for any of them.
2. Before the deadline for filing certificates, he may withdraw all except one (Sec.
73, Omnibus Election Code).
C. Forms
1. Oath
a. The certificate must be sworn (Sec. 73, Omnibus Election Code).
b. The election of a candidate cannot be annulled because of formal

defects in his certificate, such as, lack of oath (De Guzman v. Board of
Canvassers, 48 Phil. 211)
2. Name
a. A candidate shall use his baptismal name or, if none, the name
registered with the civil registrar or any other name allowed by law.
b. He may include one nickname or stage name by which he is generally

known (Sec. 74, Omnibus Election Code). A resolution of COMELEC
cancelling the nickname in a certificate of candidacy without giving the
candidate a chance to explain is void (Villarosa v. COMELEC, 319 SCRA
470). A wife who used the nickname of her husband in her certificate of
candidacy should not be credited with the ballots in which the voter
wrote such nickname (Villarosa v. COMELEC, 340 SCRA 396).
19
Page 83
c. When two or more candidates for the same office have the same name
and surname, each shall state his paternal and maternal surnames,
except the incumbent (Sec. 74, Omnibus Election Code).
d. A claim that a candidate’s use of a particular name in order to appear

first in an alphabetical list of candidates would lead to confusion as to
put him to undue disadvantage, is merely speculative and without basis
as the voters can identify the candidate they want to vote for
(Villafuerte v. COMELEC, GR No. 206698, 25 February 2014).
e. By using other nicknames to differentiate one candidate from another

person, there is sufficient differentiation which negates any intention to
mislead or misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render him
ineligible (Villafuerte v. COMELEC, GR No. 206698, 25 February 2014).
D. Effect of Filing
An elective official continues to hold office and is not deemed resigned upon the filing of
a certificate of candidacy for the same or different position.
An appointed public official is considered resigned upon filing of his certificate (Sec. 66,
Omnibus Election Code; Sanciangco v. Rono, 137 SCRA 671). This includes an employee
of a government owned or controlled corporation organized under the Corporate Code,
since the law makes no distinction (PNOC-Energy Development Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 222 SCRA 831).
E. Definition of a Candidate
Under Section 79a of the Omnibus Election Code, a “candidate” refers to any person
aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy
by himself (herself) or through an accredited political party, aggroupment, or coalition
of parties.
Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9369, a candidate is “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.” Thus, under
the law, a person only becomes a candidate when he/ she has filed a certificate of
candidacy and when the campaign period has commenced. One is not a candidate,
despite having filed a certificate of candidacy, before the start of the campaign period.
The law added, “unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect
only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period.”
A person, after filing his/her COC but prior to his/her becoming a candidate (thus, prior
to the start of the campaign period), can already commit the acts described under
Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or partisan political
20
Page 84
activity, However, only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the beginning
of the campaign period, can said acts be given effect as premature campaigning under
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Only after said person officially becomes a
candidate, at the start of the campaign period, can his/her disqualification be sought for
acts constituting premature campaigning. Obviously, it is only at the start of the
campaign period, when the person officially becomes a candidate, that the undue and
iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts, constituting premature campaigning, shall
accrue to his/her benefit. This means that a candidate is liable for an election offense
only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight —
any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law
cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. (Penera v. COMELEC, GR
No. 181613, 25 November 2009).
The right to equal access to opportunities for public service does not bestow a right to
seek an elective office nor elevate the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. The
privilege may be limited by law as in the proscription on nuisance candidates under the
Omnibus Election Code (Pamatong v. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96).
If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, the candidate is not considered a

candidate from the very beginning even if his certificate of candidacy was cancelled
after the elections. (H. Sohria Pasagi Diambrang v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201809, October
11, 2016).
F. Qualifications
The Constitution prescribes the qualifications (i.e., age, citizenship, residency, voter
registration and literacy) for the following positions: President, Vice-President, Senators
and Representatives (District and Party-List) while statutes set the qualifications of local
officials.
1. Residency
The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common acceptation as

referring to “dwelling” or “habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal
residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his
permanent home, where he/ she, no matter where may he/ she be found at any
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (Japson v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 180088, 19 January 2009).
A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. Meanwhile, if one

wishes to successfully effect a change of domicile, he/ she must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a bonafide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and
definite acts which correspond with the purpose. Without clear and positive
21
Page 85
proof of the concurrence of these three requirements, the domicile of origin
continues (Limbona v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 186006, 16 October 2009).
A lease contract entered into a little over a year before the day of elections does
not adequately support a change of domicile (Domino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
134015, 19 July 1999).
A Filipino citizen’s immigration to a foreign country constitutes an abandonment

of domicile and residence in the Philippines. The acquisition of a permanent
residency status is a renunciation of Philippine residency status (Gayo v.
Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, 28 February 2005).
It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which

ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied
the constitutions residency qualification requirement." The COMELEC ought to
have looked at the evidence presented and see if petitioner was telling the truth
that she was in the Philippines during the period claimed (Poe-Llamanzares v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016).
Under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, persons who file their
certificates of candidacy declare that they are not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country. Therefore, a petition to deny due course or
cancel a certificate of candidacy may likewise be filed against a permanent
resident of a foreign country seeking an elective post in the Philippines on the
ground of material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy (Arlene
Llena Empaynado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016).
2. Registered Voter
A person who worked in a different town but resides in another and is a

registered voter and owns property in the latter (Papaudayan v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147909, 16 April 2002), and a person who lived in a house that he/ she
bought for more than 25 years and is a registered voter of that place for more
than a year (Torayno v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137329, 9 August 2000) meet the
residency requirement.
Registration as a voter in another place is not sufficient to consider a person to

have abandoned his/ her residence. (Perez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133944, 28
October 1999).
3. Citizenship
For national elective positions, the candidate must be a natural-born citizen. For
local elective positions, the candidate may be naturalized citizen.
22
Page 86
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country can seek
elective office provided they re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath
of allegiance to the Republic prescribed under the Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003, and make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the oath

of renunciation. Matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office
must be strictly complied with. A candidate cannot simply be allowed to correct
the deficiency in his qualification by submitting another oath of renunciation
(Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)
Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position. They
cannot successfully run and assume office because their ineligibility is inherent
in them, existing prior to the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Their
certificates of candidacy are void ab initio, and votes cast for them will be
disregarded. Consequently, whoever garners the next highest number of votes
among the eligible candidates is the person legally entitled to the position
(Arlene Llena Empaynado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016).
The petitioner's continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the USA through
using his USA passport after the renunciation of his USA citizenship reverted him
to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion disqualified him from being
elected to public office. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207105, November 10,
2015)
As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens (Poe-

Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016). When the names of
the parents of a foundling cannot be discovered despite a diligent search, but
sufficient evidence is presented to sustain a reasonable inference that satisfies
the quantum of proof required to conclude that at least one or both of his or
her parents is Filipino, then this should be sufficient to establish that he or she is
a natural-born citizen (Rizalito Y. David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
221538, September 20, 2016).
The assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born unless there is

substantial evidence to the contrary. This is necessarily engendered by a
complete consideration of the whole Constitution, not just its provisions on
citizenship. This includes its mandate of defending the well-being of children,
guaranteeing equal protection of the law, equal access to opportunities for
public service, and respecting human rights, as well as its reasons for requiring
natural-born status for select public offices. Moreover, this is a reading
validated by contemporaneous construction that considers related legislative
enactments, executive and administrative actions, and international
23
Page 87
instruments. (Rizalito Y. David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538,
September 20, 2016).
Natural-born citizenship can be reacquired even if it had been once lost.

COMELEC's position that natural-born status must be continuous was already
rejected in Bengson Ill v. HRET where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to
mean at the time of birth: "A person who at the time of his birth, is a citizen of a
particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof." Neither is "repatriation" an
act to "acquire or perfect" one's citizenship. There are only two types of citizens
under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born citizen and naturalized, and that
there is no third category for repatriated citizens (Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016).
A foundling, considered a natural-born Filipino citizen, re-acquired natural-born

Filipino citizenship when, following her naturalization as a citizen of the United
States, she complied with the requisites of Republic Act No. 9225. (Rizalito Y.
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016).
A clerical error in the date of notarization does not invalidate an Affidavit of

Renunciation. Thus, the execution thereof still complies with the requirements
of Republic Act No. 9225 for a person with dual citizenship to be qualified to run
for any elective public office (Cardino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216637, March 7,
2017).
4. Legitimacy
Legitimacy or illegitimacy has no relevance to elective public office (Tecson v.

5. Other Requirements
The requirement under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (i.e.
undergoing and passing a drug test) is unconstitutional since it partakes of an
additional requirement not allowed under the Constitution for senators
(Pimentel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161658, 3 November 2008).
G. Disqualification
1. Constitution
a. Three-term limit for local elective officials (Art. X, Sec. 8 of the Constitution)
i. Violation of the three-term limit rule is not a ground for a

petition for disqualification, however, it is an ineligibility which
is a proper ground for a petition to deny due course to or to
24
Page 88
cancel a Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC
(Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 7 June 2017).
ii. Two conditions must concur for the application of the

disqualification of a candidate based on violation of the three-
term limit rule, which are: (1) that the official concerned has
been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local
government post, and (2) that he has fully served three
consecutive terms (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 7
June 2017, Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643, January 15,
2019).
iii. An involuntary interrupted term, as in the case of assumption of

office only after winning an election protest, cannot, in the
context of the disqualification rule, be considered as one term
for purposes of counting the three-term threshold, since prior
to winning, the candidate was not the rightful holder of the
position (Abundo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201716, 8 January
2013).
iv. When it was only upon the favorable decision on his petition for
correction of manifest error that a candidate was proclaimed as
the duly-elected official, he is deemed not to have served office
for the full term of three years to which he was supposedly
entitled, since he only assumed the post and served the
unexpired term of his opponent (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
226792, 7 June 2017).
v. A provincial board member’s election to the same position for

the third and fourth time, but now in representation of the
renamed district, is a violation of the three-term limit rule
(Naval v. COMELEC, GR No. 207851, 8 July 2014).
vi. The conversion of a municipality into a city does not constitute

an interruption of the incumbent official's continuity of service.
To be considered as interruption of service, the "law
contemplates a rest period during which the local elective
official steps down from office and ceases to exercise power or
authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of a
particular local government unit (Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
231643, January 15, 2019).
2. Omnibus Election Code
25
Page 89
The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from
running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the
election laws. A petition to disqualify a candidate may be filed pursuant to
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. (Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
212398, November 25, 2014)
Offenses that are punished in laws other than in the Omnibus Election Code
cannot be a ground for a Section 68 petition (Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
212398, November 25, 2014).
a. Grounds
i. Any person declared by competent authority insane or

incompetent
ii. Any person sentenced by final judgment for any of the following
offenses:
1. Insurrection, or rebellion
2. Offense for which he was sentenced to penalty of more

than 18 months
3. Crime involving moral turpitude (Sec. 12, Omnibus

Election Code)
iii. A permanent resident to or immigrant to foreign country unless

he waives such status (Sec. 68, Omnibus Election Code)
b. Removal
i. Insanity or incompetence – declaration of removal of

disqualification by competent authority
ii. Conviction
1) Plenary pardon
a. The phrase in the presidential pardon which declares

that the person "is hereby restored to his civil and
political rights" substantially complies with the
requirement of express restoration of his right to hold
public office, or the right of suffrage. Articles 36 and 41
of the Revised Penal Code should be construed in a way
that will give full effect to the executive clemency
granted by the President, instead of indulging in an
26
Page 90
overly strict interpretation that may serve to impair or
diminish the import of the pardon which emanated
from the Office of the President and duly signed by the
Chief Executive himself/herself. The said codal
provisions must be construed to harmonize the power
of Congress to define crimes and prescribe the penalties
for such crimes and the power of the President to grant
executive clemency. All that the said provisions impart
is that the pardon of the principal penalty does not
carry with it the remission of the accessory penalties
unless the President expressly includes said accessory
penalties in the pardon. It still recognizes the
Presidential prerogative to grant executive clemency
and, specifically, to decide to pardon the principal
penalty while excluding its accessory penalties or to
pardon both. Thus, Articles 36 and 41 only clarify the
effect of the pardon so decided upon by the President
on the penalties imposed in accordance with law (Risos-
Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, 21 January 2015).
b. A whereas clause in a pardon which states that the

person “publicly committed to no longer seek any
elective position or office” does not make the pardon
conditional. Whereas clauses do not form part of a
statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of
the operative language of the statute. The whereas
clause is not an integral part of the decree of the
pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate
to make the pardon conditional or to make its
effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the
aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of
the pardon (Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666,
21 January 2015).
2) Amnesty
3) Lapse of 5 years after service of sentence (Sec. 12,

Omnibus Election Code)
3. Local Government Code
a. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral

turpitude or an offense punishable by imprisonment for at least one
year, within 2 years after service of sentence.
27
Page 91
The disqualification from running for public office due to libel shall be
removed after service of the five-year sentence, which is counted from
the date the fine is paid. (Ty-Delgado v. HRET, G.R. No. 219603, 26
January 2016)
b. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.
Perpetual disqualification to hold public office is a material fact

involving eligibility, which renders a Certificate of Candidacy void from
the beginning, if the candidate who filed the COC was not eligible to run
for any public office at the time he filed the same, as in the case where
the person filing his COC had already been found guilty of Grave
Misconduct) (Dimapilis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 227158, April 18, 2017).
Suspension from office is not a ground for a petition for disqualification

as Section 40(b) of the LGC clearly speaks of removal from office as a
result of an administrative offense that would disqualify a candidate
from running for any elective local position. The penalty of suspension
cannot be a bar to the candidacy of a local official so suspended as long
as he meets the qualifications for the office as provided under Section
66(b) of R.A. No. 7160 (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 7 June
2017)
c. Those convicted by final judgment for violating his oath of allegiance to

the Republic.
d. Those with dual citizenship.
e. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases.
Fugitives from justice include not only those who flee after conviction to
avoid punishment but also those who, after being charged, flee to avoid
prosecution (Marquez v. COMELEC, 243 SCRA 538).
Evidence of presence and participation in DOJ and RTC proceedings

negates an allegation that one is a fugitive from justice (Leodegario A.
Labao, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016).
f. Permanent residents in foreign country or those who have the right to

reside abroad and continue to avail of it (Caasi v. Court of Appeals, 191
SCRA 229).
g. The insane or feeble-minded (Sec. 40, Local Government Code).
4. Revised Administrative Code-Municipal Office
28
Page 92
a. Ecclesiastics (Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413)
b. Persons receiving compensation from provincial or municipal funds
c. Contractors for public works of the municipality (Sec. 2175, Revised

Administrative Code).
H. Effect of Re-Election on Administrative Liability
The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of
accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is
plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official’s administrative liability
for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was
elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post. Election is not a mode
of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional or
statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for a
different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising from an offense
done during a prior term. (Carpio-Morales v. Binay, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10,
2015)
I. Duty to receive certificates of candidacy
It is the ministerial duty of COMELEC and its officers to receive a certificate of candidacy
(Sec. 76, Omnibus Election Code).
The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to COCs filed in due form is ministerial in
character, and that while the COMELEC may look into patent defects in the COCs, it may
not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility
of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC
(Cerafica v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205136, December 2, 2014).
J. Disqualification of Candidates
1. Distinction between Disqualification and Cancellation of Certificate of

Candidacy.
a. A petition for cancellation of a certificate of candidacy is not based on

lack of qualification but on false representation, which may relate to
lack of qualification, such as residence. A petition for disqualification
refers to commission of prohibited acts and possession of permanent
resident status in a foreign country.
b. A candidate whose certificate of candidacy was cancelled is not treated

as a candidate. A candidate who is disqualified cannot continue as a
candidate.
29
Page 93
c. A candidate whose certificate of candidacy was cancelled could be
substituted. A candidate who is disqualified cannot be substituted.
d. A petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy

must be filed within 25 days from the time of filing of the COC, as
provided under Section 78 of the OEC (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
226792, 7 June 2017).
e. A petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate should be filed

within 5 days from the last day for filing certificate of candidacy (Fermin
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, 18 December 2008).
2. Grounds
a. Violation of Omnibus Election Code
i. Giving money or other material consideration to influence

voters or public officials performing electoral functions.
ii. Committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy (Dangka

v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 887).
iii. Spending in his election campaign in excess of the amount

allowed by the Code
iv. Soliciting, receiving or making any prohibited contribution
v. Violation of Section 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v,

and cc, sub-paragraph 6 (Sec. 68, Omnibus Election Code).
b. Nuisance candidate (Sec. 69, Omnibus Election Code).
A nuisance candidate is defined as one who, based on the attendant

circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which
the certificate of candidacy has been filed, his/her sole purpose being
the reduction of the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation
that the ballots with only the surname of such candidate will be
considered strayed and not counted for either of them (Martinez III v.
HRET, G.R. No. 189034, 12 January 2010).
A petition to disqualify a candidate for councilor for failure to indicate in

his certificate of candidacy the precinct number and the barangay as a
registered voter cannot be considered a petition to disqualify him for
being a nuisance candidate, since his certificate was not filed to make
30
Page 94
mockery of the election or to confuse the voters (Jurilla v. COMELEC,
232 SCRA 758).
c. Falsity of material representation in certificate of candidacy (Sec. 78,

Omnibus Election Code).
The misrepresentation must be material, deliberate and willful (Tecson

A candidate who while he was still a minor, registered him/herself as a

voter and misrepresented that he was already of legal age is not guilty
of misrepresentation if he runs for a position possessing the necessary
age qualification (Munder v. COMELEC G.R. No. 194076, 19 October
2011).
When a candidate is actually qualified even if the entries in the

certificate of candidacy as filled up by the candidate will show that he/
she is not, there is no material misrepresentation (Romualdez-Marcos v.
When a candidate, supported by a preponderance of evidence, believed

that he/ she was qualified and there was no intention to deceive the
electorate as to one’s qualifications for public office, there is no
material misrepresentation (Tecson v. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277).
The falsity of the statement in the certificate of candidacy of a

candidate that he was a registered voter is a ground for its cancellation
(Bautista v. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299; Velasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
180051, December 24, 2008).
The use by a married woman of the surname of her husband in her

certificate of candidacy when their marriage is bigamous does not
constitute falsity of a material representation, since she had no
intention to deceive the public as to her identity (Salcedo v. COMELEC,
312 SCRA 447).
The use by a candidate of the name he was authorized to use when his
petition for change of name was granted does not constitute
misrepresentation (Justimbaste v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179413,
November 20, 2008).
Falsely stating in a certificate of candidacy that a candidate is a certified

public accountant is not material, because profession is not a
qualification for elective office (Lluz v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 456).
31
Page 95
A petition to deny due course and to cancel COC on the ground of a
statement of a material representation that is false; to be material, such
must refer to an eligibility or qualification for the elective office the
candidate seeks to hold. The use of a nickname is not a qualification for
a public office which affects his eligibility; the proper recourse is to file
an election protest and pray that the votes be declared as stray votes
(Villafuerte v. COMELEC, GR No. 206698, 25 February 2014).
Under Sec. 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is required that a

candidate must certify under oath that he is eligible for the public office
he seeks election. When a candidate states in his COC that he is a
resident of the place where he is seeking to be elected, and is eligible
for a public office, but it turned out that he was declared to be a non-
resident thereof in a petition for his inclusion in the list of registered
voters, he commits a false representation pertaining to a material fact
in his COC, which is a ground for the cancellation of his COC under
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (Hayudini v. COMELEC, GR No.
207900, 22 April 2014).
A COC may be cancelled on the ground that the “candidate”

misrepresented his eligibility in his COC because he knew that he had
been convicted by final judgment for libel, a crime involving moral
turpitude regardless of the fact that he was merely the publisher of the
libelous articles, and that his penalty was merely a fine (Ty-Delgado v.
Self-evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and

judicial confessions are bases equivalent to prior decisions against
which the falsity of representation can be determined. In the candidate
admits having been elected and having served for three consecutive
terms, his admission already served as basis against which the falsity of
his representation can be determined (Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
231643, January 15, 2019).
The grounds to file a petition for disqualification are provided for in

Section 12 or 68 of the OEC, or under Section 40 of the Local
Government Code. This includes the petition for disqualification of
fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad"
from running for any elective local position. (Leodegario A. Labao, Jr. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016).
A petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate clearly affects the

voters' will and causes confusion that frustrates the same. This is
precisely what election laws are trying to protect. They give effect to,
rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. Thus, extreme caution should
be observed before any ballot is invalidated. Further, in the appreciation
32
Page 96
of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of their validity (Santos v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 235058, September 4, 2018).
The law mandates the COMELEC and the courts to give priority to cases
of disqualification to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not
later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is
sought (Santos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 235058, September 4, 2018).
3. Procedure
If the ground is that the candidate is a nuisance candidate, any registered

candidate for the same office can file the petition. (Sec. 5 (a) Republic Act No.
6646) If the ground is that a material representation in the certificate of
candidacy is false, or that the candidate is disqualified or committed any act
which is a ground for disqualification, any citizen of voting age or registered
political party may file the petition (Sec. 1, Rule 23 and Sec. 1, Rule 25, COMELEC
Rules of Procedure).
a. The petition shall be filed within 5 days from the last day for filing
certificates of candidacy (Secs. 5 (a) and 7, Republic Act No. 6646).
i. The fact that no docket fee was initially paid is not fatal (Sunga
ii. A petition filed after the election is filed out of time (Loong v.
iii. Since filing by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned and a

facsimile copy is not an original pleading, a petition for
disqualification should be deemed filed upon filing of the
original petition (Garvida v. Sales, 271 SCRA 764).
iv. Where a disqualified candidate was replaced on the day before

the election, a petition to disqualify the replacement filed on
election day should be entertained, as it was impossible to file
the petition earlier (Abella v. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509).
v. The COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course or

cancel a certificate of candidacy (Sec. 69, Omnibus Election
Code). When the ground for the denial in due course or
cancellation of a COC is based on a final judgment, it falls within
the administrative functions of COMELEC, and there is no denial
of due process when the COMELEC En Banc issues a resolution
motu propio denying due course to, or cancelling a COC (Jalosjos
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205033, 18 June 2013).
33
Page 97
b. The COMELEC will be grossly remiss in its constitutional duty to "enforce
and administer all laws" relating to the conduct of elections if it does
not motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from
special disqualification by virtue of a final judgment (Dimapilis v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 227158, April 18, 2017).
c. The cancellation of COC is a quasi-judicial process, and accordingly must

be heard by COMELEC in Division and En Banc on appeal (Cerafica v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 205136, December 2, 2014).
d. The proceeding shall be summary (Sec. 5 (d) and 7, Republic Act No.
6646; Nolasco v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 762). The electoral aspect of a
disqualification case is done through an administrative proceeding
which is summary in character. (Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398,
November 25, 2014).
e. The summary nature of proceedings under Section 78 only allows it to

rule on patent material misrepresentations of facts, not to make
conclusions of law that are even contrary to jurisprudence (Juliet B.
Dano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210200, September 13, 2016).
f. In a choice between provisions on material qualifications of elected

officials, on the one hand, and the will of the electorate in any given
locality, on the other, we believe and so hold that we cannot choose the
will of the electorate (Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643, January 15,
2019).
g. COMELEC can decide a disqualification case directly without referring it

to its legal officers of investigation (Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762).
h. A candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office, and

he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualifications for elective office.
Even if the COMELEC made no finding that the petitioner had
deliberately attempted to mislead or to misinform as to warrant the
cancellation of his CoC, the COMELEC could still declare him disqualified
for not meeting the requisite eligibility under the Local Government
Code. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015)
i. COMELEC cannot motu proprio deny due course to or cancel an alleged

nuisance candidate’s certificate of candidacy without providing the
candidate his opportunity to be heard. (Timbol v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
206004, February 24, 2015).
j. When a verified petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate is

filed, the real parties-in-interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and
34
Page 98
the interested party, particularly, the legitimate candidate. Other
candidates, who do not have any similarity with the name of the alleged
nuisance candidate, are not real parties-in-interest and would not have
the opportunity to be heard in a nuisance petition. Obviously, these
other candidates are not affected by the nuisance case because their
names are not related with the alleged nuisance candidate. Regardless
of whether the nuisance petition is granted or not, the votes of the
unaffected candidates shall be completely the same. Thus, they are
mere silent observers in the nuisance case. (Santos v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 235058, September 4, 2018).
k. The decision shall be final and executory after 5 days from receipt
unless stayed by the Supreme Court (Secs. 5 (e) and 7, Republic Act No.
6646).
l. The votes of the nuisance candidate shall be credited to the legitimate

candidate once the decision becomes final and executory, whether
before or after the elections. Martinez Ill provides the basis for this rule:
"final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively
cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election
day." Accordingly, when there is a final and executory judgment in a
nuisance case, it shall be effective and operative as of election day. It is
as if the nuisance candidate was never a candidate to be voted for
because his candidacy caused confusion to the electorate and it showed
his lack of bona fide intention to run for office. Thus, the votes for the
said nuisance candidate shall be transferred to the legitimate candidate,
with the similar name, as of election day also (Santos v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 235058, September 4, 2018).
m. In a multi-slot office (e.g. Sanggunian), the COMELEC must not merely

apply a simple mathematical formula of adding the votes of the
nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate with the similar name.
To ascertain that the votes for the nuisance candidate is accurately
credited in favor of the legitimate candidate with the similar name, the
COMELEC must also inspect the ballots. In those ballots that contain
both votes for nuisance and legitimate candidate, only one count of
vote must be credited to the legitimate candidate (Santos v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 235058, September 4, 2018; Zapanta v. Lagasca, G.R. No.
233016, March 05, 2019).
n. Since Section 1 (a), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the remedy of the
losing party is to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court
(Bautista v. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299).
35
Page 99
o. HRET has no jurisdiction to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate.
The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court
assailing the decision of the COMELEC En Banc within 5 days from
promulgation (Tañada v. HRET, G.R. No. 217012, March 1, 2016).
p. The votes cast for the nuisance candidate must be credited in favor of
the legitimate candidate with a similar name to give effect to, rather
than frustrate, the will of the voters, even if the declaration of the
nuisance candidate became final only after the elections (Santos v.
q. A petition to declare a person a nuisance candidate or a petition for

disqualification of a nuisance candidate is already sufficient to cancel
the COC of the said candidate and to credit the garnered votes to the
legitimate candidate because it is as if the nuisance candidate was never
a candidate to be voted for (Santos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 235058,
September 4, 2018).
4. Aspects of a Disqualification Case
The electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender

should be disqualified from being a candidate, or from holding office.
Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear preponderance of
evidence. An erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior
determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation. The electoral
aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa (Lanot
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, 16 November 2006).
The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is

probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is
the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether
probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law
Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings
before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond
reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the
disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from
holding a future public office. The two aspects account for the variance of the
rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or after
an election. When the disqualification case is filed before the elections, the
question of disqualification is raised before the voting public. If the candidate is
disqualified after the election, those who voted for him assume the risk that
their votes may be declared stray or invalid. These two aspects can proceed
simultaneously (Lanot v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, 16 November 2006).
5. Effects of disqualification case
36
Page 100
a. Votes cast for a candidate declared by final judgment to be disqualified
shall not be counted.
b. If a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be

disqualified, the case shall continue and his proclamation may be
suspended if the evidence of guilt is strong (Sec. 6, Republic Act No.
6646). COMELEC cannot suspend the proclamation of a candidate
simply because of the seriousness of the allegation of the petition
(Codilla v. De Venecia, 393 SCRA 639). COMELEC should not dismiss the
case simply because the respondent has been proclaimed (Sunga v.
COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76; Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602; and
Coquilla v. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607; Lanot v. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 114).
This does not apply if the petition for disqualification was filed after the
election (Bagatsing v. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 817; Albaña v. COMELEC,
435 SCRA 98). Since the suspension of the proclamation is merely
permissive, the proclamation of a candidate with a pending
disqualification case is valid, if COMELEC did not suspend his
proclamation (Grego v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481; Planas v. COMELEC,
484 SCRA 329; Lanot v. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 114). COMELEC may not
disqualify a candidate when no complaint or petition had been filed
against him yet (Ibrahim v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192289, 8 January 2013).
c. Where the votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose disqualification

had not yet become final on election day were tallied separately, they
should be counted in favor of the petitioner (Bautista v. COMELEC, 298
SCRA 480).
d. Since disqualification cannot extend beyond the term to which the

disqualified candidate was elected, he cannot be disqualified if he was
re-elected (Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175).
e. A person who has been declared guilty of an offense punishable by

perpetual disqualification at the time he filed his Certificate of
Candidacy could not have been validly re-elected so as to avail of the
condonation doctrine, unlike in other cases where the condonation
doctrine was successfully invoked by virtue of re-elections which
overtook and thus, rendered moot and academic pending
administrative cases (Dimapilis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 227158, April 18,
2017).
f. A person whose COC was cancelled due to ineligibility for failure to

prove Filipino citizenship and the one-year residence requirement could
not have been a valid candidate, and could not have been validly
proclaimed. Thus, she could not have validly assumed her position.
(Velasco v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, 12 January 2016)
37
Page 101
K. Withdrawal
1. The withdrawal need not be filed with the office where the certificate of
candidacy was filed, as it is not required by law. While it may be true that
Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000,
requires that the withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the place
where the certificate of candidacy was filed, such requirement is merely
directory, and is intended for convenience. It is not mandatory or jurisdictional.
(Go v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 14774, 10 May 2001).
L. Substitution
1. If after the last day for filing certificates, a candidate dies, withdraws or is
disqualified, he may be substituted by a person belonging to his party not later
than mid-day of election day (Sec. 77, Omnibus Election Code).
2. Substitution of candidates should be allowed even for barangay elections, as it is

not prohibited by law (Rulloda v. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 535).
3. Even if the withdrawal was not under oath, the certificate of the substitute
cannot be annulled after the election (Villanueva v. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 352).
4. The nomination of a substitute candidate who won cannot be annulled on the

ground that it lacked the signature of one of the authorized signatures (Sinaca v.
Mula, 315 SCRA 266).
5. Substitution is not allowed if the certificate of the candidate to be substituted

was cancelled, because he was running for the fourth consecutive term (Miranda
v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617; Ong v. Alegre, 479 SCRA 473), or because he failed to
meet the one-year residency requirement (Tagolino v. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 202202, 19 March 2013).
6. Substitution is also not allowed when the original candidate was disqualified on
the ground of material misrepresentation (Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695,
18 December 2008).
7. However, a candidate who commits an election offense and is disqualified under

Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, can be substituted (Fermin v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, 18 December 2008).
8. An independent candidate who joined the party of a disqualified candidate may

be nominated as his substitute even if he joined the party only after the
disqualification (Sinaca v. Mula, 315 SCRA 266).
38
Page 102
V. CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA
A. Nomination of candidates
1. President, vice president, and senators – not earlier than 165 days before
election day
2. Congressmen, provincial, city or municipal officials – not earlier than 75 days

before election day (Sec. 6, Republic Act No. 7166).
B. Campaign period
1. President, vice president, and senators – 90 days before election day
COMELEC can order the removal of billboards using the name or image of some
to advertise a product if he later on ran for public office to prevent premature
campaigning (Chavez v. COMELEC, 437 SCRA 419).
2. Congressmen, provincial, city and municipal officials – 45 days before election

day (Sec. 5, Republic Act No. 7166).
3. As a general rule, the period of election starts at ninety (90) days before and
ends thirty (30) days after the election date pursuant to Section 9, Article IX-C of
the Constitution and Section 3 of BP 881. This rule, however, is not without
exception. Under these same provisions, the COMELEC is not precluded from
setting a period different from that provided thereunder. (Aquino v. COMELEC,
G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015)
C. Definition of Campaign
1. The term “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” under Section 79b
of the Omnibus Election Code refers to an act designed to promote the election
or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall
include: (1) forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
campaign for or against a candidate; (2) holding political caucuses, conferences,
meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of
soliciting votes and/ or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a
candidate; (3) making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office; (4)
publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support
or oppose the election of any candidate; or (5) directly or indirectly soliciting
votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
39
Page 103
2. Not every act of beneficence from a candidate may be considered
‘campaigning.’ The term ‘campaigning’ should not be made to apply to any and
every act which may influence a person to vote for a candidate, for that would
stretching too far the meaning of the term. Examining the definition and
enumeration of election campaign and partisan political activity found in
COMELEC Resolution No. 3636, the COMELEC is convinced that only those acts
which are primarily designed to solicit votes will be covered by the definition
and enumeration. The distribution of sports items in line with the sports and
education program of the province does not constitute election campaigning
since what is prohibited is the release of public funds within the 45-day period
before election (Pangkat Laguna v. COMELEC, 376 SCRA 97).
D. Election Propaganda
1. Lawful Propaganda
a. Election propaganda on television, cable television, radios, newspapers

or any other medium is allowed (Sec. 3, Republic Act No. 9006).
i. Written or printed materials not exceeding 8 ½ inches by 14

inches (Sec. 3.1, Republic Act No. 9006).
ii. Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or

against a party of candidate (Sec. 3.2, Republic Act No. 9006).
iii. Posters not exceeding 2 feet by 3 feet, but streamers not

exceeding 3 feet by 8 feet may be displayed at the site of a rally
5 days before the rally and should be removed within 24 hours
after the rally (Sec. 3.3, Republic Act No. 9006).
iv. Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media (Sec. 3.4,

Republic Act No. 9006).
v. All other forms of propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus

Election Code or the Fair Election Act (Sec. 3.5, Republic Act No.
9006).
vi. Use of gadgets and billboards are now allowed considering the
express repeal of Section 65 of the Omnibus Election Code by
the Fair Election Act prohibiting the use of use of billboards and
audio-visual units, tin-plate posters, balloons, pens, lighters,
fans, hats, wallets, t-shirts, cigarettes, etc..
2. What COMELEC can regulate
40
Page 104
a. COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the
preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate.
Regulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons
who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party
which are, taken as a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the
public must consider during elections is unconstitutional. Such regulation is
inconsistent with the guarantee of according the fullest possible range of
opinions coming from the electorate including those that can catalyze candid,
uninhibited, and robust debate in the criteria for the choice of a candidate
(Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015).
b. Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it

reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as
members of a political party if they are not candidates, only if what is regulated
is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal object the
endorsement of a candidate only. The regulation (a) should be provided by law,
(b) reasonable, (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the
opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the primacy of the
guarantee of free expression, and (d) demonstrably the least restrictive means
to achieve that object. The regulation must only be with respect to the time,
place, and manner of the rendition of the message. In no situation may the
speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content. For this purpose, it
will notmatter whether the speech is made with or on private property. (Diocese
of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015; Note: Obiter
Dictum).
c. Satire of political parties that primarily advocates a stand on a social issue and
only secondarily-even almost incidentally-will cause the election or non-election
of a candidate is not election propaganda as its messages are different from the
usual declarative messages of candidates. It is an expression with political
consequences, and "[t]his court's construction of the guarantee of freedom of
expression has always been wary of censorship or subsequent punishment that
entails evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint or the content of one's speech
(Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, July 5, 2016).
3. Requirements
a. Any election propaganda shall indicate the name and address of the
candidate or party for whose benefit it was printed or aired (Sec. 4.1,
b. If the broadcast is given free of charge, it should indicate it was

provided free of charge and state the name and address of the
broadcast entity (Sec. 4.2, Republic Act No. 9006).
41
Page 105
c. Donated advertisements shall not be broadcasted or exhibited without
the written acceptance of the candidate or party to whom it was
donated. (Sec. 4.3, Republic Act No. 9006).
4. Equal Access to Media
a. Regulation of volume
i. Print advertisements shall not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and

½ page in tabloids thrice a week for publication (Sec. 6.1,
ii. Each candidate or party for national office shall be entitled to

not more than 120 minutes of television advertisement and 180
radio minutes of radio advertisement (Sec. 6.2, Republic Act No.
9006).
iii. Each candidate or party for local office shall be entitled to not
more than 60 minutes of television advertisement and 90
minutes of radio advertisement (Sec. 6.2 (b), Republic Act No.
9006).
iv. The Fair Election Act does not justify a conclusion that the
maximum allowable airtime should be based on the totality of
possible broadcast in all television or radio stations, and the
COMELEC has no authority to provide for rules beyond what
was contemplated by the law it is supposed to implement (GMA
Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2,
2014).
b. Action by COMELEC
i. COMELEC shall procure print space upon payment of just

compensation from at least 3 national newspapers to be
allocated free of charge equally among all candidate for
national office on 3 different days (Sec. 7.1, Republic Act No.
9006).
ii. COMELEC shall procure free airtime from at least 3 national

television networks and 3 national radios nationals to be
allocated free of charge equally among all candidates for
national office on 3 different days (Sec. 7.2, Republic Act No.
9006).
iii. COMELEC may require national television and radio networks to

sponsor at least 3 debates among presidential candidates and at
42
Page 106
least one debate among vice presidential candidates and at
least one debate among vice presidential candidates (Sec. 7.3,
iv. The presidential and vice-presidential debates are held primarily

for the benefit of the electorate to assist the electorate in
making informed choices on election day. Through the conduct
of the national debates among presidential and vice-
presidential candidates, the electorate will have the
"opportunity to be informed of the candidates' qualifications
and track record, platforms and programs, and their answers to
significant issues of national concern." The political nature of
the national debates and the public's interest in the wide
availability of the information for the voters' education certainly
justify allowing the debates to be shown or streamed in other
websites for wider dissemination, in accordance with the MOA.
Therefore, the debates should be allowed to be live streamed
on other websites, including petitioner's, as expressly mandated
in Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the MOA (Rappler, Inc. v.
Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, April 5, 2016).
c. Right to Reply
All parties and candidates have the right to reply to charges published
against them. The reply shall be given the same prominence and shall
be printed in the same page or section and in the same time slot as the
first statement (Sec. 10, Republic Act No. 9006).
When it comes to election and the exercise of freedom of speech, of

expression and of the press, the latter must be properly viewed in
context as being necessarily made to accommodate the imperatives of
fairness by giving teeth and substance to the right to reply requirement.
(GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
d. Supervision by COMELEC
COMELEC shall supervise the use of the press, radio and television
facilities to ensure equal opportunities to candidates. (Sec. 6.4, Republic
Act No. 9006).
COMELEC may properly take and act on the advertising contracts

without further proof since the contracts are ought to be known by
COMELEC because of its statutory function as the legal custodian of all
advertising contracts promoting or opposing any candidate during the
43
Page 107
campaign period. (Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25,
2014)
e. Restrictions on Media
i. The scheduling of a program to manifestly favor or oppose a

candidate or party shall not be allowed, and a sponsor shall not
be permitted to manifestly favor oppose a candidate or party by
unduly referring to or including the candidate or party in the
program (Sec. 6.4, Republic Act No. 9006).
ii. Any media practitioner who is a candidate or a campaign

volunteer or is retained by any party of candidate must resign or
take a leave of absence (Sec. 6.6, Republic Act No. 9006).
iii. Motion pictures
1) No motion picture portraying the life of a candidate

shall be publicly exhibited during the campaign period.
(Sec. 6.7, Republic Act No. 9006).
2) No motion picture portrayed by an actor or media

personality who is a candidate shall be publicly
exhibited during the campaign period (Sec. 6.8, Republic
Act No. 9006).
5. Posting of Campaign Materials
a. COMELEC may authorize parties to erect common poster areas in not

more than 10 public places.
b. Independent candidates may be authorized to erect common poster

areas in not more than 10 public places.
c. Candidates may post propaganda in private places with the consent of

the owner and in public places to be allocated equitably among the
candidates (Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 9006).
d. The posting of election campaign material on vehicles used for public

transport or on transport terminals is not only a form of political
expression, but also an act of ownership – it has nothing to do with the
franchise or permit to operate the PUV or transport terminal. (1-United
Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020, April 14,
2015)
6. Truth
44
Page 108
a. All members of media shall scrupulously report and interpret the news,
taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by
omission or improper emphasis.
b. All members of media shall recognize the duty to airtime other side and
to correct substantive errors promptly (Sec. 6.5, Republic Act No. 9006).
7. Standing of Broadcast Companies
a. Broadcast companies have standing to question a COMELEC Resolution

on airtime limits in view of the direct inquiry they may suffer relative to
their ability to carry out their tasks of disseminating information
because of the burdens imposed on them (GMA Network, Inc. v.
b. Broadcast companies have standing to assert the constitutional

freedom of speech and of the right to information of the public in
addition to their own freedom of the press (GMA Network, Inc. v.
8. Free Speech and Freedom of the Press
a. Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, with its adoption of the
“aggregate-based” airtime limits unreasonably restricts the guaranteed
freedom of speech and of the press. (GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
b. The reporting requirement for broadcast companies in COMELEC

Resolution No. 9615 does not constitute prior restraint; it is a
reasonable means adopted by the COMELEC to ensure that parties and
candidates are afforded equal opportunities to promote their respective
candidacies. There is no restriction on dissemination of information
before broadcast (GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357,
September 2, 2014).
c. Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution
No. 9615 unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the people to
freedom of speech. Central to the prohibition is the freedom of
individuals, i.e., the owners of PUVs and private transport terminals, to
express their preference, through the posting of election campaign
material in their property, and convince others to agree with them. (1-
United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020, April
14, 2015)
9. Prior Hearing
45
Page 109
a. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 adopting the aggregate-based airtime
limit required prior hearing before adoption since it introduced a radical
change in the manner in which the rules on airtime for political
advertisements are to be reckoned. (GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
E. Election Surveys
During the election period, any person who publishes a survey must include the
following:
1.a. The name of the person who commission it;
2.b. The name of the person or firm who conducted it;
3.c. The period during which the survey was conducted, the methodology used, and
the questions asked.
4.d. The margin of error
5.e. The question in which the margin of error is greater than that of the survey
6.f. The address and telephone number of the sponsor (Sec. 5.2, Republic Act No.
9006).
The names of those who commission or pay for election surveys, including subscribers
of survey firms, must be disclosed pursuant to Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act.
This requirement is a valid regulation in the exercise of police power and effects the
constitutional policy of “guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service.”,
and neither curtails petitioners’ free speech rights nor violates the constitutional
proscription against the impairment of contracts. (Social Weather Stations, Inc. et al v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015)
When published, the tendency of election surveys to shape voter preferences comes
into play. In this respect, published election surveys partake of the nature of election
propaganda. It is then declarative speech in the context of an electoral campaign
properly subject to regulation. (Social Weather Stations, Inc. et al v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
208062, April 7, 2015)
While Resolution No. 9674 does regulate expression (i.e., petitioners’ publication of
election surveys), it does not go so far as to suppress desired expression. There is
neither prohibition nor censorship specifically aimed at election surveys. The freedom
46
Page 110
to publish election surveys remains. All Resolution No. 9674 does is articulate a
regulation as regards the manner of publication, that is, that the disclosure of those who
commissioned and/or paid for, including those subscribed to, published election surveys
must be made. (Social Weather Stations, Inc. et al v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7,
2015)
There is no prior restraint because Resolution No. 9674 poses no prohibition or

censorship specifically aimed at election surveys. Apart from regulating the manner of
publication, petitioners remain free to publish election surveys. The disclosure
requirement kicks in only upon, not prior to, publication. (Social Weather Stations, Inc.
et al v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015)
As a valid exercise of COMELEC’s regulatory powers, Resolution No. 9674 is correctly

deemed written into petitioners’ existing contracts, therefore not violative of the
principle against impairment of contracts. (Social Weather Stations, Inc. et al v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015)
F. Exit Polls
1.a. Surveys shall not be conducted within 50 meters from the polling places.
2.b. Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to answer.
3.c. The result may be announced after the closing of the polls on election day and
must identify the number of respondents and the places where they were
taken. The announcement must state that it is unofficial and does not represent
a trend (Sec. 5.5, Republic Act No. 9006).
G. Rallies
1. An application for a permit for a rally shall not be denied except on the ground
that a prior written application for the same purpose has been approved. A
denial is appealable to the provincial election supervisor or COMELEC (Sec. 87,
2. It is unlawful to give or accept transportation, food, drinks or things of value

within 5 hours before and after a public rally, before election day and on
election day (Sec. 89, Omnibus Election Code).
H. Prohibited Donations
It is prohibited for any candidate, his spouse, relative within second degree of
consanguinity or affinity, a representative to make any contribution for any structure for
47
Page 111
public use or for use of any religious or civic organization, except the normal religious
dues and payments for scholarships established and school contributions habitually
made before the campaign period (Sec. 104, Omnibus Election Code).
I. Prohibited Contributions
No political contribution shall be made by the following:
1. Public or private financial institutions
2. Public utilities and those who exploit natural resources.
Thus, where an operator of a public utility disguised a contribution to a

candidate for governor as a loan, the promissory note is void (Halili v. Court of
Appeals, 83 SCRA 633).
3. Persons who hold contracts or sub-contracts to supply the government with

goods or services
4. Persons granted franchise, incentives, exemptions or similar privileges by the

government
5. Persons granted loans in excess of P25,000 by the government or any of its

subdivisions or instrumentalities
6. Schools which received grants of public funds of at least P100,000
7. Employees in the Civil Service or members of the Armed Forces
8. Foreigners (Sec. 95, Omnibus Election Code)
9. Corporations (Sec. 36(9), Corporation Code)
With regard to electoral contributions, these are exempt from payment of gift tax under
Republic Act No. 7166; provided the same are reported to the COMELEC. However,
contributions made prior to the effectivity of such law are not exempt (Abello v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 120721, 23 February 2005).
J. Limitation on expenses
The phrase “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently

adequate to cover those expenses which are contributed or donated in the candidate’s
behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution or donation should bear
the written conformity of the candidate, a contributor/supporter/donor certainly
qualifies as “any person authorized by such candidate or treasurer.” (Ejercito v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014)
48
Page 112
1. Candidates
a. President and vice president – P10 per voter
b. Other candidates – P3 per voter in his constituency
c. Independent Candidate/ Candidate without political party – P5 per

voter
2. Political Party – P5 per voter in the constituency where it has candidates (Sec.
13, Republic Act No. 7166).
K. Statement of contributions and expenditures
1. Filing
a. Every candidate and treasurer of political party shall file, within 30 days
after election day, a statement of contributions and expenditures.
b. No person elected shall assume office until he and his political party had
filed the required statements.
2. Penalties
a. First offense – administrative fine from P1,000 to P30,000
b. Subsequent offense
i. Administrative fine from P2,000 to P60,000
ii. Perpetual disqualification to hold public office (Sec. 14, Republic

Act No. 7166).
The penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office

may be properly imposed on a candidate for public office who
repeatedly fails to submit his Statement of Contributions and
Expenditures (SOCE) pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No.
7166. The penalty does not amount to the cruel, degrading and
inhuman punishment proscribed by the Bill of Rights (Maturan
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 227155, March 28, 2017).
3. Effect of Withdrawal
49
Page 113
A candidate who withdrew his certificate of candidacy must still file a statement
of contributions and expenditures, for the law makes no distinction (Pilar v.
VI. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
A. Definition and Features
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for
registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon
approval by the Election Registration Board (Sec. 3a, Republic Act No. 8189).
Each voter is assigned a ‘voter’s identification number’ (VIN) and issued a ‘voter’s
identification card’ (Secs. 26 and 25, Republic Act No. 8189). Each precinct shall have no
more than 200 voters and shall comprise contiguous and compact territories except
when precincts are clustered (Sec. 6, Republic Act No. 8189).
The permanent list of voters per precinct shall be computerized (Sec. 43, Republic Act
No. 8189). While described as ‘permanent,” the list of voters is subject to change (i.e.,
additions and deletions) in cases where new voters register (Sec. 8, Republic Act No.
8189), voters change their addresses in the same (Sec. 13, Republic Act No. 8189) or to
another city or municipality (Sec. 12, Republic Act No. 8189), registration is deactivated
i.e., voter later disqualified after being registered (Sec. 27, Republic Act No. 8189) and
reactivated i.e., cause of deactivation lifted or removed (Sec. 28, Republic Act No.
8189), registration is cancelled i.e., when voter dies (Sec. 29, Republic Act No. 8189),
voter’s name is included or excluded by judicial action, i.e., decisions on petitions for
inclusion and exclusion respectively (Secs. 34 and 35, Republic Act No. 8189) and the
Book of Voters is annulled by COMELEC (Sec. 39, Republic Act No. 8189).
A voter’s name is placed in the deactivated list when he/ she is disqualified to vote,
failed to vote in two preceding elections, lose his/ her Filipino citizenship and his/ her
registration is excluded by the court.
Under the system of continuing registration of voters, application for registration of

voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office
hours (Sec. 8, Republic Act No. 8189) and all applications for registration shall be heard
and processed on a quarterly basis (Sec. 17, Republic Act No. 8189) by the Election
Registration Board.
No registration shall be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular
election and 90 days before a special election (Sec. 8, Republic Act No. 8189). No special
registration can be conducted by the COMELEC within said periods (Akbayan-Youth v.
50
Page 114
The biometrics registration requirement is not a "qualification" to the exercise of the
right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has
the right to reasonably regulate. Unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises
to the level of a literacy, property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by
the Framers of the Constitution - that is, one which propagates a socio-economic
standard which is bereft of any rational basis to a person's ability to intelligently cast his
vote and to further the public good - the same cannot be struck down as
unconstitutional. (Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015)
The assailed biometrics registration regulation on the right to suffrage was sufficiently
justified as it was indeed narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest of
establishing a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters, and was
demonstrably the least restrictive means in promoting that interest. (Kabataan Partylist
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015)
The public has been sufficiently apprised of the implementation of RA 10367, and its
penalty of deactivation in case of failure to comply. Thus, there was no violation of
procedural due process. (Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318, December
16, 2015)
The power of COMELEC to restrict a citizen's right of suffrage should not be arbitrarily
exercised. (Timbol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015)
B. Qualifications
1. Filipino citizen
2. At least 18 years old on election day
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year immediately before the election
4. Resident of the city or municipality where he proposes to vote at least 6 months

immediately before the election (Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 8189). A registered
voter who fled to the United States after the EDSA revolution for fear for his
personal safety did not abandon his residence in the Philippines and he is
entitled to register as a voter (Romualdez v. Regional Trial Court, 226 SCRA 445).
Any person who temporarily resides in another place by reason of his

employment, educational activities, or detention does not lose his original
residence (Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 8189).
The law does not require that physical presence be unbroken. In Japzon v.
Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that to be considered a resident of a
municipality, the candidate is not required to stay and never leave the place for
51
Page 115
a full one-year period prior to the date of the election. In Sabili v. Comelec, the
Supreme Court reiterated that the law does not require a candidate to be at
home 24 hours a day 7 days a week to fulfill the residency requirement (Juliet B.
Dano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210200, September 13, 2016).
5. Not otherwise disqualified by law (Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 8189).
C. Disqualification
1. Grounds
a. Sentence by final judgment to imprisonment of at least 1 year
b. Conviction by final judgment of any of the following crimes:
i. Crime involving disloyalty to the government, such as rebellion

or sedition
ii. Firearms laws
iii. Crime against national security
c. Insanity or incompetence declared by competent court
2. Removal of disqualification for conviction
a. Plenary pardon
b. Amnesty
c. Lapse of 5 years after service of sentence (Sec. 111, Republic Act No.
8189).
D. Illiterate and disabled voters
The Election Officer shall place an illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions,
and record his answers. The form shall then be subscribed by the illiterate person.
The application of a physically disabled voter may be prepared by a relative within the
fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity, the Election Officer, or any member of the
accredited citizens’ arm (Sec. 14, Republic Act No. 8189).
E. Inclusion and exclusion cases
1. Jurisdiction
52
Page 116
a. Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court – original and exclusive
jurisdiction
b. Regional Trial Court – appellate jurisdiction (5 days) (Sec. 33, Republic

Act No. 8189)
c. Supreme Court – appellate jurisdiction over Regional Trial Court on

questions of law (15 days) (Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution;
Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court).
2. Petitioner
a. Inclusion
i. Private person whose application was disapproved by the

Election Registration Board or whose name was stricken out
from the list of voters (Sec. 34, Republic Act No. 8189). Failure to
register is not a ground for a petition for inclusion (Diawan v.
Inopiquez, 358 SCRA 10).
ii. COMELEC (Sec. 2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution).
There is a distinction between a petition for inclusion of voters in the list

and a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy as
to issues, reliefs and remedies involved. Voter’s inclusion/exclusion
proceedings essentially involve the issue of whether a person shall be
included in or excluded from the list of voters based on the
qualifications required by law and the facts presented to show
possession of these qualifications. On the other hand, denial or
cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy proceedings involves the issue
of whether there is a false representation of a material fact. The false
representation must necessarily pertain not to a mere innocuous
mistake but to a material fact or those that refers to a candidate’s
qualification for elective office (Panlaqui v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188671,
24 February 2010).
b. Exclusion
i. Any registered voter in city or municipality
ii. Representative of political party
iii. Election Officer (Sec. 39, Republic Act No. 8189)
iv. COMELEC (Sec. 2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
53
Page 117
3. Period for filing
a. Inclusion – Any day except 105 days before regular election or 75 days
before a special election (Sec. 34, Republic Act No. 8189).
b. Exclusion – Any time except 100 days before a regular election or 65

days before a special election (Sec. 35, Republic Act No. 8189).
4. Procedure
a. Petition for exclusion shall be sworn (Sec. 35, Republic Act No. 8189).
b. Each petition shall refer to only one precinct (Sec. 32(c), Republic Act
No. 8189).
c. The Election Registration Board must be notified of the hearing and

made a party to the case (Siawan v. Inopiquez, A.M. No. MTJ 95-1056,
21 May 2001).
d. Notice
1. Parties to be notified
i. Inclusion – Election Registration Board (Diawan v.

Inopiquez, 358 SCRA 10)
ii. Exclusion
a) Election Registration Board
b) Challenged voters (Sec. 35(b), Republic Act No.

8189)
2. Manner
Notice stating the place, day and hour of hearing shall be served
through any of the following means:
i. Registered mail
ii. Personal delivery
iii. Leaving copy in possession of person of sufficient

discretion in residence
54
Page 118
iv. Posting in city hall or municipal hall and two other
conspicuous places in the city or municipality at least 10
days before the hearing (Sec. 32(b), Republic Act No.
8189)
e. Any voter, candidate or political party affected may intervene (Sec. 32

(c), Republic Act No. 8189).
f. Non-appearance is prima facie evidence the registered voter is fictitious

(Sec. 32 (f), Republic Act No. 8189).
g. Decision cannot be rendered on stipulation of facts (Sec. 32(f), Republic

Act No. 8189).
h. The decision cannot be rendered on the basis of interview of the

petitioners for inclusion by the judge (Mercado v. Dysangco, 385 SCRA
327).
i. The decision does not constitute res judicata (Domino v. COMELEC, 310
SCRA 546).
j. No motion for reconsideration is allowed (Sec. 33, Republic Act No.

8189).
F. Annulment of list of voters
1. Upon verified complaint of any voter, election officer or registered political

party or motu proprio, COMELEC may annul a list of voters which was not
prepared in accordance with Republic Act No. 8189 or whose preparation was
affected with fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or other
similar irregularity or is statistically improbable.
2. The COMELEC acting on a petition to annul has the authority to exclude a

precinct from an election where there are no buildings and inhabitants in said
precinct and there are no registered voters (Sarangani v. COMELEC, 334 SCRA
379).
3. No list of voters shall be annulled within 60 days before an election (Sec. 33,
VII. OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING
A. SCOPE
1. Definition
55
Page 119
Absentee voting refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the
Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote (Sec. 3 (a), Republic Act No. 9189).
2. Coverage
All citizens of the Philippines abroad who are not disqualified by law, at least 18
years of age on election day, may vote for president, vice president, senators
and party list representatives (Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 9189).
3. Disqualifications
a. Those who lost their Filipino citizenship
b. Those who expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and pledged

allegiance to a foreign country.
c. Those convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by

imprisonment of at least one year, including those found guilty of
disloyalty under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code.
d. An immigrant or permanent resident recognized as such in the host

country, unless he executes an affidavit that he will resume physical
permanent residence in the Philippines within 3 years of his registration.
i. The affidavit shall also state that he has no applied for

citizenship in another country.
ii. Failure to return shall be cause for removal of his name from
the registry of absentee voters and his permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia
In designing a system for overseas absentee voting, the 1987

Constitution dispensed with the requirement of actual residency
mentioned in Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution. The affidavit
required serves as an explicit expression of non-abandonment of one’s
domicile of origin (Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. 157013, 10 July 2003).
e. A citizen of the Philippines declared insane or incompetent by

competent authority in the Philippines or abroad (Sec. 5, Republic Act
No. 9189).
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country can vote in
Philippine elections provided they re-acquire Philippine citizenship. They must
56
Page 120
take the oath of allegiance to the Republic prescribed under the Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Secs. 3 and 5 (1)).
Natural-born Filipinos who have been naturalized elsewhere and wish to

run for elective public office must comply with all of the following
requirements: First, taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. This
effects the retention or reacquisition of one's status as a natural-born
Filipino. This also enables the enjoyment of full civil and political rights,
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing
laws, provided the solemnities recited in Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9225 are satisfied. Second, compliance with Article V, Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution,251 Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws. This is to
facilitate the exercise of the right of suffrage; that is, to allow for voting
in elections. Third, "mak[ing] a personal and sworn renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath." This, along with satisfying the other qualification
requirements under relevant laws, makes one eligible for elective public
office (Rizalito Y. David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538,
September 20, 2016).
Failure to renounce foreign citizenship in accordance with the exact

tenor of Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 renders a dual citizen ineligible to run
for, and thus hold, any elective public office (Sobejana-Condon v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, 10 August 2012).
The re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship has no automatic impact or

effect on his/her residence/domicile. After his/her renunciation of
his/her American citizenship, his/her length of residence in the
municipality shall be determined from the time s/he made it his/her
domicile of choice and shall not retroact to the time of his/her birth
(Soriano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201936, 3 July 2012).
There is no provision in the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act

of 2003/ dual citizenship law requiring "duals" or dual citizens to
actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first
before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary said Act, in
implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents,
grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted
an absentee voter under Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
(Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759, 4 August 2006).
B. REGISTRATION
1. Requirements
57
Page 121
a. Valid Philippine passport or certification by the Department of Foreign
Affairs that the applicant submitted documents for issuance of a
passport or is a holder of a valid passport but cannot product it for a
valid reason.
b. Accomplished registration form.
c. Affidavit declaring intention to resume physical permanent residence

within 3 years in the case of immigrants (Sec. 8).
2. Procedure
a. Registration shall be done in person.
b. Qualified Filipino citizens may apply for registration with the election
registration board of the city or municipality where they were domiciled
prior to their departure, or the representative of COMELEC in the
Philippines, or with an embassy, consulate or any other foreign service
establishment.
c. The registration form shall be transmitted within 5 days to COMELEC,

which shall coordinate with the election officer of the city or
municipality of the residence of the applicant (Sec. 6), Republic Act No.
9189).
d. The election officer shall set the application for hearing.
i. Notice of the hearing shall be posted in city or municipal hall at

least one week before
ii. A copy of the application shall be furnished the representatives

of political parties or other accredited groups (Sec. 6.1, Republic
Act No. 9189).
iii. If no objection is filed, the election officer shall notify the

applicant to the election registration board for decision (Sec.
6.2, Republic Act No. 9189).
iv. If an objection is filed, the election officer shall notify the

applicant and enclose the documents in support of the
objection. The applicant shall have the right to file his counter-
affidavit (Sec. 6.3., Republic Act No. 9189).
v. If the application was approved, any interested party may file a

petition for exclusion not later than 210 days before election
day with the interior court.
58
Page 122
1. The petition shall be decided within 15 days after its
filing on the basis of the documents.
2. Should the court fail to decide on time, the ruling of the

election registration board shall be deemed affirmed
(Sec. 6.6, Republic Act No. 9189).
vi. If the application was disapproved, the applicant or his

representative may within 5 days from receipt of notice of
disapproval file a petition for inclusion with the inferior court,
which shall decide within 5 days after the filing (Sec. 6.7,
vii. A certificate of registration shall be issued by COMELEC to all

applicants whose applications were approved (Sec. 5, Republic
Act No. 9189).
C. APPLICATION TO VOTE IN ABSENTIA
1. Every qualified Filipino citizen abroad previously registered as a voter may file
with an embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment an
application to vote in absentia (Sec. 11.1, Republic Act No. 9189).
2. The application may be filed personally or by mail (Sec. 11.2).
3. The application shall be transmitted to COMELEC (Sec. 11.1, Republic Act No.
9189).
a. COMELEC shall act on the application not later than 150 days before
election day.
b. In case of disapproval of the application, the voter or his authorized

representative may file a motion for reconsideration personally or by
registered mail within 10 days from receipt of notice.
c. The decision of COMELEC is final (Sec. 12, Republic Act No. 1989).
D. CASTING OF BALLOTS
1. The overseas voter shall cast his ballot within 30 days before election day or 60
days before election day in the case of seafarers (Sec. 16.3, Republic Act No.
9189).
2. The voter should present an absentee voter identification card (Sec. 16.3,
59
Page 123
3. The voter must fill out his ballot personally, in secret, and in the embassy,
consulate, or foreign service establishment (Sec. 16.1, Republic Act No. 9189).
4. The ballot shall be placed inside a special envelope. Otherwise, it will not be
counted (Sec. 16.6, Republic Act No. 9189).
5. For 2004, voting by mail shall be authorized in not more than 3 countries.
Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon approval of
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (Sec. 17.1, Republic Act No. 9189).
E. COUNTING OF BALLOTS
1. Only ballots cast, and mailed ballots received by embassies, consulates and
other foreign establishments before the closing of voting on election day shall
be counted (Sec. 16.7 and Sec. 18.3, Republic Act No. 9189).
2. The counting shall be conducted on site and shall be synchronized with the start
of counting in the Philippines (Sec. 18.1, Republic Act No. 9189).
3. Special Board of Election Inspectors shall be composed of a chairman and two

members.
a. The ambassador, consul general or career public officer designated by

COMELEC shall be the chairman.
b. In the absence of government officers, two Filipino citizens qualified to vote

under this Act shall be deputized as members (Sec. 18.3, Republic Act No.
9189).
4. Immediately after the counting, the Special Boards of Election Inspectors shall
transmit by facsimile or electronic mail the result to COMELEC and the
accredited major political parties.
F. CANVASSING
1. A Special Board of Canvassers composed of a lawyer preferably of COMELEC as

chairman, a senior career officer from any government agency maintaining a
post abroad and, in the absence of another government officer, a citizen of the
Philippines qualified to vote under Republic Act No. 9189, shall be constituted to
canvass the election returns.
2. The Special Board of Canvassers shall transmit by facsimile, electronic mail or

any other safe and reliable means of transmission the certificate of canvass and
the statements of votes to COMELEC and the major accredited parties.
60
Page 124
3. The certificates of canvass and the statements of votes shall be the primary
basis for the national canvass (Sec. 18.4, Republic Act No. 9189).
a. The returns prepared by the Special Board of Canvassers shall be

deemed a certificate of canvass of a city or a province (Sec. 18.6,
b. The canvass of votes shall not delay the proclamation of the winning
candidate if the outcome of the election will not be affected by it.
c. The winning candidates shall be proclaimed despite the fact that the
scheduled election has not taken place in a particular country because
of circumstances beyond the control of COMELEC. (Sec. 18.5, Republic
Act No. 9189).
VIII. BOARD OF INSPECTORS
A. The board of election inspectors shall be composed of a chairman and two members, all
of whom are public school teachers.
B. If there are not enough public school teachers, teachers in private schools, employees in
the civil service, or other citizens of known probity and competence may be appointed.
(Sec. 13, Republic Act No. 6646)
IX. WATCHERS
A. Number
1. Official watchers
a. Every registered party or coalition of parties and every candidate is

entitled to one watcher per precinct and canvassing counter.
b. Candidates for the local legislature belonging to the same party are
entitled collectively to one watcher.
c. Six principal watchers from 6 accredited major political parties shall be

recognized (Sec. 26, Republic Act No. 7166).
2. Other Watchers
a. The accredited citizens’ arms is entitled to a watcher in every precinct.
b. Other civic organization may be authorized to appoint one watcher in every

precinct (Sec. 180, Omnibus Election Code).
61
Page 125
COMELEC Resolution No. 10460 (December 6, 2018)
ARTICLE III
WATCHERS
Sec. 44. Official Watchers of Candidates, Political Parties and Other Groups. – Each
candidate, duly registered political party or coalition of political parties, associations or
organizations participating in the Party-List System, and duly accredited citizen’s arms,
may appoint in every polling place two watchers who shall serve alternately. However,
candidates for Senator, Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Bayan or Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) Regional Legislative Assembly, belonging to the same party or coalition, shall
collectively be entitled to one watcher.
Other civil, professional, business, service, youth, and any other similar organizations
shall, if previously authorized by the Commission, be entitled collectively to appoint one
watcher in every polling place.
If the space in a polling place reserved for watchers is insufficient, preference shall be
given to the watchers of the dominant majority and dominant minority parties, as
determined by the Commission. Watchers of the citizen’s arm shall be given preferential
position closest to the EB.
B. Important rights of watchers
1. All watchers
a. To stay inside the precinct
b. To inform themselves of the proceedings
c. To file a protest against any irregularity
d. To obtain a certificate of the number of votes cast for each candidate.

2. Citizen’s arm
To be given a copy of the election return to be used for the conduct of an

unofficial count (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 8045).

ARTICLE III
WATCHERS
Sec. 46. xx xx
62
Page 126
The watchers shall have the right to:
a. Stay in the space reserved for them inside the polling place, except under the last
parangraph of Section 44 of this Resolution [quoted above];
b. Witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the EB;
c. Take note of what they may see or hear;
d. Take picture, image or photo of the proceedings and incidents, if any, during testing
and sealing, counting of votes, transmission and printing of election returns
provided the secrecy of the ballot shall be maintained at all times. In no case shall
taking of pictures, images or photos be allowed during casting of votes;
e. File a protest against any irregularity or violation of law which they believe may
have been committed by the EB or by any person present;
f. Obtain from the EB a certificate as to the filing of such protest and/or the Resolution
thereof; and
g. Position themselves behind the chairperson of the EB in such a way that they can
read the election returns while the chairperson is publicly announcing the precinct
results.
Watchers are not allowed to speak to any member of the EB or to any voter, or among
themselves, in a manner that would disrupt the proceedings of the EB.
The watchers representing the dominant majority and dominant minority parties, and
the Citizens’ arm shall, if available, affix their signatures and thumbmarks on the
election returns.
X. CASTING OF VOTES
A. The chairman of the board of election inspectors should sign each ballot at the back.
(Sec. 24, Republic Act No. 7166). The omission of such signature does not affect the
validity of the ballot (Libanan v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 283 SCRA
520; Punzalan v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 702; Pacris v. Pagalilauan, 337 SCRA 638;
Malabaguio v. COMELEC, 346 SCRA 699; De Guzman v. Sison, 355 SCRA 69).
B. A voter who was challenged on the ground that he has been paid for his vote or made a
bet on the result of the election will be allowed to vote if he takes an oath that he did
not commit the alleged in the challenge (Sec. 200, Omnibus Election Code).
Sec. 57. Challenge Against Illegal Voters. – Any voter or watcher may challenge a person offering
to vote for:
a. Being not registered;
63
Page 127
b. Using the name of another; or
c. Suffering from an existing disqualification.
In such cases, the EB shall determine the truthfulness of the ground for the challenge by
requiring proof of registration, identity or qualification. In case the identity of the voter is
challenged, the EB shall identify the voter’s specimen signature and photo in the EDVCL. In the
absent of any of the above-mentioned proof of identity, any member of the EB may identify
under oath a voter personally know to the former, which act of identification shall be recorded
in the Minutes.
Sec. 58. Challenged Based on Certain Illegal Acts. Any voter or watcher may challenge any
person offering to vote on the ground that the voter:
a. Received or expects to receive, paid, or offered or promised to pay, contributed, offered or

promised to contribute money or anything of value as consideration for his/her vote or for
the vote of another.
b. Made or received a promise to influence the giving or withholding of any such vote; or
c. Made a bet or is interested directly or indirectly in a bet that depends upon the results of
the election.
In such cases, the challenged voter may take an oath before the EB that said voter has not
committed any of the acts alleged in the challenge. Upon taking such oath, the challenge shall
be dismissed, and the voter shall be allowed to vote. In case the voter refuses to take such oath,
the challenge shall be sustained, and the voter shall not be allowed to vote.
C. An illiterate or physically disabled voter may be assisted by a relative by affinity or

consanguinity within the fourth degree or any person of his confidence who belongs to
the same household or any member of the board of election inspectors (Sec. 196,
Omnibus Election Code, De Guzman v. COMELEC, 426 SCRA 698).
Sec. 65. Preparation of Ballots for Illiterate, Persons with Disability (PWD) and Senior Citizen
(SC). – No voter shall be allowed to vote as an illiterate, PWD or SC unless such fact in indicated
in the EDCVL. If so, such voter may be assisted in the preparation of the ballot, in the following
order:
a. Relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;

b. Person of his confidence who belongs to the same household as that of the voter. For this
purpose, the person who usually assists the PWD or SC, such as personal assistant,
caregiver, or a nurse shall be considered as a member of a voter’s household; or
c. Any member of the EB.
64
Page 128
A physically impaired voted may be assisted in feeding the ballot into the VCM by the EB
member. The EB member shall ensure that the contents of the ballot are not displayed during its
feeding into the VCM. In which case, this fact must be reported in the Minutes.
All persons assisting must be of voting age.
No person, except the members of the EB, may assist an illiterate, PWD or SC more than three
(3) times.
In all cases, the poll clerk shall first verify from the illiterates, PWDs or SCs whether said voters
have authorized a person to help them cast their votes.
The persons assisting the illiterates, PWDs and SCs shall:
a. Prepare in their presence, the ballot using a ballor secrecy folder;

b. Bind themselves in writing and under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with
the instructions of the voter and not to reveal its contents, by indicating the appropriate
data and affixing their signatures in the corresponding space in the Minutes.
D. It is unlawful to use carbon paper, paraffin paper or other means for making a copy of
the contents of the ballot or to use any means to identify the ballot (Sec. 195, Omnibus
Election Code). A ballot prepared under such circumstances should not be counted.
(Gutierrez v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-14252, February 28, 1959).
E. Absentee Voting
1. Members of the board of election inspectors and their substitutes may vote in
the precinct where they are assigned (Sec. 169, Omnibus Election Code).
2. Absentee voting for President, Vice President and Senators is allowed for
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police and
other government employees assigned in connection with the performance of
election duties to places where they are not registered (Sec. 12, Republic Act No.
7166).
COMELEC Resolution No. 10443, November 8, 2018
SEC. 10. Disapproval of the application to avail of local absentee voting. - The application
to avail of local absentee voting shall be disapproved on the grounds that:
a. the names of the applicants are not found in the NLRV;
b. the application was filed out of time;
c. the application is not under oath;
d. the application is only a photocopy /facsimile copy; or
e. the Certification portion of the certified list is not duly accomplished.
65
Page 129
For this purpose, the CLAV shall notify the heads of offices/supervisors/commanders or
officers next-in-rank, the CEO or PES or the RED NCR who shall in turn notify the
concerned applicants on the disapproval of their application to avail of the local
absentee voting (LAV Form No. 05) provided however, that for items c, d and e above,
the application forms of those found to be registered voters may be
comp1etedjcomplied with and submitted back to CLAV on or before the deadline of
preparation of the list of qualified local absentee voters on April 12, 2019.)
F. Postponement of Election
When for any serious cause such as violence, loss of election paraphernalia, force
majeure, and other analogous causes elections cannot be held, COMELEC shall motu
proprio or upon petition by any interested party postpone the election not later than 30
days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement (Sec. 5, Omnibus Election
Code).
1. An election officer cannot postpone an election (Basher v. COMELEC, 330 SCRA

736). Under Republic Act No. 7166, only the COMELEC En Banc can postpone an
election.
2. The transfer of the location of the precinct and the replacement of the public
school teacher by military personnel as member of the board of inspectors
made by an election officer without notice and hearing are illegal (Cawasa v.
G. Failure of Election
1. If on account of force majeure, violence, fraud or other analogous cause

election in any precinct was not held or was suspended, or if during the
preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
canvass of the election returns, the election results in failure of election, and the
election will affect the outcome of the election, on petition of any interested
party, COMELEC shall hold special election no later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause (Sec. 6, Omnibus Election Code). For the declaration of a
failure of election, the illegality must affect more than 50% of the votes cast and
the good votes must be distinguishable from the bad ones (Carlos v. Angeles,
346 SCRA 571).
2. Failure of Election cannot be declared in a precinct because of suspension of the

election if 220 of the 316 registered voters were able to vote (Batabor v.
66
Page 130
3. Where voting resumed after armed men fired shots near an election precinct,
there is no failure of election (Benito v. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705).
4. Where during the counting of the ballots, armed men replaced the ballots and
coerced the election inspectors to prepare spurious returns, there is failure of
election (Sanchez v. COMELEC, 114 SCRA 454).
5. A special election should be held if the ballot box in a precinct was burned
(Hassan v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 125).
6. The destruction of the copies of the election returns intended for the board of
canvassers is not a ground for the declaration of a failure of election as other
copies of the returns can be used (Sardea v. COMELEC, 225 SCRA 374).
7. The fact that less than 25% of the registered voters voted does not constitute
failure of election, since voting took place (Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54).
8. Lack of notice of the date and time of the canvass, fraud, violence, terrorism,
and analogous causes, such as disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying
voters, and lack of qualification of the members of the board of inspectors are
not grounds for a declaration of failure of election but for an election protest
(Borja v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604; Tan v. COMELEC, 417 SCRA 532).
9. The fact that armed men signed and filled up the ballots before election day, the
election returns were filled up before election day, votes credited to a candidate
exceeded the number of registered voter, and that the tally sheets were filled
up before the counting of ballots is not a ground to declare a failure of election.
(Mutitan v. COMELEC, 520 SCRA 152).
10. There is a failure of election if the place of counting was transferred without
notice to the watchers and the canvassing was made without their present
(Soliva v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 336).
11. The fact that the names of some registered voters were omitted from the list of
voters, strangers voted for some of the registered voters, a candidate was
credited with less votes than he received, the control data of some election
returns were not filled up, the ballot boxes were brought to the municipal hall
without padlock and seals, and that there was a delay in the delivery of the
election returns are not grounds for the declaration of failure of election.
(Canicosa v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512; Macabago v. COMELEC, 392 SCRA 178).
12. If voting actually took place, the use of a fake ballots is not a ground to declare a
failure of elections (Galo v. COMELEC, 487 SCRA 549).
13. The fact that the supporters of a candidate filled up some of the ballots and that
some members of the board of inspectors failed to sign some ballots at the back
67
Page 131
and to remove their detachable coupons is not a ground for the declaration of a
failure of election (Pasandalan v. COMELEC, 384 SCRA 695).
14. The fact that the ballots were filled up by the relatives and appointees of a
candidate is not a ground to declare a failure of elections, as it should be raised
in an election contest (Tan v. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 352).
15. The fact that several election returns were prepared by one person is not a
ground for the declaration of a failure of election (Typoco v. COMELEC, 319
SCRA 498).
16. The resort to manual counting of the ballots because of the breakdown of the
automated machines does not constitute failure of election (Loong v. COMELEC,
305 SCRA 832).
17. Vote buying and discrepancies in the election returns are not grounds for failure
of election (Banaga v. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 701).
18. An election cannot be annulled because of the illegal transfer of a precinct less
than 45 days before the election if the votes of those who were not able to vote
will not alter the result (Balindong v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 494).
19. There is no reglementary period for filing a petition for annulment of an election
if there has as yet been no proclamation (Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1).
20. The COMELEC may decide a petition to declare a failure of election En Banc at
the first instance, since it is not a pre-proclamation case or an election protest.
(Borja v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604).
In petitions to declare a failure of election on the ground of fraud, COMELEC

may conduct a technical examination of election documents and compare and
analyze the signatures and fingerprints of the voters (Loong v. COMELEC, 257
SCRA 1). The absence of a rule which specifically mandates the technical
examination of election paraphernalia does not mean that the COMELEC
division is barred from issuing an order for the conduct thereof. The power of
the COMELEC division to order the technical examination election paraphernalia
in election protest cases stems from its “exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contest relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial and city officials.” Otherwise stated, the express grant of
power to the COMELEC to resolve election protests carries with it the grant of
all other powers necessary, proper, or incidental to the effective and efficient
exercise of the power expressly granted. Verily, the exclusive original
jurisdiction conferred by the constitution to the COMELEC to settle said election
protests includes the authority to order a technical examination of relevant
election paraphernalia, election returns and ballots in order to determine
68
Page 132
whether fraud and irregularities attended the canvass of the votes. (Sahali v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 201796, 15 January 2013).
21. The difference between the annulment of elections by electoral tribunals and
the declaration of failure of elections by the COMELEC cannot be gainsaid. First,
the former is an incident of the judicial function of electoral tribunals while the
latter is in the exercise of the COMELEC's administrative function. Second,
electoral tribunals only annul the election results connected with the election
contest before it whereas the declaration of failure of elections by the COMELEC
relates to the entire election in the concerned precinct or political unit. As such,
in annulling elections, the HRET does so only to determine who among the
candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast. The COMELEC, on the
other hand, declares a failure of elections with the objective of holding or
continuing the elections, which were not held or were suspended, or if there
was one, resulted in a failure to elect. When COMELEC declares a failure of
elections, special elections will have to be conducted (Harlin C. Abayon v. HRET,
G.R. No. 222236, May 3, 2016).
22. The power to declare a failure of elections should be exercised with utmost care
and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt that the
disregard of the law had been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous
that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful,
or to arrive at any certain result whatsoever, or that the great body of the
voters have been prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from
exercising their franchise." Consequently, a protestant alleging terrorism in an
election protest must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the will of
the majority has been muted by "violence, intimidation or threats (Harlin C.
Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 222236, May 3, 2016).
23. A special election is not valid if notice of its date and of the transfer of the
precincts was given less than a day before, since the voters were deprived of the
opportunity to vote (Hassan v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 125).
24. The fact that the special election was scheduled more than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause of the failure of the election does not affect its validity.
(Pangandaman v. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 283). The period is merely directory
(Sambarani v. COMELEC, 428 SCRA 319).
25. The fact that the candidate who was proclaimed has assumed office does not
deprive COMELEC of its authority to declare a failure of election, since the
proclamation was illegal (Ampatuan v. COMELEC, 375 SCRA 503).
H. Special Election
69
Page 133
1. In case of a permanent vacancy in Congress at least one year before the
expiration of the term, COMELEC shall hold a special election not earlier than 60
days or later than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy.
2. A vacancy in the Senate will be filled up at the next regular election (Sec. 4,
The fact that COMELEC did not notify the people that a special election for
senator would be held, that the candidates for senators did not specify whether
they were running in the regular or special elections, and that the voters’
information sheet did not specify the candidates for the special election does
not affect the validity of the special election (Tolentino v. COMELEC, 420 SCRA
438).
XI. COUNTING OF VOTES
A. Manner
1. The board of election inspectors shall read the ballots publicly and shall not
postpone the counting of votes until it is completed (Sec. 206, Omnibus Election
Code).
2. The board of election inspectors shall assume such positions as to provide the
watchers and the public unimpeded view of the ballot being read. (Sec. 25,
3. If on account of violence or similar causes it becomes necessary to transfer the

counting of the votes to a safer place, the board of election inspectors may
effect the transfer by unanimous approval of the board and concurrence of a
majority of the watchers present (Sec. 18, Republic Act No. 6646).
4. Where a commotion resulted in suspension of the counting, the board of

election inspectors may recount the ballots (Dayag v. Alonzo, 134 SCRA 202).
5. Where the use of automated machines will result in an erroneous counting,

manual counting may be used (Loong v. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832).
B. Special Problems
1. Excess ballots
If there are excess ballots, the poll clerk shall draw out as any ballots equal to
the excess without seeing them, and the excess ballots shall not be counted.
2. Spoiled ballots
70
Page 134
a. Ballots in the compartment for spoiled ballots are presumed to be
spoiled ballots.
b. If the board of election inspectors finds that a valid ballot was

erroneously deposited in the compartment for spoiled ballots, it shall be
counted (Sec. 209, Omnibus Election Code).
3. Marked ballots
a. Marked ballots shall not be counted (Sec. 208, Omnibus Election Code).
b. A ballot is considered marked in any of the following cases:
i. The voter singed the ballot (Ferrer v. De Alban, 101 Phil. 1018).
ii. The name of a candidate was written more than twice (Salalima
v. Sabater, G.R. No. L – 14829 May 28, 1959; Katigbak v.
Mendoza, 19 SCRA 543; Bautista v. Castro, 206 SCRA 305).
iii. The voter wrote the names of well-known public figures who
are not candidates such as actors, actresses, and national
political figures (Protacio v. De Leon, 9 SCRA 472; Pangontao v.
Alunan, 6 SCRA 853).
iv. The ballot contains irrelevant expressions (Bautista v. Castro,

206 SCRA 305). However, the use of nicknames and appellations
of affection and friendship, if accompanied by the name of the
candidate, does not annul the ballot except when it is used to
identify the voter (Sec. 211 (13), Omnibus Election Code; Ong v.
v. Ballots with the words “Joker”, “Alas”, “Queen” and “Kamatis”

written on them are marked (Villagracia v. COMELEC, 513 SCRA
556).
vi. The name of a candidate was written in blue ink, while the rest
of the names were written in black in (Dojillo v. COMELEC, 496
SCRA 484)
vii. Placing an encircled “15” and an enriched “16” after the names
of a candidate constitutes marking the ballot (Perman v.
c. The use of two or more kinds of writing does not invalidate the ballot
unless it clearly appears that it was deliberately made to identify the
71
Page 135
voter (Sec. 211 (22), Omnibus Election Code; Ong v. COMELEC, 347 SCRA
681; Dojillo v. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484).
d. A ballot with “x” marks, lines and similar marks should not be
considered marked in the absence of any showing of an intention to
mark the ballot (De Guzman v. Sison, 355 SCRA 69; Dojillo v. COMELEC,
496 SCRA 484).
e. Evidence aliunde is not necessary to prove a ballot is marked (Bocobo v.

f. A ballot in which a sticker was stuck by another person to invalidate it

should not be rejected (Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, 202 SCRA 808).
C. Rules of appreciation of ballots
1. A ballot in which the first name or surname of a candidate is written should be

counted for him, if there is no other candidate with the same name. (Lerias v.
House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, 202 SCRA 808; Dojillo v. COMELEC,
496 SCRA 484).
2. If only the first name of a candidate is written and it sounds like the surname of
another candidate, the vote shall be counted in favor of the latter.
3. If there are two or more candidates with the same name and one of them is
incumbent, the vote shall be counted in favor of the incumbent.
4. When two or more words are written on different lines which are the surnames
of two or more candidates with the same surname for an office for which the
law authorizes the election of more than one, the vote shall be counted in favor
of all candidates with the same surname.
5. When the word written is the first name of one candidate and the surname of
another candidate, the vote shall be counted for the latter.
6. If the ballot contains the first name of one candidate and the surname of
another candidate, the vote shall not be counted for either.
7. An incorrectly written name which sounds like the correctly written name of a
candidate shall be counted in his favor (Bautista v. Castro, 206 SCRA 606;
Cantoria v. COMELEC, 444 SCRA 538; Dojillo v. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484).
8. Idem Sonans Rule: When a name or surname incorrectly written which, when
read, has a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly
written shall be counted in such candidate's favor. The Idem Sonans Rule is
72
Page 136
particularly provided for under Section 211(7) of the Omnibus Election Code
(Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 227797, November 13, 2018).
9. If the word written is the identical name of two or more candidates for the
same office none of whom is incumbent, the vote shall be counted in favor of
the candidate who belongs to the same ticket as all the other candidates voted
for in the ballot for the same constituency.
10. The erroneous initial of the first name accompanied by the correct surname of a
candidate or the erroneous initial of the surname accompanied by the correct
first name of a candidate shall not annul the vote in his favor.
11. A ballot in which the correct first name but wrong surname of a candidate is
written or the correct surname but wrong first name of a candidate is written,
shall not be counted in his favor.
Where a candidate named Pedro Alfonso died on the eve of the election and his
daughter Irma Alfonso substituted him, ballots in which the name Pedro Alfonso
was written cannot be counted in her favor (Alfonso v. COMELEC, 232 SCRA
777).
12. If two or more candidates were voted for in an office for which the law
authorizes the election of only one, the vote shall not be counted in favor of any
of them (Dojillo v. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484).
13. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected, the votes
for the candidates whose names were firstly written equal to the number of
candidates to be elected shall be counted.
14. Even if the name of a candidate was written on the wrong space, it should be
counted if the intention to vote for him can be determined, as when there is a
complete list of names of candidates for other offices written below his name or
the voter wrote the office for which he was electing the candidate (Cordero v.
Moscardon, 132 SCRA 414; Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
202 SCRA 808; Bautista v. Castro, 206 SCRA 305, Velasco v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA
947). If the space for punong barangay was left blank and the name of the
candidate for punong barangay was written on the first line for barangay
kagawad, it should be counted. However, it should not be counted if it was
written on the second line for barangay kagawad (Ferrer v. COMELEC, 330 SCRA
229; Abad v. Co, 496 SCRA 505).
Under the neighborhood rule, excepted from the rule that a voter must write
the name of the candidate for whom he desired to vote in the proper place are
the following: (1) a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended
to be voted for the successive offices appearing in the ballot; (2) a single or
double misplacement of names where the name is preceded or followed by the
73
Page 137
title of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the name of the
candidate a directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the
misplaced name was intended; (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a)
off-center from the designated space, (b) slightly underneath the line for the
intended office; (c) immediately above the title for the contested office, or (d) in
the space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate
presented himself (Velasco v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA 447).
15. A ballot with undetached coupon should be counted (De Guzman v. Sison, 355
SCRA 69).
16. For purposes of the 2016 elections, the fifty percent (50%) shading threshold
was no longer applied. Instead of a single numerical threshold, what was
applied was a threshold that ranged from twenty percent (20%) to twenty-five
percent (25%) of the oval spaces in the ballots (Marcos v. Robredo, PET Case No.
005, 18 September 2018 [Resolution]).
COMELEC Resolution No. 10419, September 5, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, pursuant to the powers vested

in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, and other election laws,
RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED, to set the threshold for the shading of the
ballots at 25% for purposes of the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections
and subsequent elections thereafter.
D. Correction of returns
1. Before the announcement of the results of the election in a precinct, any

correction or alteration in the election returns must be initialed by all member
of the board of election inspectors.
2. After the announcement of the results of the election in a precinct, the

authorization of COMELEC is needed to make any correction or alteration.
a. If the petition is by all members of the board of election inspectors, the

results of the election will not be affected, and none of the candidates
affected objects, COMELEC, upon being satisfied of the veracity of the
petition, shall order the correction.
b. If a candidate affected by the petition objects and the correction will

affect the results of the election, COMELEC shall order a recount of the
votes if it finds the petition meritorious and the integrity of the ballot
box has not been violated (Sec. 216, Omnibus Election Code).
74
Page 138
E. Certificate of votes
1. The board of election inspectors shall issue a certificate of the number of votes
received by a candidate upon request of a watcher (Sec. 16, Republic Act No.
6646).
2. The certificate of votes is admissible in evidence to prove any anomaly in the

election return when authenticated by testimony or documentary evidence of
at least two members of the board of election inspectors (Sec. 17, Republic Act
No. 6646).
3. The certificate of votes cannot be used to prove the result of the election.
(Recabo v. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 793).
XII. CANVASSING AND PROCLAMATION
A. Canvassing Bodies
1. Congress
a. President
b. Vice President (Sec. 3, Art. VII of 1987 Constitution, Sec. 30, Republic Act
No. 7166)
2. COMELEC
a. Senators (Sec. 2, Executive Order No. 144)
b. Regional Officials (Sec. 7, Art. XIX, Republic Act No. 6734)
3. Provincial Board of Canvassers
a. Congressmen
b. Provincial officials (Sec. 28 (d), Republic Act No. 7166)
4. District Board of Canvassers in each legislative district in Metro Manila
a. Congressmen
b. Municipal officials (Sec. 28 (c), Republic Act No. 7166)
5. City and Municipal Board of Canvassers
a. Congressmen
75
Page 139
b. City and municipal officials (Sec. 28 (a) and (b), Republic Act No. 7166)
6. Barangay Board of Canvassers
Barangay officials (Sec. 17, Batas Pambansa Blg. 222)
B. Procedure
1. COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers
except Congress. It may motu proprio relieve at any time and substitute any
member of the board of canvassers (Sec. 227, Omnibus Election Code).
A municipal court has no jurisdiction to restrain the municipal board of

canvassers (Libardos v. Casar, 234 SCRA 13).
2. Manner of delivery of election return
a. The board of election inspectors shall personally deliver to the city and
municipal boards of canvassers the copy of the election returns
intended for them, sealed in an envelope, signed and thumbmarked by
the members of the board of election inspectors.
The mere fact that an election return was not locked in the ballot box
when it was delivered to the board of canvassers is not ground for
excluding it in the absence of proof that it was tampered with (Pimentel
b. The board of election inspectors shall personally deliver to the

provincial and district boards of canvassers the copy of the election
returns intended for them to the election registrar.
c. Watchers have the right to accompany the members of the board of

election inspectors and the election registrar during the delivery of the
election returns to the board of canvassers (Sec. 229, Omnibus Election
Code).
3. Steps in canvassing
a. City and municipal board of canvassers
i. The city and municipal board of canvassers shall canvass the

election returns
ii. They shall prepare a certificate of canvass for President, Vice

President, Senators, Congressmen, and provincial officials.
76
Page 140
iii. They shall proclaim the elected city or municipal officials.
iv. If the city comprises one or more legislative districts, the city
board of canvassers shall proclaim the elected congressmen.
b. District Board of Canvassers
i. The district board of canvassers shall canvass the election

returns.

President and Senators.
iii. They shall proclaim the elected congressmen and municipal

officials.
c. Provincial Board of Canvassers
i. The provincial board of canvassers shall canvass the certificates

of canvass for President, Vice President, Senators, Congressmen
and provincial officials submitted by the board of canvassers of
municipalities and component cities.

President, and Senators.
iii. They shall proclaim the elected congressmen and provincial

officials (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 7166).
d. COMELEC
i. It shall canvass the certificates of canvass submitted by the

board of canvassers of provinces and highly urbanized cities.
ii. It shall proclaim the elected Senators.
e. Congress
i. It shall canvass the certificates of canvass submitted by the

board of canvassers of the provinces, highly urbanized cities,
and districts.
COMELEC cannot conduct an unofficial canvass (Brillantes v.

77
Page 141
ii. It shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass for President and Vice President.
iii. If a certificate of canvass is incomplete, the Senate President

shall require the board of canvassers concerned to transmit the
election returns that were not included in the certificate of
canvass.
iv. If there is an erasure or alternation in any certificate of canvass

or statement of vote which may cast doubt as to the veracity of
the votes stated and may affect the result of the election, upon
request of the candidate concerned or his party, Congress shall
count the votes in the copies of the election returns (Sec. 30,
v. Congress shall proclaim the elected President and Vice

President (Sec. 4, Art. VII of 1987 Constitution).
4. Problem areas
a. Lost return
i. If any election return has been lost, upon prior authority of

COMELEC, the board of canvassers may use any authentic copy
or a certified copy issued by COMELEC (Sec. 233, Omnibus
Election Code; Samad v. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631). It is not
necessary that all the other copies be considered (Pangarungan
ii. If an election return is missing a recount should not be ordered

if there is any authentic copy available (Ong v. COMELEC, 216
SCRA 866).
iii. If all copies of the election returns were lost, a recount of the
ballots should be made (Ong v. COMELEC, 221 SCRA 475).
iv. The certificate of votes signed by the board of inspectors and

the tally board cannot be used for the canvass, because only
election returns are evidence of the results of the election
(Garay v. COMELEC, 261 SCRA 222).
b. Omission in the return
i. In case of an omission in the election return of the name of a

candidate or his votes, the board of canvassers shall require the
78
Page 142
board of election inspectors to complete it (Lee v. COMELEC,
405 SCRA 363).
ii. If the votes omitted cannot be ascertained except by recounting

the ballots, after ascertaining the integrity of the ballot box has
not been violated, COMELEC shall order the board of election
inspectors to count the votes for the candidate whose votes
were omitted and to complete the return (Sec. 234, Omnibus
Election Code). Since the omission on the election return of the
number of votes certain candidates received is not a
discrepancy, a recount of the votes should be ordered instead
of excluding the election return in the canvassing (Patoray v.
c. Tampered or falsified return
i. If the election return submitted to the board of canvassers was

tampered with or falsified or prepared under duress or by
persons other than the board of election inspectors, the board
shall use the other copies of the election return.
ii. If the other copies of the election returns were also tampered
with or falsified or prepared under duress or by persons other
than the board of election inspectors, COMELEC, after
ascertaining that the integrity of the ballot box has not been
violated, shall order the board of election inspectors to recount
the votes and prepare a new return (Sec. 235, Omnibus Election
Code).
iii. In the absence of proof that the election returns were tampered
with, the mere fact that the ballot boxes were not secured with
padlocks is not sufficient for questioning the election returns
(Navarro v. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 620).
iv. Erasures in the certificates of canvass which were merely

corrections do not constitute tampering (Sarangani v.
v. If the certificate of canvass was tampered with, COMELEC may

order that any of the copies of the election returns be used in
making a new canvass (Mastura v. COMELEC, 285 SCRA 493).
vi. Since an election return prepared without counting the ballots

is a fabrication, it should not be counted and a count of the
ballots should be ordered (Lucero v. COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280).
79
Page 143
d. Discrepancies in returns
If there are discrepancies in the other authentic copies of the return or

in the words and figures in the same return and it will affect the result
of the election, COMELEC, after ascertaining that the integrity of the
ballot box has not been violated, shall order a recount of the ballots
(Sec. 236, Omnibus Election Code; Olondriz v. COMELEC, 313 SCRA 128).
If there is discrepancy between the tally and the written figures in the
election return, it should be excluded from the canvassing and a recount
of the ballots should be made or the certificate of votes cast in the
precinct should be used (Patoray v. COMELEC, 249 SCRA 440).
e. Proclamation
i. An incomplete canvass cannot be the basis of a valid

proclamation. (Samad v. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631; Castromayor
v. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298; Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1;
Jamil v. COMELEC, 283 SCRA 349; Immam v. COMELEC, 322
SCRA 866; Alauya v. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 742; Lorenzo v.
COMELEC, 418 SCRA 448; Sales v. COMELEC, 425 SCRA 735).
ii. If the questioned election returns will not affect the result of
the election, a proclamation may be made upon order of
COMELEC after notice and hearing. (Sec. 238, Omnibus Election
Code; Barbers v. COMELEC, 460 SCRA 569).
iii. COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim winning candidates if

the remaining uncanvassed election returns will not affect the
result of the elections. (Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng
Masa (AKMA-PTM) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207134, June 16,
2015)
iv. The manual COCP is the official COMELEC document in cases

wherein the canvassing threshold is lowered. In fact, clear from
the language of the Resolution is that the winners, in such
instances, are proclaimed “by manually preparing a Certificate
of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning Candidates,” the
format for which is appended to COMELEC Resolution No. 9700.
(Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216691, July 21, 2015)
5. Rights of candidates
a. Every registered political party and candidate is entitled to one watcher

in the canvassing center, but candidates for the local legislative bodies
belonging to the same party are entitled collectively to one watcher.
80
Page 144
(Sec. 26, Republic Act No. 7166) The fact that the watcher of a candidate
was not present when the canvassing was resumed because he was not
notified is not a ground to annul the canvass (Quilala v. COMELEC, 188
SCRA 902).
b. Any registered political party and candidate has the right to be present
and to counsel.
i. Only one counsel may argue for each party or candidate
ii. No dilatory action shall be allowed (Sec. 25, Republic Act No.
6646).
c. Only the winning candidates have the demandable right to be furnished a

copy of the COCP. (Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216691, July 21, 2015)
6. Tie
a. A tie among two or more candidates for President or Vice President

shall be broken by majority vote of both houses of Congress voting
separately (Sec. 4, Art. VII of 1987 Constitution).
b. In the case of other positions, the tie shall be broken by the drawing of
lots. (Sec. 240, Omnibus Election Code, Tugade v. COMELEC, 517 SCRA
328).
7. Failure to assume office
If a candidate fails to take his oath of office within 6 months from his
proclamation, unless for a cause beyond the control of the elected official, his
office will be considered vacant (Sec. 12, Omnibus Election Code).
XIII. PRE-PROCLAMATION CASES
A. Issues
1. Provincial, city and municipal officials
a. The composition or the proceeding of the board of canvassers is illegal;
b. The returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be

tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns
or in other authentic copies;
81
Page 145
c. The returns were prepared under duress or are obviously manufactured
or not authentic;
d. Substitute or fraudulent returns were canvassed, the results of which

materially affect the standing of the aggrieved candidate (Sec. 243,
Omnibus Election Code; Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 7166).
2. President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen
No pre-proclamation case is allowed regarding the preparation, transmission,

receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or certificate of
canvass (Chavez v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315; Ong v. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 806,
Pangilinan v. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 36).
In a congressional election, all losing candidate cannot file a petition for

correction of manifest errors (Cerbo v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA 51; Vinzons-Chato v.
COMELEC, 520 SCRA 166; Dimaporo v. COMELEC, 544 SCRA 381).
3. Correction of Manifest Errors
The canvassing body may motu proprio or upon petition of an interested party
correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election return (Sec. 15,
Art No. 7166, Sandoval v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 403).
a. A copy of an election return or certificate of canvass was tabulated

more than once.
b. Two or more copies of the same election return or certificate of canvass

were tabulated separately.
c. There was a mistake in copying the figures into the statement of votes
or certificates of canvass.
Errors in the addition in the certificate of canvass may be corrected.

(Ong v. COMELEC, 221 SCRA 475; Lucero v. COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280;
Baddiri v. COMELEC, 439 SCRA 809).
d. Returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass (Sec.

5(a), Rule 27 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
i. The statement of votes cannot be corrected on the basis of a

certification given to a watcher, since election returns are what
are supposed to be the basis of the canvass (Ramirez v.
82
Page 146
ii. The alleged error in the certificate of canvass committed by
carrying forward 7,000 votes is not a manifest error where the
petition did not specify the precincts where the alleged errors
were committed and are not manifest, since they do not appear
on the face of the certificate of canvass (O’Hara v. COMELEC,
379 SCRA 247).
iii. The claim that fabricated statements of votes and non-existing

precincts were included in the tabulation cannot be raised in a
petition for correction of manifest errors, as they are not
clerical errors evident on the face of the documents (Tamayo-
Reyes v. COMELEC, 524 SCRA 577).
iv. The respondent may file a counter-petition (Trinidad v.

v. The petition should be filed not later than five days after the
proclamation of the winner (Sec. 5 (b), Rule 27 of COMELEC
Rules of Procedure).
vi. The petition can be filed at any time even before the
proclamation of the winner (Sec. 7, Rule 27 of COMELEC Rules of
Procedure; Bince v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 373; Baddiri v.
vii. COMELEC can suspend the period for filing the petition
(Arbonida v. COMELEC, 518 SCRA 320).
4. However, Congress and the COMELEC En Banc are authorized to determine the
authenticity of the certificates of canvass for President, Vice President and
Senators, respectively (Section 30, Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by
a. Authenticity of the certificates of canvass transmitted to them shall be

determined on the basis of the following:
i. Signatures and thumbmarks of the chairman and members of

the board of canvassers.
ii. Completion of the names of all the candidates and their

corresponding votes in words and figures.
iii. Absence of discrepancy in other authentic copies of certificate

of canvass or any of its supporting documents such as
statement of votes or in the votes of any candidate in words
and figures in the certificate of canvass.
83
Page 147
iv. Absences of discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words
and figures in the certificate of canvass against the aggregate
number of votes appearing the election returns of precincts
covered by the certificate of canvass (Sec. 30, Republic Act No.
7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369).
b. This applies only to Congress and COMELEC En Banc as canvassing

boards and does not extend to the canvass proceedings before local
board, Vice-President, and Senators (Pimentel v. COMELEC, 543 SCRA
169).
5. Jurisprudence
a. Issues involving the casting or the counting of the ballots are not proper
in pre-proclamation cases.
i. The use of illegal election propaganda, vote-buying, and

terrorism of the voters are not proper issues in a pre-
proclamation case (Villegas v. COMELEC, 99 SCRA 582).
ii. Questions of appreciation of the ballots cannot be raised in a

pre-proclamation case (Allarde v. COMELEC, 159 SCRA 632;
Bautista v. COMELEC, 159 SCRA 641; Abella v. Larrazabal, 180
SCRA 506; Alfonso v. COMELEC, 232 SCRA 777; Sinsuat v.
COMELEC, 492 SCRA 391) Thus, the claim that a candidate was
not credited with votes cast for him because his name was
similar to that of another disqualified candidate cannot be
raised in a pre-proclamation case (Sanchez v. COMELEC, 211
SCRA 315).
Likewise, the claim that some ballots were spurious, marked or

invalid cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation case. (Patoray v.
iii. Terrorism of voters, voting by flying voters, deprivation of the

right to vote of registered voters, and vote-buying cannot be
raised in a pre-proclamation case (Robes v. COMELEC, 123 SCRA
193; Allarde v. COMELEC, 159 SCRA 632; Lucman v. COMELEC,
462 SCRA 299).
iv. Vote-buying and lack of secrecy in the preparation of ballots are

not proper grounds for a pre-proclamation case (Salazar v.
84
Page 148
v. The claims that voters were allowed to vote without verifying
their identities, that there were discrepancies between the
signatures in the voter’s affidavits and the voting record, and
third persons falsely voted for voters who did not vote are not
proper issues in a pre-proclamation case (Dipatuan v. COMELEC,
185 SCRA 86; Dimaporo v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 769).
vi. Technical examination of the signatures and thumbprints of the

voters to prove substitute voting is not allowed in a pre-
proclamation case (Balindong v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 494).
vii. The padding of the list of voters cannot be raised in a pre-

proclamation case, since it does not involve the election return
(Ututalum v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335).
viii. The fact that the voting was sham or minimal is not a ground for
filing a pre-proclamation case, since this is properly cognizable
in an election protest (Salih v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 19).
ix. The fact that the counting of the votes was not completed
because of the explosion of a grenade and that no election was
held cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation case, as these are
irregularities that do not appear on the face of the election
returns (Matalam v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733).
b. Administrative lapses which do not affect the authenticity of election

returns cannot serve as basis for annulling the election return (Ocampo
i. The failure to close the entries in the election returns with the
signatures of the board of election inspectors, lack of seals,
absence of time and date of receipt of the election return by the
board of canvassers, lack of signatures of the watchers of the
petitioner, and lack of authority of the person who received the
election returns do not affect the authenticity of the returns
(Baterina v. COMELEC, 205 SCRA 1).
ii. The lack of inner paper seals in the election returns is not a
proper subject of a pre-proclamation case (Bandala v.
iii. The absence of the signature of the chairman of the board of

inspectors on the voter’s affidavits, list of voters, and voting
records; absence or excess of detachable coupons;
discrepancies between the number of detachable coupons and
the number of ballots; and missing voter’s lists are mere
85
Page 149
administrative omissions and cannot be used as basis to annul
an election return (Arroyo v. House of Representative Electoral
iv. It is the over-all policy of the law to place a premium on an

election return, which appears regular on its face, by imposing
stringent requirements before the certificate of votes may be
used to convert the election return’s authenticity and operate
as an exception to the general rule that in a pre-proclamation
controversy, the inquiry is limited to the four corners of the
election return. In the absence of clearly convincing evidence,
the validity of the election returns must be upheld. Any
plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable
man in the light of experience and of the probabilities of the
situation, should suffice to avoid outright nullification, which
results in disenfranchisement of those who exercised their right
of suffrage. Where COMELEC disregards the principle requiring
“extreme caution” before rejecting election returns, and
proceeds with undue haste in concluding that the election
returns are tampered, it commits a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Doromal v. Biron,
G.R. No. 181809, 17 February 2010).
c. Where the threats of the followers of a candidate did not affect the
genuineness of the election return, it should not be excluded (Salvacion
d. An election return which is statistically improbable is obviously

fabricated and should not be counted.
i. Where the votes cast in 50 precincts for the candidates for

senators of one party equaled the number of registered voters,
all the candidates for senators of that party received the same
number of votes, and all the candidates for senators of the
opposing party got no votes, the election returns are
statistically improbable and are obviously fabricated (Lagumbay
v. Climaco, 16 SCRA 175; Sinsuat v. Pendatun, 33 SCRA 630).
ii. Where only one candidate of a party got all the votes in some
precincts and his opponent got zero, the other candidates of the
other party for other positions received votes, and the number
of votes cast were less than the number of registered voters,
the election returns are not statistically improbable (Sangki v.
COMELEC, 21 SCRA 392; Ocampo v. COMELEC, 325 SCRA 636).
86
Page 150
iii. The mere fact that a candidate got no votes in a few precincts
does not make the election returns statistically improbable
(Velayo v. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 713).
iv. The mere fact that a candidate received overwhelming

majorities over another candidate in numerous precincts does
not make the election returns statistically improbable (Ilarde v.
COMELEC, 31 SCRA 72)
v. The mere fact that the percentage of turnout of voters was high
and that a candidate received a high percentage of the votes
does not make the election returns statistically improbable
(Doruelo v. COMELEC, 133 SCRA 376).
e. Duress in the preparation of an election return cannot be raised in a

pre-proclamation use, because it cannot be decided summarily.
(Sebastian v. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 406; Dumayas v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA
358).
f. Irregularities which do not appear on the face of the election returns,

such as the claim that they were prepared by persons other than the
members of the board of inspectors, cannot be raised in a pre-
proclamation case (Belac v. COMELEC, 356 SCRA 394).
g. A candidate for mayor who finished second cannot be proclaimed

simply because the candidate who received the highest number of votes
died, since he was not the choice of the people (Benito v. COMELEC, 235
SCRA 436).
h. If the votes cast for the candidates exceeded the number of registered
voters, the election return should be considered tampered (Camba v.
i. A petition for disqualification in no way qualifies as a pre-proclamation

controversy if it has absolutely nothing to do with any matter or ground
pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers or
any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus
Election Code in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody and appreciation of the election returns. The enumeration of
pre-proclamation cases in Section 234 is restrictive and exclusive.
(Leodegario A. Labao, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016).
j.
B. Jurisdiction
87
Page 151
1. Questions involving the legality of the composition or proceeding of the board
of canvassers, except Congress, may be raised initially in the board of canvassers
or COMELEC (Secs. 15 and 17, Republic Act No. 7166).
2. Questions involving the election returns and certificates of canvass should be

brought initially before the board of canvassers (Sec. 17, Republic Act No. 7166;
Fernandez v. COMELEC, 504 SCRA 116).
C. Procedure in Contested Composition or Proceeding of Board of Canvassers
The illegality of the composition of the board of canvassers cannot be questioned after
the proclamation of the winner, since it must be raised immediately (Laodenio v.
Since if the district school supervisor is disqualified, it is the school principal who should
replace him, the proclamation made by a board of canvassers in which it was a public
school teacher who replaced the district school supervisor is void (Salic v. COMELEC, 425
SCRA 735).
It is valid for COMELEC to create a committee to investigate an anomalous double

proclamation, where the recommendations of the committee were merely advisory
(Ardais v. COMELEC, 428 SCRA 277).
The annulment of the proclamation of a candidate for vice mayor adjudged in a petition
for annulment of the proclamation of the winning candidate for mayor is valid, where
the losing candidate for vice mayor filed a motion for intervention and the winning
candidate for vice mayor file an answer in intervention (Salic v. COMELEC, 425 SCRA
735).
The ruling of the board of canvassers on questions affecting its composition or

proceeding may be appealed to COMELEC in 3 days, (Sec. 19, Republic Act No. 7166;
Sema v. COMELEC, 347 SCRA 633).
D. Procedure in Case of Contested Returns
1. Objections to an election return shall be submitted orally to the chairman of the

board of canvassers at the time the return is presented for inclusion in the
canvass and shall be entered in the minutes of the canvass. Simultaneous with
the oral objection, the objection shall be entered in the form of written
objections (Sec. 20 (a) and (c), Republic Act No. 7166).
a. An objection made after the canvass is late (Guiao v. COMELEC, 137

SCRA 356; Allarde v. COMELEC, 159 SCRA 632; Navarro v. COMELEC, 228
SCRA 596; Siquian v. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 440).
88
Page 152
b. The submission of an offer of evidence and the affidavits within 24
hours, even if no written objections were submitted, is substantial
compliance (Marabur v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA 696).
c. A petition for correction of the statement of votes may be filed after the
proclamation of the winner, although no objection was made during the
canvass, as the error was discovered only after the petitioner got a copy
of the statement of votes (Villaroya v. COMELEC, 155 SCRA 633;
Duremdez v. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746; Sinsuat v. COMELEC, 485 SCRA
219). It must be filed not later than 5 days after the proclamation (Sec.
5(b), Rule 27 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Trinidad v. COMELEC, 320
SCRA 836). However, COMELEC can entertain the petition even if it was
filed out of time and the proper docket fees were not paid because of
its power to suspend the rules (Barot v. COMELEC, 404 SCRA 352; Milla
v. Balmores-Laxar, 406 SCRA 679; De la Llana v. COMELEC, 416 SCRA
638).
d. However, the five-day deadline is not applicable to a petition for the

annulment of the proclamation of a candidate when it was his opponent
who obtained the majority for what was corrected as not the entries
but the computation of the votes (Mentang v. COMELEC, 229 SCRA 666;
Alejandro v. COMELEC, 481 SCRA 4).
e. COMELEC can annul a proclamation because of an error in the

computation of the votes in the statement of votes, since the
proclamation is void (Torres v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583; Arboneda v.
COMELEC, 518 SCRA 320; Cumligad v. COMELEC, 518 SCRA 551)
f. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for correction of the

certificate of canvass may be filed even before the proclamation of the
winner (Bince v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273; Baddiri v. COMELEC, 459
SCRA 808).
g. A petition for correction of manifest errors in the statement of votes

can be decided by COMELEC En Banc in the first instance, since it does
not involve an election protest or a pre-proclamation case (Ramirez v.
COMELEC has the power to order a correction of the statement of votes

to make it conform to the election returns (Castromayor v. COMELEC,
250 SCRA 298).
2. The canvass of any contested return shall be deferred, and the board of
canvassers shall proceed to canvass the uncontested returns (Sec. 20 (b),
89
Page 153
3. Within 24 hours, the objecting party shall submit evidence in support of the
objections (Sec. 20 (c) Republic Act No. 7166). Failure to comply with this is a
ground for dismissing the objection (Cordero v. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 118).
4. The claim that the boards of election inspectors were intimidated in the
preparation of election returns cannot be proven summarily and must be raised
in an election protest (Chu v. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482; Siquian v. COMELEC, 320
SCRA 440).
5. Within 24 hours after presentation of the objection, a party may file a written
opposition and attach the supporting evidence (Sec. 20 (c), Republic Act No.
7166).
6. The board of canvassers shall summarily rule on the contested returns (Sec. 20
(d), Republic Act No. 7166).
7. A party who intends to appeal should immediately inform the board of

canvassers (Sec. 20 (e), Republic Act No. 7166). Within 48 hours, he must file a
written and verified notice of appeal with the board of canvassers and take his
appeal to COMELEC within 5 days (Sec. 20 (f), Republic Act No. 7166; Sema v.
Filing a pre-proclamation case with COMELEC instead of appealing should be

allowed where the board of canvassers immediately proclaimed the winner
(Jainal v. COMELEC, 517 SCRA 799).
a. Jurisdiction
i. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to review the

decision of the municipal board of canvassers to correct a
certificate of canvass (Cabanero v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA
XXV).
ii. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to compel the

municipal board of canvassers, which suspended the
proclamation because of a possible discrepancy in an election
return, to make a proclamation (In re: COMELEC Resolution No.
2521, 234 SCRA 1).
iii. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to annul the

proclamation of a winning candidate (Gustilo v. Real, 353 SCRA
1).
b. Period of Appeal
90
Page 154
i. Since the proclamation of a candidate who finished second
made after the candidate who got the highest number of votes
was killed is patently void, a late appeal should be allowed
(Benito v. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436).
ii. The COMELEC cannot by regulation shorten the period to

question its decision before the Supreme Court, for under the
Constitution the period of 30 days can be shortened by law only
(Sardea v. COMELEC, 225 SCRA 374).
8. The COMELEC shall decide the appeal within 7 days from receipt of the records,
and the decision shall be executor after 7 days from receipt by the losing party.
(Secs. 18 and 20 (f), Republic Act No. 7166).
9. The pre-proclamation case should no longer be decided if exclusion of the

questioned election returns will not change the result of the election (Matalam
v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733; Basorte v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 76).
10. The board of canvassers shall not make any proclamation without authorization
from COMELEC (Jamil v. COMELEC, 283 SCRA 349; Utto v. COMELEC, 375 SCRA
523; Muñoz v. COMELEC, 486 SCRA 645; Camba v. COMELEC, 543 SCRA 157);
Marabur v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA 696).
a. A proclamation may be made if the contested returns will not adversely

affect the results of the election (Sec. 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166;
Benwaren v. COMELEC, 486 SCRA 645).
b. COMELEC may order the proclamation of other winning candidates

whose election will not be affected by the pre-proclamation case (Sec.
21, Republic Act No. 7166).
11. Termination of Pre-Proclamation Case
a. Once a proclamation has been made, the pre-proclamation case is no

longer viable and should be dismissed (Mangca v. COMELEC, 112 SCRA
273; Padilla v. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424; Casimiro v. COMELEC, 171 SCRA
468; Sardea v. COMELEC, 225 SCRA 374; Siquian v. COMELEC, 320 SCRA
440; Aggabao v. COMELEC, 449 SCRA 400). However, this rule
presupposes the proclamation is valid. It does not apply if the
proclamation is void, because it was based on incomplete returns
(Mutuc v. COMELEC, 22 SCRA 662; Duremdes v. COMELEC, 178 SCRA
746; Castromayor v. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746; Castromayor v.
COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298). This applies if the winner was proclaimed
without ruling on the objections to the inclusion of contested returns
(Espidol v. COMELEC, 472 SCRA 380, Jainal v. COMELEC, 517 SCRA 799).
91
Page 155
The same holds true if the returns were manufactured (Agbayani v.
The same holds true where the computation of votes was erroneous
(Tatlonghari v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 849; Mentang v. COMELEC, 229
SCRA 669).
b. The filing in the Regional Trial Court of a petition to annul a premature

proclamation is not an abandonment of the pre-proclamation case,
because the court has jurisdiction over it (Dumayas v. COMELEC, 357
SCRA 358).
c. The filing of a protest implies abandonment of the pre-proclamation

case (Sinsuat v. COMELEC, 492 SCRA 391). This applies to a petition for
correction of manifest errors, since it is a pre-proclamation case (Cerbo
v. COMELEC, 516 SCRA 51). This rule does not apply if the protest was
filed as a precautionary measure (Tuburan v. Ballecer, 24 SCRA 941;
Agbayani v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 484; Mitmug v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA
484; Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54). The filing of an election protest
results in abandonment of a pre-proclamation case even if the protest
alleged it was filed as a precautionary measure, if it did not explain why
(Laodenio v. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705).
d. The rule that the filing of an election protest implies the abandonment
of the pre-proclamation case does not apply if the board of canvassers
was improperly constituted, as when the Municipal Treasurer took over
the canvassing without having been designated (Samad v. COMELEC,
224 SCRA 631).
e. A pre-proclamation case and an election protest can be filed

simultaneously because they involve different issues (Tan v. COMELEC,
507 SCRA 352).
f. All pre-proclamation cases pending before COMELEC shall be

terminated at the beginning of the term of the office concerned, and
the rulings of the board of canvassers shall be deemed affirmed,
without prejudice to the filing of an election protest. (Sarmiento v.
COMELEC, 212 SCRA 307; Verceles v. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 159;
Penaflorida v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 241; Sison v. COMELEC, 304 SCRA
170).
g. If the petition appears meritorious on the basis of the evidence

presented so far, COMELEC or the Supreme Court may order the case to
continue (Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 7166).
XIV. AUTOMATED ELECTIONS
92
Page 156
A. Features
Statutory Bases. Republic Act No. 9369 amending R.A. No. 8436
Automated Election System (AES). The following processes can be automated – voting,
counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission. The AES may either be a paper-
based or direct recording election system for the use of ballots, election returns,
certificate of canvass, and statement of votes. COMELEC has discretion to provide an
AES or AESs or a paper-based or direct recoding election system. The AES must provide
for use of ballots, stand-alone machine, with audit trails, minimum human intervention
and security measures.
Voting Procedure. The basic steps of the procedure are: Voter gets ballots from Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI); Voter fills up ballot in voting booth (spoil only 1x); Voter affixes
thumbmark on voting record; BEI applies indelible ink; and Voter drops ballot in ballot
box.
Counting-Canvassing Procedures. Counting at Counting Centers as ballots arrive; Printing

of Election Returns (30 copies) at precinct-level then Electronic Transmission to Board of
Canvassers; Results loaded in Data Storage Devices; Consolidation of Results in Data
Storage Devices then Electronic Transmission to COMELEC (Senate and Party-List) and
Congress (President and Vice-President) and Proclamation.
Pre-Proclamation Cases. Objections pertaining to Proceedings and Composition of Board

of Canvassers, and where Data-Storage Delayed, Destroyed, Falsified (before canvass)
allowed. Not allowed are the following objections: material defects, manifest errors,
rules of appreciation; violence, voting procedure, and eligibility of voters.
Random Manual Audit. As mandated by law, there shall be a manual audit of the
precinct vote count results generated by the automated voting and/or counting
machine used for the election in one randomly selected precinct from each of the
legislative districts in the country (See Sec. 1 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10458,
December 15, 2018).
B. Jurisprudence
As COMELEC is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of COMELEC’s
mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of the extension
of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the Deed of Sale,
are the more prudent choices available to COMELEC for a successful 2013 automated
elections. (Capalla, et. al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201121/201127/201413, 13 June 2012)
The source code is the “human readable instructions that define what the computer
equipment will do.” It is the master blueprint that reveals and determines how the
93
Page 157
machine will behave. These are analogous to the procedures provided to election
workers. The review of the source code that any interested political party or group may
conduct is for security reasons and must be conducted “under a controlled
environment” to determine the presence of any error and claims of fraud. Section 12 of
R.A. No. 9369 states that, “once an Automated Election System (AES) technology is
selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of
that technology available and open to any interested political party or groups which may
conduct their own review thereof.” The only excusable reason not to comply with the
said requirement is that the said source code was not yet available when an interested
party asked for it (Center for People Empowerment in Governance v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
189546, 21 September 2010).
The COMELEC may conduct automated election even if there is no pilot testing.
(Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. 159139, 13
January 2004).
The contract to automate may be awarded to the private sector, provided the solutions
provider is under the supervision and control of COMELEC. This is not an abdication of
the constitutionally mandated duty of COMELEC.
COMELEC has no authority to provide for the electronic transmission of the results of
the elections in the precincts to COMELEC which it will use for an advanced unofficial
tabulation since there is no appropriation for the project and that there is no law which
authorizes COMELEC to augment funds from savings (Brillantes v. COMELEC, 432 SCRA
269).
COMELEC has no authority to use automated counting machines in the 2004

Synchronized Elections when the purchase contract was in violation of laws,
jurisprudence and its bidding rules, and the hardware and software failed to pass legally
mandated technical requirements (Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. 159139, 13 January 2004).
The VVPAT ensures that the candidates selected by the voter in his or her ballot are the
candidates voted upon and recorded by the vote-counting machine. The voter
himself or herself verifies the accuracy of the vote. In instances of Random Manual
Audit and election protests, the VVPAT becomes the best source of raw data for
votes (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 222731, March 8, 2016).
There is no clear violation of the Constitution which would warrant a pronouncement

that Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 8436, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 9369,
are unconstitutional and void. The power to enforce and administer R.A. No. 8436, as
amended by R.A. No. 9369, is still exclusively lodged in the COMELEC, and the Advisory
Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee may not substitute its own opinion for
the judgment of the COMELEC (Glenn A. Chong v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No.
217725, May 31, 2016).
94
Page 158
XV. ELECTION CONTESTS
A. Distinction between Election Protest and Quo Warranto
1. An election protest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. The Supreme

Court has no jurisdiction over cases brought directly before it questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency, before the elections are held.
Ordinary usage would characterize a “contest” in reference to a post-election
scenario. Election contests consist of either an election protest or a quo
warranto which, although two distinct remedies, would have one objective in
view, i.e., to dislodge the winning candidate from office (Tecson v. COMELEC,
424 SCRA 277).
2. Election protest refers to an election contest relating to the election and returns
of elective officials, grounded on frauds or irregularities in the conduct of the
elections, the casting and counting of the ballots and the preparation and
canvassing of returns. The issue is who obtained the plurality of valid votes cast.
(Sec. 3 (c), Rule 1, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
3. Quo warranto refers to an election contest relating to the qualifications of an

election official on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines. The issue is whether the respondent possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 1, Rules of
Procedure in Election Contests).
4. While an elective official may only be considered a presumptive winner as his/

her proclamation was under protest, does not make him/ her less than a duly
elected official (Ong v. Alegre, G.R. No. 163295, 23 January 2006).
5. Certiorari, not an election protest or quo warranto, is the proper recourse to

review a COMELEC resolution approving the withdrawal of the nomination of its
original nominees and substituting them with others even if the substitute
nominees have already been proclaimed and have taken their oath of office
(Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179431-32, 22 June 2010).
B. Compared with Pre-Proclamation Cases
In a regular election protest, the parties may litigate all the legal and factual issues
raised by them inasmuch detail as they may deem necessary or appropriate. Issues such
as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution of which would
compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear
to be prima facie regular, on their face, are proper for election protests, not pre-
proclamation cases. Proceedings in a pre-proclamation controversy are summary in
nature. Reception of evidence aliunde, such as the List of Voters with Voting Record is
proscribed (Lucman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 166229, 29 June 2005).
95
Page 159
C. Jurisdiction
1. Supreme Court (Presidential Electoral Tribunal)
a. President
b. Vice President (Sec. 4, Art VII of the Constitution)
2. Senate Electoral Tribunal – Senators (Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution)
3. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal – Congressmen (Sec. 17, Art. VI of

the Constitution, Sampayan v. Daza, 213 SCRA 807)
4. COMELEC
a. Regional officials
b. Provincial officials
c. City officials (Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C of the Constitution, Sec. 249, Omnibus
Election Code)
5. Regional Trial Court – Municipal officials (Sec. (2), Art. IX-C of the Constitution;
Sec. 251, Omnibus Election Code; Papandayan v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 469)
6. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and Municipal Trial Court
– Barangay officials (Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C of Constitution; Sec. 252, Omnibus
Election Code; Regatcho v. Cleto, 126 SCRA 342)
7. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and Municipal Trial Court
- Sangguniang Kabataan (Sec. 1, No. 7809; Marquez v. COMELEC, 313 SCRA 103)
D. Best Evidence
The ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the
correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved (Delos Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 170070, 28 February 2007).
Testimonial evidence may be adduced if there are allegations and reports that the
ballots are spurious. Examination of the ballots is not enough in this case (Rosal v.
They should be available and their integrity preserved from the day of election until
revision for the rule to apply. In cases where such ballots are unavailable or cannot be
produced, the untampered and unaltered election returns or other election documents
96
Page 160
may be used as evidence. No evidentiary value can be given to the ballots where a ballot
box is found in such a condition as would raise a reasonable suspicion that unauthorized
persons could have gained unlawful access to its contents (Sema v. HRET, G.R. No.
190734, 26 March 2010). When authentic ballots have been replaced by fake ones, the
physical count of votes in the precincts as determined during the revision of the ballots
cannot be considered the correct number of votes cast. The election returns shall be
basis of the votes (Torres v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 351 SCRA 312).
There is no need to resort to revision when the protestant concedes the correctness of
the ballot results concerning the number of votes obtained by both protestant and
protestee, and reflected in the election returns. The constitutional function, as well as
the power and duty to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualification of the President and Vice-President, is expressly vested in the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, and includes the duty to correct manifest errors in the
Statement of Votes and Certificates of Canvass (Legarda v. De Castro, PET Case No. 003,
31 March 2005).
E. Procedure
1. Periods for filing contest
The prescriptive period ought to be reckoned from the actual date of proclamation, not
from notice through service of a COCP, since the losing candidates are not even required
to be served a copy of the COCP in the first place. (Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216691,
July 21, 2015)
a. Periods
i. President and Vice President
1) Protest – 30 days (Rule 14, Rules of Presidential

Electoral Tribunal)
2) Quo warranto – 10 days (Rule 15, Rules of Presidential

Electoral Tribunal)
ii. Senators
1) Protest – 15 days (Rule 14, Revised Rules of Senate

Electoral Tribunal)
2) Quo warranto – 10 days (Rules 15, Revised Rules of

Senate Electoral Tribunal)
iii. Congressmen – 10 days (Rules 16 and 17, 1998 Rules of House

of Representative Electoral Tribunal)
97
Page 161
iv. Regional, provincial and city official – 10 days (Secs. 250 and
253, Omnibus Election Code; Republic v. De la Rosa, 232 SCRA
78)
v. Municipal officials – 10 days (Secs. 251 and 253, Omnibus

Election Code)
vi. Barangay officials – 10 days (Secs. 252 and 253, Omnibus

Election Code)
vii. Sangguniang Kabataan – 10 days (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 7808)
b. Exceptions
i. The period to file an election protest or quo warranto case is

suspended from the filing of a pre-proclamation case until
receipt of the order dismissing the case (Sec. 248, Omnibus
Election Code; Esquivel v. COMELEC, 121 SCRA 786; Resurreccion
v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 1; Marino v. COMELEC, 135 SCRA 546;
Macias v. COMELEC, 182 SCRA 137; Gatchalian v. Court of
Appeals, 245 SCRA 208). This rule applies even if the pre-
proclamation was filed by a candidate other than the one who
filed the election protest (Tan v. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 352). If
the dismissal was elevated to the Supreme Court, the period
does not run until receipt of the dismissal by the Supreme
Court, because review by the Supreme Court is part of the
proceeding (Gallardo v. Rimando, 187 SCRA 463).
ii. The period to file an election protest is suspended by the filing

of a petition to annul the proclamation of the winner (Manahan
v. Bernardo, 283 SCRA 505).
iii. Since the filing of a pre-proclamation case merely suspends the

running of the period to file an election protest, only the
balance of the period is left in case of its dismissal (Roquero v.
iv. Where the evidence of the lack of Filipino citizenship of a

provincial official was discovered only 8 months after his
proclamation, the quo warranto case should be allowed even if
it was filed more than 10 days after his proclamation (Frivaldo v.
98
Page 162
v. Since an action for a declaration of a failure of election is not a
pre-proclamation case, its filing does not suspend the period to
file an election protest (Dagloc v. COMELEC, 321 SCRA 273).
2. Protestant or petitioner
a. President and Vice President
i. Protest – Candidate with second or third highest number of

votes (Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal)
ii. Quo warranto – any voter (Rule 15, Rules of Presidential

Electoral Tribunal)
b. Senator
i. Protest – any candidate (Rule 14, Revised Rules of Senate

Electoral Tribunal)
ii. Quo warranto – any voter (Rule 15, 1998 Rules of Senate
Electoral Tribunal)
c. Congressman
i. Protest – Any candidate (Rule 16, 1998 Rules of House of

Representatives Electoral Tribunal)
ii. Quo warranto – any voter (Rule 17, 1988 Rules of House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal). If COMELEC executed
immediately its resolution disallowing the substitution of a
withdraw candidate despite the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration, the substitute can file a protest. (Roces v.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 469 SCRA 681)
d. Regional, provincial, and city officials
i. Protest – any candidate (Sec. 250, Omnibus Election Code)
ii. Quo warranto – any voter (Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code)
e. Municipal officials
i. Protest – any candidate 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 (Sec.
5, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
99
Page 163
ii. Quo Warranto in Election Contests – any voter who voted in the
election concerned (Sec. 6, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure in Election
Contests).
f. Barangay Officials

the next four candidates following the last ranked winner (Sec.
ii. Quo warranto – any voter who voted in the election concerned.
(Sec. 6, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
g. Sangguniang Kabataan

the nest four candidates following the last ranked winner (Sec.
ii. Quo warranto – any voter who voted in the election concerned.
(Sec. 6, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
3. Payment of docket fee
The payment of the docket fee beyond the period for filing the election protest
is fatal to the election protest (Melendres v. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 262; Soller v.
Where the protestant included a claim for attorney’s fees in his election protest
and paid the docket fee for his claim for attorney’s fees but did not pay the
basic docket fee for the election protest, the election protest should be
dismissed (Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 208).
• See contrary rulings in Pahilan v. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205 and Enojas v.
Gacott, 322 SCRA 272.
The protestee is stopped to question the insufficiency of the docket fee paid, if
he filed a counter-protest and actively participated in the proceedings
(Navarosa v. COMELEC, 411 SCRA 369; Villagracia v. COMELEC, 513 SCRA 655;
Mañago v. COMELEC, 533 SCRA 669).
4. Payment of Cash Deposit
100
Page 164
A petition for quo warranto may be dismissed for failure to pay the prescribed
cash deposit upon its filing (Garcia v. House of Representatives Electoral
5. Allegations in protests
a. Regional, Provincial and City Officials
i. An election protest should contain the following jurisdictional

allegations.
1) The protestant is a candidate who duly filed a certificate

of candidacy and was voted for in the election
2) The protestee has been proclaimed elected
3) The date of the proclamation (Miro v. COMELEC, 121

SCRA 466)
An election protest which does not specify the precinct

where the alleged irregularities occurred is fatally
defective (Pena v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, 270 SCRA 340). However, if the protest states
that the election returns from all the precincts are being
questioned, there is no need to specify the precincts
involved in the protest (Saquilayan v. COMELEC, 416
SCRA 658)
ii. Substantial compliance is sufficient. Thus, the following

allegations sufficiently comply with the first requirement:
1) The protestant received a certain number of votes (Anis

v. Contreras, 55 Phil. 923).
2) The protestant finished second in the election (Ali v.

Court of First Instance of Lanao, 80 Phil. 506)
3) The protestant was a candidate voted for in the election

with a valid certificate of candidacy for mayor (Pamania
v. Pilapil, 81 Phil. 212).
4) The protestant was one of the registered candidates

voted for and he received a certain number of votes
(Jalandoni v. Sarcon, 94 Phil. 266).
101
Page 165
5) The protestant was the official candidate of a particular
political party and received a certain number of votes.
(Maquinay v. Bleza, 100 SCRA 702).
6) The protestant was a candidate for governor and was

voted for (Macias v. COMELEC, 182 SCRA 137).
iii. Even if the protest did not allege the date of the proclamation,
it can be determined from the records of the case that it was
filed on time, as when the protest was filed on the tenth from
the date the casting of votes was held, the protest should not
be dismissed (Miro v. COMELEC, 121 SCRA 466).
b. Municipal, Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Officials
An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall state the

following:
i. The position involved;
ii. The date of proclamation;
iii. The number of votes credited to the parties per proclamation
An election protest shall also state:
iv. The total number of precincts of the municipality or the

barangay;
v. The protested precincts and the votes of the parties in the

protested precincts, per the statement of votes by precincts or,
if the votes of the parties are not specified, an explanation why
the votes are not specified; and
vi. A detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of

showing the electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities in the
protested precincts (Sec. 11, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure in
Election Contests).
6. Verification
An election protest must be properly verified (Sec. 7, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure

in Election Contests; Soller v. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 685).
7. Certificate of absence of forum shopping
102
Page 166
a. The requirement that every initial pleading should contain a
certification of absence of forum shopping applies to election cases
(Sec. 7, Rule 2, Rules of Proceeding in Election Contests; Loyola v. Court
of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477; Tomarong v. Lubguban, 269 SCRA 624; Soller
b. The filing of the certification of absence of forum shopping after the

filing of the protest but within the period for filing a protest is
substantial compliance (Loyola v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477). The
filing of the certification after the period for filing a protest is not
substantial compliance (Tomarong v. Lubguban, 269 SCRA 624). The
same is true if it was submitted after the protestee filed a motion to
dismiss the election protest on this ground (Batoy v. COMELEC, 397
SCRA 506).
c. COMELEC's rules of procedure on certifications of non-forum shopping

should be liberally construed, and COMELEC's interpretation of such
rules in accordance with its constitutional mandate should carry great
weight (Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019).
8. Joinder of election protest and quo warranto case
a. An election protest and quo warranto case cannot be filed jointly in the
same proceeding (Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests;
De la Rosa v. Yonson, 52 Phil 446; Luison v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-10916,
May 20, 1957). However, they can be filed separately (Luison v. Garcia,
G.R. No. L-10916, May 20, 1957).
b. If they were joined in a action, they should be ordered separated (Pacal

v. Ramos, 81 Phil. 30).
9. Composition of Board of Canvassers
The illegality of the composition of the board of canvassers cannot be raised in a

quo warranto case, as only the ineligibility or disloyalty of the winner can be
raised in such case (Samad v. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631).
10. Change of theory
Substantial amendments to the election protest cannot be made after the

expiration of the period for filing an election protest (Arroyo v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 246 SCRA 384).
11. Summary dismissal
103
Page 167
The court shall 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;
c) The petition is filed beyond the prescribed period;
d) The filing fee was not paid within the period for the filing of election
protest or petition for quo warranto;
e) The cash deposit was not paid within five days from the filing of the
protest (Sec. 13, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 allows an appellant to pay the COMELEC appeal
fee at the COMELEC's Cash Division through the ECAD or by postal money order
payable to the COMELEC within a period of 15 days from the time of the filing of
the notice of appeal in the trial court. COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, for all
intents and purposes, extended the period provided for the filing of the
COMELEC appeal fee under Section 4, Rule 40 in relation to Section 3, Rule 22 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Bungcaras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209415-17,
November 15, 2016).
12. Prohibited Pleadings
a. Regional, provincial and city officials
The following pleadings are not allowed:
i. Motion to dismiss;
ii. Motion for a bill of particulars;
iii. Motion for extension of time to file memorandum of brief;
iv. Motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling, resolution or

decision except in election offense cases;
v. Motion for reopening or rehearing of a case;
vi. Reply in special actions and special cases;
vii. Supplemental pleadings in special actions and in special cases

(Rule 13, COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
104
Page 168
b. Municipal, barangay and Sangguniang kabataan officials.
The following pleadings are not allowed:
v. Motion to dismiss except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter;
vi. Motion for a bill of particulars;
vii. Demurrer to evidence;
viii. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment or for

reopening of trial;
ix. Petition for relief from judgment;
x. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or

other papers;
xi. Memoranda except memoranda within a non-extensible period

of ten days from receipt of its ruling on the last offer of exhibits;
xii. Motion to declare the protestee or respondent in default;
xiii. Dilatory motion for postponement
xiv. Motion to inhibit the judge except on clearly valid grounds;
xv. Reply or rejoinder; and
xvi. Third-party complainant (Sec. 1, Rule 6, Rules of Procedure in

Election Contests).
13. Answer
a. Effect of failure to answer
i. Regional, provincial and city officials
A general denial shall be deemed to have been entered (Sec. 4,

Rule 20, COMELEC Rules of Procedure).
ii. Municipal, barangay and Sangguniang kabataan officials
1) The court shall render judgment on the basis of the

allegations of the election protest or petition for quo
105
Page 169
warranto unless it requires in its discretion the
protestant or petitioner to present evidence ex parte.
2) In the case of election contests involving ballot revision,

the court shall order revision of ballots, and the
protestee or his representative has the right to be
presented and observe without the right to object (Sec.
b. Effect of late filing
An answer filed out of time cannot be admitted (Kho v. COMELEC, 279

SCRA 463; Baltazar v. COMELEC, 350 SCRA 518).
Where the answer of the protestee was filed out of time and a general
denial was entered in favor of the protestee, the rule in civil cases that a
general denial operates as an admission is not applicable (Loyola v.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 229 SCRA 90).
A counter protest cannot be allowed if the answer was filed out of time.
(Lim v. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 53).
14. Cash deposit
A protestee who file a counterclaim for attorney’s fees cannot be required to

file a cash deposit, since a cash deposit is required only for a counter-protest.
(Roa v. Inting, 231 SCRA 57).
15. Injunction
A protestee cannot be enjoined from assuming office because of the pendency

of an election protest. Until the case is decided against him, he has the right to
assume office (Cereno v. Dictado, 160 SCRA 759).
16. Interlocutory Orders
Interlocutory orders issued by a division of COMELEC cannot be elevated to

COMELEC En Banc (Kho v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 463).
17. Correction of Manifest Errors
Correction of manifest errors in the statements of votes and certificates of

canvass can be made if the protestee admits the errors (Legarda v. De Castro,
454 SCRA 242).
18. Substitution
106
Page 170
COMELEC Resolution No. 10420, September 7, 2018
Section 33. Substitution of Candidates in Case of Death, Disqualification or

Withdrawal of Another. - An official candidate of a duly registered PP or
Coalition who dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause after the last day
for the filing of COCs may be substituted by a candidate belonging to, and
nominated by, the same PP or Coalition.
No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate.
The substitute of a candidate who died, withdrew his candidacy, or was

disqualified may file a COC for the Office affected on or before November 29,
2018 so that the name of the substitute will be reflected on the official ballots.
The substitute for a candidate who died, withdrew his candidacy, or was
disqualified by final judgment, may file a COC up to mid-day of Election Day;
Provided that, the substitute and the substituted have the same surnames.
If the withdrawal, death or disqualification should occur between the day

before the election and mid-day of Election Day, the substitute candidate may
file a COC with any Board of Election Inspectors, Election Officers, Provincial
Election Supervisor or Regional Election Director, as the case may be, in the
political subdivision where such person is a candidate, or in the case of a
candidate for Senator, with the Law Department; Provided that, the substitute
and the substituted candidate have the same surnames.
a. Even if the protestee has resigned, the protest should continue, as a

favorable judgment will entitle the protestant to assume the office (De
los Angeles v. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 599). The same holds true if the
protestee accepted another position (Calvo v. Maramba, G.R. No.
13206, January 7, 1918).
b. If the protestee died, he should be substituted by his successor, such as

the vice mayor (De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533; Silverio v. Castro, 19
SCRA 520; De la Victoria v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 561; Pagaduan v.
COMELEC, 519 SCRA 512). He cannot be substituted by his heirs, since
public office cannot be inherited (De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533; De
la Victoria v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 561; Abeja v. Tanada, 236 SCRA 60).
c. If it is the protestant who died, he should be substituted by the public

official who would have succeeded him, such as the vice mayor.
(Lomugdang v. Javier, 19 SCRA 402; Unda v. COMELEC, 190 SCRA 827;
De Castro v. COMELEC, 267 SCRA 806).
107
Page 171
d. A candidate who was elected but was later disqualified for failing to
meet the residency requirement was never a valid candidate from the
very beginning, and was merely a de facto officer. The eligible candidate
who garnered the highest number of votes must assume the office. The
rule on succession in the Local Government Code does not apply
(Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193314, 25 June 2013; Ty-Delgado v.
e. The rule on succession under Section 45 would not apply if the

permanent vacancy was caused by one whose certificate of candidacy
was void ab initio. Specifically, with respect to dual citizens, their
certificates of candidacy are void ab initio because they possess “a
substantive [disqualifying circumstance] [existing] prior to the filing of
their certificate of candidacy.” Legally, they should not even be
considered candidates. The votes casted for them should be considered
stray and should not be counted (Arlene Llena Empaynado v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016).
19. Abandonment of protest
A defeated candidate who filed an election protest and ran for another office
should be deemed to have abandoned the protest (Santiago v. Ramos, 253
SCRA 559; Idulza v. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 701; Legarda v. de Castro, 542 SCRA
125).
20. Summary judgment
An election protest cannot be decided by summary judgment, as summary

judgment applies only to ordinary civil actions for recovery of money (Dayo v.
COMELEC, 199 SCR 449).
21. Opening of ballot boxes
When an election protest is filed, the ballot boxes should be opened without
requiring proof of irregularities and misappreciation of the ballots (Jaguros v.
Villamor, 134 SCRA 553; Crispino v. Panganiban, 219 SCRA 621; Manahan v.
Bernardo, 283 SCRA 505; Miguel v. COMELEC, 335 SCRA 172).
A partial revision of the ballots is erroneous (Jaucian v. Espinas, 382 SCRA 11).
The revision of the ballots in an election protest filed with COMELEC should be
held in Manila (Cabagnot v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 503)
108
Page 172
If the same ballots are involved in election protests pending in the Regional Trial
Court and in COMELEC, COMELEC may allow the Regional Trial Court to first
take custody of the ballot boxes (Quintos v. COMELEC, 392 SCRA 489).
If the ballots were substituted after the counting, the result of the election must
be determined on the basis of the election returns (Torres v. House of
22. Certiorari
Under Section 50 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, COMELEC has jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases
pending before courts whose decisions are appealable to it (Relampagos v.
Cumba, 243 SCRA 690; Edding v. COMELEC, 246 SCRA 502; Beso v. Aballe, 326
SCRA 100).
Where a petition for certiorari merely questioned the denial of the motion of
the protestee for extension of time to answer, COMELEC cannot affirm the
decision on the merits in the election protest (Acosta v. COMELEC, 293 SCRA
578).
23. Revision Process
The objective of the revision process of mimicking or verifying/confirming how

the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) read or counted the votes can be achieved
by referring to the election returns (ERs) generated by the VCMs used in the
2016 elections. In the segregation of the ballots of the parties, the PET Head
Revisors shall be guided by the number of votes indicated in the ERs. In this way,
the reading of the VCM is mimicked and verified/confirmed. Also, in using the
ERs generated by the VCMs used in the 2016 elections and not merely adopting
a specific shading threshold, the Tribunal’s revision procedure will be more
flexible and adaptive to calibrations of the voting or counting machines in the
future. After the revision process, all objections and claims raised by both Party
A and Party B shall be resolved by the Tribunal during the appreciation stage,
taking into consideration the intent of the voters. As such, the votes of the
parties counted during the revision stage are only preliminary figures as the
Tribunal may reject or admit votes, taking into consideration the objections and
claims of the parties (Marcos v. Robredo, PET Case No. 005, 18 September 2018
[Resolution]).
24. Evidence
The genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots can be determined without

calling handwriting experts (Erni v. COMELEC, 243 SCRA 706).
109
Page 173
Unless the original documents or certified true copies of them cannot be
produced, mere photo-copies cannot be used as evidence (Arroyo v. House of
Ballots cannot be excluded on the ground that they were written by one person
or were marked, on the basis of mere photo-copies, as they are not the best
evidence (Nazareno v. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 89).
The COMELEC can order a technical examination of the signature and

thumbmarks of the voters where there were irregularities in the preparation of
the ballots (Mohamad v. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 298).
A motion for technical examination filed after completion of the revision of the
ballots should be denied (Dimaporo v. House of Representatives Electoral
The proposed testimonies of chairman of the boards of inspectors to prove that

their signatures on the back of the ballots were spurious were properly
excluded to avoid delay (Batul v. Bayron, 424 SCRA 26).
The filing of a protest before the BEI is not required before COMELEC acquires
jurisdiction over the present election protest. Jurisdiction is conferred only by
law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the
parties (Panlilio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181478, 15 July 2009).
The picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are
likewise “official ballots” that faithfully captures in electronic form the votes
cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369. The printouts of
the picture images of the ballots are the functional equivalent of the ballots and
may be used for revision of votes in the electoral protest (Vinzons-Chato v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 199149, 22 January 2013).
The official ballot and its picture image are considered original documents which
simply means that both of them are given equal probative weight. When either
is presented as evidence, one is not considered weightier than the other
(Maliksi v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203302, 12 March 2013).
For purposes of the revision process, the decrypted ballot images may be used
during limited instances as listed in Rule 74 of the 2018 Revisor’s Guide. Even as
early as the 2010 PET Rules, the use of the printed ballot images had been
allowed in instances where the integrity of the ballots and the ballot box was
not preserved (Marcos v. Robredo, PET Case No. 005, 18 September 2018
[Resolution]).
25. Post revision determination of merits
110
Page 174
After the revision of ballots in election contest involving municipal, barangay
and Sangguniang kabataan officials, the protestant shall pinpoint twenty per
cent of the precincts that best attest to the votes recovered or best exemplifies
the frauds or irregularities. The court shall determine the merits of the protest
and may dismiss the protest or proceed with the revision of the ballots in the
counter-protested precincts (Sec. 9, Rule 10, Rules of Procedure in Election
Contests).
26. Decision
a. Losing candidates who were not parties to an election contest should be

proclaimed elected, if they obtained the plurality of the votes (Idulza v.
b. An authentic election return cannot be annulled because the ballots

were lost or destroyed (Arroyo v. House of Representatives Electoral
c. If the winner is ineligible, the candidate who got the next highest
number of votes cannot be proclaimed elected, as he did not get the
majority or plurality of the votes. (Luison v. Garcia, 103 Phil. 453; Labo v.
COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1; Abella v. COMELEC, 201 SCRA 253; Labo v.
COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297; Republic v. De la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785; Aquino
v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400; Garvida v. Salas, 271 SCRA 767; Nolasco v.
COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762; Sunga v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76; Recabo v.
COMELEC, 308 SCRA 793; Domino v. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 546; Miranda
v. Abeja, 311 SCRA 610; Loreto v. Brion, 311 SCRA 694; Codilla v. De
Venecia, 393 SCRA 639; Latasa v. COMELEC, 417 SCRA 601; Idulza v.
COMELEC, 427 SCRA 701; Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, 432 SCRA 144; Albaña v. COMELEC, 435 SCRA 98; Sinsuat v.
Thus, if the winning candidate for mayor is disqualified, the vice mayor
should succeed to the position (Kare v. COMELEC, 428 SCRA 264).
d. Actual damages may be awarded in accordance with law (Sec. 259,

What is patently clear from Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code is
that only actual or compensatory damages may be awarded in election
contests. The above provision is a stark contrast to the aforestated
provisions in the past election codes that expressly permit the award of
moral and exemplary damages. As the Court concluded in Atienza, the
omission of the provisions allowing for moral and exemplary damages in
the current Omnibus Election Code clearly underscores the legislative
intent to do away with the award of damages other than those specified
111
Page 175
in Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code, i.e., actual or
compensatory damages (Bungcaras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209415-17,
November 15, 2016).
The loser cannot be ordered to reimburse the winner for the expenses
incurred in the election protest, for no law provides for it (Atienza v.
When a decision in an election protest includes a monetary award for

damages, the issue of the said award is not rendered moot upon the
expiration of the term of office that is contested in the election protest
(Bungcaras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209415-17, November 15, 2016).
e. The mere fact that the decision in favor of the protestant was reversed
on appeal is not sufficient basis for ruling that the protestee should be
awarded attorney’s fees, because the protest was filed for harassment.
(Malaluan v. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397).
f. The issue of which of the candidates won in a prior election is rendered

moot upon the occurrence of a subsequent election since it is
impossible to assume office for the previous term. (Chua v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 236573, August 14, 2018).
27. Mandamus
A petition for mandamus will lie against the Speaker of the House and the
House Secretary General for not performing their ministerial duties to
administer the oath of the second placer and enter his name in the Roll of
Members of the House of Representatives, when the winner’s COC had been
cancelled due to ineligibility. (Velasco v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, 12 January
2016)
28. Execution pending appeal
a. Discretionary
A writ of execution pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration

of a decision of the division is not granted as a matter of right. The
discretion belongs to the division that rendered the assailed decision,
order or resolution, or the COMELEC En Banc as the case may be. Such
issuance becomes a ministerial duty that may be dispensed with even
just by the Presiding Commissioner (Saludaga v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
189431 & 191120, 7 April 2010).
112
Page 176
b. Regional, provincial and city officials
Execution pending appeal cannot be ordered on the basis of gratuitous

allegations that public interest is involved and that the appeal is dilatory
(Camlian v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 757).
If the decision did not explain the basis of the rulings on the contested
ballots, execution pending appeal cannot be ordered, as there is no
strong evidence of the will of the electorate pending appeal (Astarul v.
The fact that the term is about to end, public interest, and the filing of a
bond are good reasons for ordering execution pending appeal in favor
of the protestant (Garcia v. De Jesus, 206 SCRA 779; Abeja v. Tanada,
236 SCRA 60; Malaluan v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 413; Lindo v. COMELEC,
274 SCRA 211; Ramas v. COMELEC, 286 SCRA 180; Alvarez v. COMELEC,
353 SCRA 434). Execution pending appeal may be ordered on the basis
of the combination of two or more of the following reasons: (1) public
interest or the will of the people; (2) the shortness of the remaining
portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time
that the election contest has been pending (Santos v. COMELEC, 399
SCRA 611; Navarosa v. COMELEC, 411 SCRA 369, Batul v. Bayron, 424
SCRA 26).
A motion for execution pending appeal filed after the expiration of the
period to appeal can no longer be granted (Relampagos v. Cumba, 243
SCRA 690).
c. Municipal, barangay and Sangguniang kabataan officials.
Execution pending appeal may be ordered on the basis of the following

reasons: (1) superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the
injury or damage should the losing party secure reversal of the
judgment or appeal; and (2) it is manifest in the decision that the victory
of the protestant has been clearly established.
The aggrieved has twenty day to secure a restraining order or status

quo order from the Supreme Court or COMELEC. Otherwise, the writ of
execution shall issue (Sec. 11, Rule 14, Rules of Procedure in Election
Contests; Pecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 182865, December 24, 2008).
29. Motion for reconsideration
a. One motion for reconsideration is allowed in the election contests

involving the following:
113
Page 177
i. President – 10 days
ii. Vice President – 10 days (Rule 65, Rules of Presidential Electoral

Tribunal)
iii. Senator – 10 days (Rule 64, Revised Rules of Senate Electoral

Tribunal)
iv. Congressman – 10 days (Rule 74, 1998 Rules of House of

Representative Electoral Tribunal)
v. Regional, provincial and city officials – 5 days (Sec. 2, Rule 19,

COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
b. No motion for reconsideration is allowed in election contests involving

the following:
i. Municipal officials (Sec. 256, Omnibus Election Code; Veloria v.

However, this rule should not be applied to the dismissal of an

election protest for failure of the counsel of the protestant to
appear at the pre-trial, since pre-trial is not applicable to
election protests (Pangilinan v. De Ocampo, 232 SCRA XXXII).
ii. Barangay and Sangguniang kabataan officials – (Sec. 1, Rule 6,

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
iii. A motion for reconsideration of the decision of COMELEC may

be filed within 5 days (Sec. 2, Rule 19; COMELEC Rules of
Procedure; San Juan v. COMELEC, 531 SCRA 178).
c. Since only decisions of the COMELEC En Banc may be elevated to the

Supreme Court a party who did not file a motion for reconsideration of
a decision of a division of COMELEC cannot elevate the case to the
Supreme Court (Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, 244
SCRA 41).
d. Appeals from decisions of the MeTC in election protest cases are
classified as ordinary actions under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. As
such, decisions or resolutions pertaining to the same shall become final
and executory after thirty (30) days from promulgation. The concerned
party, however, may file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court
to interrupt the period and challenge the ruling on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion (Chua v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 236573, August 14,
2018).
114
Page 178
30. Review
a. Jurisdiction
i. Senator – Supreme Court within 60 days (Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules

of Court).
ii. Congressman – Supreme Court within 60 days (Lazatin v.

COMELEC, 168 SCRA 391; Leria v. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, 202 SCRA 808; Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court).
iii. Regional, provincial and city officials – Supreme Court within 30

days (Sec. 7, Art. IX-1 of Constitution).
iv. Municipal officials
1) COMELEC within 5 days (Sec. 22, Republic Act No. 7166,

Sec. 3 Rule 22 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Lindo v.
COMELEC, 194 SCRA 25; Batoy v. Regional Trial Court,
397 SCRA 506)
2) Supreme Court within 30 days (Galido v. COMELEC, 193

SCRA 78; River v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 178)
v. Barangay officials
1) COMELEC within 5 days (Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C of

Constitution; Guieb v. Fontanilla, 247 SCRA 348; Calucag
v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 405; Antonio v. COMELEC, 315
SCRA 62; Sec. 3, Rule 22, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
2) Supreme Court within 30 days (Flores v. COMELEC, 184

SCRA 484; Alvarez v. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 434).
vi. Sangguniang Kabataan
1) Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
2) COMELEC within 5 days (Fernandez v. COMELEC, 556

SCRA 765)
3) Supreme Court within 30 days (Sec. 1, Republic Act No.

7808; Marquez v. COMELEC, 313 SCRA 103)
b. Form
115
Page 179
Where the appellant filed an appeal brief instead of a notice of appeal
to COMELEC, the appeal should not be dismissed, since the
determination of the will of the people should not be thwarted by
technicalities (Pahilan v. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205).
c. Appeal
i. An appeal may be dismissed for failure of the appellant to pay

the appellate docket fee (Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of
Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41).
ii. An appeal may be dismissed if the full appellate docket fee was
not paid, as payment of the full amount is indispensable for
perfection of the appeal (Rodillas v. COMELEC, 245 SCRA 702;
Villota v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 146724, 363 SCRA 676; Zamora v.
iii. The period of appeal and the perfection of the appeal are not
mere technicalities. They are essential to the finality of
judgments. The short period of five days as the short period to
appeal recognizes the essentiality of time in election protests, in
order that the will of the electorate is ascertained as soon as
possible so that the winning candidate is not deprived of the
right to assume office, and so that any doubt that can cloud the
incumbency of the truly deserving winning candidate is quickly
removed (Gomez-Castillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, 22 June
2010).
d. Scope of authority
Errors committed by the trial court may be considered even if they were
not assigned as errors (Cababasada v. Valmoria, 83 Phil. 112; Borja v. De
Leon, 9 SCRA 216; Roldan v. Monsanto, 9 SCRA 489; Tagoranao v. Court
of Appeals, 37 SCRA 490; Arao v. COMELEC, 210 SCRA 290).
XVI. CRIMINAL OFFENSES
A. Jurisdiction to Try the Case
The expanded jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court does not include criminal cases
involving election offenses, because by special provision of Section 268 of the Omnibus
Election Code, they fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (COMELEC v.
Noynay, 292 SCRA 354; Juan v. People, 322 SCRA 125; COMELEC v. Aguirre, 532 SCRA
545).
116
Page 180
B. Offenses
1. Vote-buying
a. The fact that at least one voter in at least 20% of the precincts in a
municipality, city or province was offered money by the relatives,
leaders, or sympathizers of a candidate to promote his elections shall
create a presumption of conspiracy to bribe voters.
b. The fact that at least 20% of the precincts of the municipality, city or
province to which the office aspired for by the candidates relates is
affected by the offer creates the presumption that the candidate and
his campaign managers are involved in the conspiracy.
c. Any person who is guilty and willingly testifies shall be exempt from
prosecution (Sec. 28, Republic Act No. 6646; COMELEC v. Tagle, 397
SCRA 618; COMELEC v. Español, 417 SCRA 554)
d. The traditional gift-giving by the municipality during Christmas, which

was not done to include voters to vote for the mayor, does not
constitute vote-buying (Lozano v. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256).
2. Appointment of New Employees
The prohibition against appointment of a government employee within 45 days

before a regular election refers to positions covered by the civil service and does
not apply to the replacement of a councilor who died (Ong v. Martinez, 188
SCRA 830).
3. Premature Campaigning
Premature campaigning before a candidate has filed his certificate of candidacy

is not punishable (Lanot v. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 114).
4. Undertaking Public Works Projects
The holding of the bidding of public works projects within 45 days before
election is not an election offense, because what is prohibited is the release of
public funds within that period (Pangkat Laguna v. COMELEC, 376 SCRA 97).
5. Transfer of Government Employees
The fact that the transfer of an employee was needed is not an excuse for
failure to obtain approval from COMELEC (Regalado v. Court of Appeals, 325
SCRA 516).
117
Page 181
Since the Omnibus Election Code does not per se prohibit the transfer of
government employees during the election period but only penalizes such
transfers made without the prior approval of COMELEC in accordance with its
implementing regulations, the transfer of a government employee before the
publication of the implementing regulations is not an election offense (People v.
Reyes, 247 SCRA 328).
Since Resolution No. 3300 exempted COMELEC from the requirement of

obtaining its prior appeal before transferring its employees during the election
period, the Chairman can transfer a director to another position during the
election period (Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49).
If the transfer of employees was approved by COMELEC, the documents

pertaining to the transfer need not be submitted to COMELEC for approval
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Alonzo-Legasto, 488 SCRA 4).
Any personnel action, when caused or made during the election period, can be
used for electioneering or to harass subordinates with different political
persuasions. This possibility – of being used for electioneering purposes or to
harass subordinates – created by any movement of personnel during the
election period is precisely what the transfer ban seeks to prevent. (Aquino v.
The prohibition on transfer or detail covers any movement of personnel from

one station to another, whether or not in the same office or agency when made
or caused during the election period, and includes reassignment. (Aquino v.
If the reassignment orders are issued prior to the start of the election period,
they are automatically rendered beyond the coverage of the prohibition and the
issuing official cannot be held liable for violation of Section 261(h) of BP 881.
(Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015)
Retention of duties and temporary discharge of additional duties do not

contemplate or involve any movement of personnel, whether under any of the
various forms of personnel action enumerated under the laws governing the
civil service or otherwise. Hence, they are not covered by the legal prohibition
on transfers or detail. (Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17,
2015)
6. Carrying Firearm during Election Period
It is an offense to carry a firearm during the election period (Caño v. Gebusion,

329 SCRA 132).
7. Failure to Make Proclamation
118
Page 182
Proclaiming a losing candidate instead of the winning candidate also constitutes
failure to make a proclamation (Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17).
8. Refusing to Credit Candidate with Correct Votes
Refusing to credit a candidate with the correct votes is punishable (Pimentel v.

COMELEC, 289 SCRA 586; Domalanta v. COMELEC, 334 SCRA 555; Garcia v.
Court of Appeals, 484 SCRA 617, Pimentel v. Fabros, 501 SCRA 346).
9. Taking Away, Defacing, Mutilating, Tearing, or Destroying the VVPAT
Sec. 85. Election Offense. Any person who takes away, defaces, mutilates, tears or
destroys in any manner whatsoever the VVPAT commits an election offense punishable
under 261 (z) of the Omnibus Election Code..
C. Prescription
Election offenses prescribe after five years from the date of their commission, and the
period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of a complaint for preliminary
investigation (Bayton v. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703).
D. Prosecution
1. In reading and interpreting the provisions governing election offenses, we

should consider the terms of the election laws themselves and how they
operate as a whole. As a necessary and indispensable tool in this interpretation
process, we must likewise consider these provisions in the light of the
constitutional and legislative goal of attaining free, honest, and peaceful
elections. (Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015)
2. The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of

and prosecute election offenses (Sec. 2 (6), Art. IX-C of 1987 Constitution; Sec.
265, Omnibus Election Code; People v. Golez, 116 SCRA 165; Naldoza v. Lavilles,
254 SCRA 286; Peña v. Martizano, 403 SCRA 281). The “exclusive power of the
COMELEC to conduct a preliminary investigation of all cases involving criminal
infractions of the election laws” stated in Par. 1 of COMELEC Resolution No.
119
Page 183
2050 pertains to the criminal aspect of a disqualification case. (Ejercito v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014)
3. This holds true even if the offense was committed by a public officer in relation
to his office (De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760; Corpus v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA
281).
4. A provincial election supervisor authorized to conduct a preliminary

investigation may file a case without need of approval of the provincial
prosecutor (People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788).
5. COMELEC can deputize prosecutors to investigate and prosecute election

offenses even after election (People v. Basilla, 179 SCRA 87; Margarejo v.
Escoses, 365 SCRA 190).
6. Since in a preliminary investigation, it is COMELEC who will determine the

existence of probable cause, the complainant cannot ask it to gather evidence in
support of the complaint (Kilosbayan, Inc. v. COMELEC, 280 SCRA 892).
7. The court in which a criminal case was filed may order COMELEC to conduct a
reinvestigation (People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715).
8. A prosecutor who was deputized by COMELEC cannot oppose the appeal filed
by COMELEC from the dismissal of a case, since the power to prosecute election
offenses is vested in COMELEC (COMELEC v. Silva 286 SCRA 177).
9. The nullification by COMELEC of the resolution issued by a provincial prosecutor

directing the filing of cases for vote-selling is in effect a withdrawal of his
deputation (COMELEC v. Español, 417 SCRA 557).
XVII. PLEBISCITE
A city becomes a distinct political entity independent and autonomous from the province by
virtue of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. Hence, it can no longer be considered a
“political unit directly affected” by the proposed division of the province into separate
provinces. Thus, the qualified voters of the highly urbanized city are properly excluded from the
coverage of the plebiscite (Del Rosario v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 247610, March 10, 2020)
- END -
120
Page 184
HISTORY
The Commission on Elections was created by a 1940 amendment to the 1935
Constitution. Its membership was enlarged and its powers expanded by the 1973
and 1987 Constitutions. The Commission exercises not only administrative, but
judicial and quasi-judicial powers.
The Executive Bureau
Before the creation of the Commission, supervision over the conduct of elections
was vested in the Executive Bureau, an office under the Department of Interior and
later directly vested in the Department itself when the Executive Bureau was
abolished.
There was, however, general dissatisfaction over the manner in which elections
were conducted under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. There was
growing suspicion that Secretaries of the Interior administered election laws not for
the purpose of securing honest and free elections, but to serve the political interest
of the party in power to which they belonged. They were never entirely free from
suspicion of acting with partisan bias.
The close official relationship between the president and the Secretary of the Interior
bred suspicion that elections served the incumbent Secretary's political interest. The
Secretary of the Interior was directly responsible to the President and his tenure of
office was dependent not only on the pleasure of the President, but also upon the
President's own continuance in office. This set-up only induced increasing distrust in
the verdict at the polls.
Statutory Commission
The situation impelled the National Assembly to propose the creation by

constitutional amendment of a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
Page 185
and two members to take over the functions of the Secretary of the Interior relative
to elections.
By constitutional amendment ratified by the Filipino people in a plebiscite held on

June 17, 1940, all functions heretofore exercised by the Secretary of the Interior
relative to the conduct of elections were transferred to the Commission. However, as
the amendment could not be made effective in time for the 1940 elections, the
National Assembly through Commonwealth Act No. 607 created a statutory
Commission on Elections, giving thereto the same powers which the Commission
would have under the Constitution. The act became effective upon its approval on
August 22, 1940. The Commission immediately functioned on September 14, 1940,
and supervised the December 10, 1940 elections.
Constitutional Commission
The constitutional amendment creating the Commission was finally approved on

December 2, 1940. On June 21, 1941, the Commonwealth Act No. 657 was enacted
reorganizing the Commission as a constitutional body. The members of the statutory
Commission continued as member of the constitutional Commission. The
subordinate personnel, records, documents, and property together with its
unexpected balance in the appropriation were likewise transferred to the newly-
organized Commission.
The Chairman and Members of the Commission had a term of nine years each - a
member being replaced every three years- except those first appointed who were
given nine, six and three-years terms, respectively.
The 1973 Constitution enlarged the membership of the Commission from three to
nine but reduced their term of office from nine to seven years.
Source: COMELEC, PLANNING DEPT.
Page 186

Election Laws 2020 - PH ZEN EDITION

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 2020 - PH ZEN EDITION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTION LAWS

002: Election Laws, Rules, Regulations

Part I: ELECTIVE OFFICIALS

a) Election defined under jurisprudence.

3. Election laws, purpose.

4. Election laws, how construed.

b) Special Election to fill our vacancy

7. Constitutional basis of Election

8. Elective Officials, enumerated.

b) Local Government Code

c) COMELEC Res. No. 9982 (August 18, 2015 as amended)

9. President, how elected, term of office and term limit.

a) President term limit

10. Vice President and Vice-Mayor

11. President, qualifications

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

a) Natural-born Filipino, defined

c) Residence requirement, rationale

12. Vice-President, how elected, term of office and term limit

13. President & Vice-President, basis for proclamation

14. Presidential and vice-presidential tie, how broken

15. Presidential succession, in case of vacancy at the start of the term

16. Presidential succession, in case of vacancy on mid-term

17. Permanent disability of the President

18. Resignation of the President

19. Vacancy in the office of the Vice-President, how filled.

20. Vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency, how filled.

voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. (Article VI, Constitution)

22. Senator, qualifications.

b) Omnibus Election Code

c) Number of Party-list (see own notes)

25. Term limit, purpose of.

26. Succession, effect on term continuity.

27. Preventive suspension, effect on term continuity.

28. Disqualification, prior to term end, effect of.

30. Recall, effect on three-term disqualification.

Bagong Bayani-OFW v. Comelec

36. Sectors to be represented by party-list, classified.

37. Nature of constitutional and statutory enumeration of sectors.

40. Elective local officials, term of office and term limit.

Local Government Code

42. Elective local officials, disqualifications.

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;

43. Vacancy in elective local offices, grounds.

44. Vacancy in elective local offices, how filled.

45. Date of election.

Local Government Code

46. Adjustment period of pre-election requirements.

47. Nature of Barangay elections.

a) Postponement of election, jurisdiction.

49. Failure of election, grounds.

a) Declaration of failure of election, jurisdiction.

50. Postponement or failure of election in Barangay elections, grounds.

51. Special election.

Omnibus Election Code

a) Fixing date of special election

b) Notice of special election.

52. Special election after failure of election

Part II: SUFFRAGE

Omnibus Election Code

Sec. 261. (y) On Registration of Voters:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1987 Constitution, Article V, Section 1

4. Suffrage for overseas absentee voters.

5. Suffrage for local absentee voters.