POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS

Depalubos, Prince Lloyd

LOONG v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999

FACTS:
 In a bid to improve our elections, Congress enacted R.A.No. 8436 on December 22, 1997
prescribing the adoption of an automated election system.
 The new system was used in the May 11, 1998 regular elections held in the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which includes the province of Sulu.
 The problem started during the automated counting of votes for the local officials of Sulu at
the Sulu State College.
 There were reported discrepancies between the election returns and the votes cast for the
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Pata.
 The problem was caused by the misalignment of the ovals opposite the names of candidates
in the local ballots.
 They found nothing wrong with the automated machines.
 The error was in the printing of the local ballots, as a consequence of which, the automated
machines failed to read them correctly.
 Before midnight of May 12, 1998, the COMELEC Task Force Head was able to send to the
COMELEC en banc his report and recommendation, urging the use of the manual count in
the entire Province of Sulu.
 On the same day, COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a manual count
but only in the municipality of Pata—the place in Suluwhere the automated counting
machine failed to read the ballots.
 While the forces of AFP are ready to provide security to COMELEC officials, BEIs and other
deputies, the political tensions and imminent violence and bloodshed might occur because
as per report received, the MNLF forces were readying their forces to surround the venue
for automated counting and canvassing in Sulu in order that the automation process will
continue.
 Thus, COMELEC Executive Director Borra recommended that while he supports Minute
Resolution No. 98-1747, implementation thereof shall be done as follows:
 That all the counting machines from Jolo, Sulu be transported back by C130 to Manila and
be located at the available space at PICC for purposes of both automated and manual
operations. This approach will keep the COMELEC officials away from violence and
bloodshed. Only authorized political party and candidate watchers will be allowed in PICC
with proper security, both inside and outside the perimeters of the venue at PICC.
  There will be an objective analysis and supervision of the automated and manual operations
by both the MIS and Technical Experts.
 Be directly under the close supervision and control of Commission on Elections En Banc.
 Petitioner Loong alleged that the results of the elections were unreliable because manual
counting gave “opportunity to the following election cheatings,” namely:
 The counting by human hands of the tampered, fake and counterfeit ballots which the
counting machines have been programmed to reject;
 There was an opportunity to substitute the ballots all stored at the PICC.
 The manipulators had sufficient time to change and tamper the ballots to be manually
counted.
 There is the opportunity of delaying the proclamation of the winning candidates through
the usually dilatory moves in a preproclamation controversy because the returns and
certificates of canvass were done manually.

ISSUE:

 Assuming the manual count was illegal and that its result was unreliable, whether or not it
was proper to call for a special election for the position of governor of Sulu.

RULING:
 The grounds for failure of election—force majeure, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes—clearly involve questions of fact.
 It is for this reason that they can only be determined by the COMELEC en banc. Thus, the
plea for a special election must be addressed to the COMELEC and not to the Supreme Court.
 Loong never asked the COMELEC en banc to call for a special election in Sulu.
 Even in his original petition with this Court, petitioner did not pray for a special election.
His plea for a special election is a mere afterthought.
 To hold a special election only for the position of Governor will be discriminatory and will
violate the right of private respondent to equal protection of the law.
 The records show that all elected officials in Sulu have been proclaimed and are now
discharging their powers and duties. These officials were proclaimed on the basis of the
same manually counted votes of Sulu.
 If manual counting is illegal, their assumption of office cannot also be countenanced.
 Private respondent’s election cannot be singled out as invalid for alikes cannot be treated
unalikes.
CANICOSA v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 120318. December 5, 1997

FACTS:

 Petitioner Canicosa and private respondent Lajara were candidates for mayor in Calamba,
Laguna during the May 1995 elections. After the canvassing, Lajara was proclaimed winner
by the Municipal Board of Canvasser.

 Thereafter, Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a petition to declare failure of election and to
declare null and void the canvass and proclamation because of alleged widespread frauds
and anomalies in casting and accounting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence,
threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting and delay in the delivery of
election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the office of the Municipal
Treasurer.

 In its decision, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the
allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the instances raised by Canicosa a ground for declaration of a failure of
election.

RULING:

 No, because there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared,
namely:
o i) The election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
o ii) The election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by
law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes; or
o iii) After the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election
returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect
on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.
 Averment that more than one-half of the legitimate voters were not able to vote is not a
ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election.
 The grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances
enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
 Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at
least two (2) conditions must concur:
o i) No voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there
was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and
 o ii) The votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. From the face
of the instant petition, it is readily apparent that an election took place and that it
did not result in a failure to elect.

SANCHEZ & BILIWANG v. COMELEC

No. L-55513. June 19, 1982

FACTS:

 The Resolution of the Commission on Elections, dated May 15, 1980, in Pre-Proclamation
Case No. 41 entitled Virgilio Sanchez vs. Mayor Armando P. Biliwang and the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of San Fernando, Pampanga.
 In the local elections held on January 30, 1980, Virgilio Sanchez was the official candidate of
the Nacionalista Party (NP) for Municipal Mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga, while
Armando Biliwang was the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan,s (KBL) official candidate for the same
position.
 On February 1, 1980, Sanchez filed with the Commission on Elections a Petition to declare
null and void the local elections in San Fernando, Pampanga due to alleged large scale
terrorism. On the same day, the COMELEC denied the Petition for lack of merit. Sanchez
moved for reconsideration. On February 8, 1980, the COMELEC recalled its Resolution and
required Biliwang and the Municipal Board of Canvassers to answer. Hearings were
conducted thereafter.
 On November 19, 1980, Sanchez filed a petition for Certiorari with this court, docketed as
G.R. No. 55513, wherein he seeks a modification of the portion of the COMELEC Resolution
of May 15, 1980 refusing to call a special election.
 On December 6, 1980, Biliwang instituted, also with this Court, a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 55642, assailing the same COMELEC
Resolution and alleging that same body has no power to annul an entire municipal election.
 These two Petitions were ordered consolidated and were heard by the court en banc.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not fraud and terrorism is considered a pre-proclamation controversy to
justify the resolution of declaring that there was a failure of election.

RULING:
 Yes, because as it has been rightly said “an election return prepared at the point of a gun is
no return at all; it is not one notch above a falsified and spurious return.”
 The COMELEC has the power to reject returns when in its opinion they were illegal and not
authentic.
 In fact, it has the duty to disallow obviously false or fabricated returns,as a falsified or
spurious return amounts to no return at all.
 In line with the plenitude of its powers and its function to protect the integrity of elections,
the COMELEC must be deemed possessed of authority to annul elections where the will of
the voters has been defeated and the purity of elections sullied.
FAILURE / ANNULMENT OF ELECTION
Dimpas, Anne Margarette

PEÑA v. HRET
GR No. 123037 March 21, 1997

FACTS:
TEODORO Q. PEÑA filed a petition before the HRET questioning the the election of ALFREDO E.
ABUEG, Jr. as representative for the 2nd District of the Province of Palawan in the May 8, 1995
elections. According to Peña, the election was tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote buying,
intimidation and terrorism, and other serious irregularities. He should have obtained 52,967 votes,
while Abueg only had 46,023 and had the irregularities not been committed, he would have garnered
the highest votes.

Abueg filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the HRET did not obtain jurisdiction on the petition
the same being insufficient in form and substance. He also emphasized that the Petition failed to
allege the precints where massive fraud and disenfranchisement of voters occured, nor did it point
out how many votes would be gained as a result of the same.

HRET ruled that is had jurisdiction over the petition. However, the Petition failed to state a cause of
action and is therefore, insufficient in form and substance. Subsequent submission of a summary of
contested precints did not cure the defect. Hence, the dismissal by HRET.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Petition stated a cause of action and is sufficient in form and substance.

RULING:

Petition lacks substance, dismissal was proper. “A perusal of the petition Ad Cuatelam, reveals that
petitioner makes no specific mention of the precincts where widespread election, fraud and
irregularities occurred. This is a fatal omission, as it goes into the very substance of the protest.” To
allow an election protest based on such flimsy averments to prosper, otherwise, the whole election
process will deteriorate into an endless stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to disembark
from the water. Substantial amendments may be allowed but must be within time period (10 days
after winner’s proclamation).

This case falls within the exception of liberal construction on election protests. In an election protest,
the protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading
filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing the protest. It is only in extreme cases of fraud
and under circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree a fundamental and wanton
disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and then only when it becomes impossible to take
any other step.

PASANDALAN v. COMELEC
GR No. 150132 July 18, 2002

FACTS:

Bago P. Pasandalan was a candidate for Mayor along with Bai Salamona L. Asum during the May 14,
2001 elections in the Municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur. Asum was elected Mayor. As a
result, Pasandalan filed a Petition for Declaration of Failure of Elections in several precints. According
to Pasandalan, the supporters of Asum allegedly took the official ballots, filled them with the name of
Asum and placed them inside the ballot boxes thereby taking advantage of the confusion and fistfight
that took place during the elections. He also alleged that the BEI Members failed to affix their
signature in the ballots during casting and that a technical examination of the ballots from the
contested precints would show that only a few persons wrote the entries.

In his Answer, Asum said that the gunshots were heard at 2:35PM and not at the start of voting.

The COMELEC dismissed the petition on the ground that the authenticity and integrity of the election
returns were left undisturbed throughout the preparation, transmission, custody and canvass of the
returns. According to COMELEC, the affidavits of Pasandalan’s witness are self-serving and
insufficient to annul the results of the election. Said allegations are better ventilated in an election
protest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a failure of elections.

RULING:

Petition is without merit. What is common in the three instances in declaring failure of elections is
the resulting failure to elect which means nobody emerged as a winner. The election was held in the
16 protested precincts as scheduled. At no point was the election in any of the precincts suspended.
Nor was there a failure to elect because of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes during the preparation, transmission, custody and canvass of the election returns.
The alleged terrorism was not of such scale and prevalence to prevent the holding of the election or
to cause its suspension. In fact, the casting and counting of votes, the preparation, transmission and
canvassing of election returns and the proclamation of the winning candidate took place in due
course. The nullification of elections or declaration of failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy.
The party who seeks the nullification of an election has the burden of proving entitlement to this
remedy.

In the instant case, it is apparent that the allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds for the
nullification of the election. Pasandalan even failed to substantiate his allegations of terrorism and
irregularities. His evidence consisted of mere affidavits which are insufficient. Mere affidavits are
insufficient, more so in this case since the affidavits were all executed by Pasandalan’s own poll
watchers.

TYPOCO vs COMELEC
GR No. 186539 March 5, 2010

FACTS:

Jesus O. Typoco was proclaimed the winner of the May 14, 2007 Elections as Governor of Camarines
Norte. His opponent, Edgardo A. Tallado, filed before the COMELEC a petition for correction of
manifest error in the Statement of Votes by Precint (SOVP) versus the Certificate of Canvass of Votes
in the municipalities of Labo and Jose Panganiban.

In his Answer, Typoco sought for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the same was
belatedly filed and was guilty of forum shopping Further, he countered that the SOVPs submitted by
Tallado were fake and obviously manufactured.
COMELEC resolved the petition in favor of Tallado. Based on COMELEC copies, votes in Labo did not
correspond. While those in Panganiban actually tallied. Tallado garnered 79,969 votes while Typoco
79,904 votes. As a result, the proclamation of Typoco as governor was annulled and a new Provincial
Board of Canvassers was instituted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion on the following:

 the correction of the manifest error in the pertinent election documents;

 the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner; and
 the subsequent proclamation of the winning gubernatorial candidate in Camarines Norte.

RULING:

COMELEC’s decision to correct the manifest error is supported by substantial evidence. The
COMELEC copies of the SOVP (in the custody of the ERSD) revealed discrepancies in the transposition
of the votes from the said documents to the COC.

The Court does not find merit in petitioner’s contention that a recanvass of the election returns (ERs)
should be undertaken in order to truly determine the mandate of the electorate. Let it be noted that
the original petition filed before the COMELEC, one for correction of manifest errors, was a pre-
proclamation controversy which, ordinarily, does not involve the opening of ballot boxes or the
examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. Furthermore, the ERs were never
introduced in evidence in the proceedings below. Evidently, there is no basis for this Court to conduct
a retabulation of ERs. Also, as correctly stated by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the remedy of
recanvass of [ERs] is patently illegal, as this would take the form of an election protest, particularly a
retabulation of [ERs] under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION, FAILURE OR ANNULMENT OF
ELECTIONS, CALL FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS and SPECIAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

Fernando, Develyn Ross

Basher vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 139028
April 12, 2000

FACTS: Basher and Ampatua were both candidates for Punong Barangay in Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao
del Sur.
In order to avoid bloodshed, as per advise of some religious leaders, the election officer
turned over for safekeeping the ballot box containing election paraphernalia to the PNP.
However, on that same election day, after arrival of additional troops, and after being
announced “over the mosque”, that the election would be conducted, voting started at 9:00pm until
early morning of the following day.
The conduct of election and the filling-up of the election returns and certificates of canvass
happened at the residence of the former mayor.
Tally sheet showed the following results: Ampatua-250; Basher-15; Razul-10.
Basher then filed a petition before the COMELEC praying that the election be declared a
failure. The dispute among the candidates is regards to the venue of the election in the lone voting
precinct of the barangay.
ISSUE: Whether it not there was a valid postponement of election?
RULING: No. In Section 45 of the Omnibus Election Code, only the COMELEC has the authority to
postpone an election, upon petition or motu proprio, and in both cases only after due notice and
hearing.
The election officer did not conduct any proceeding to find out whether any of the legal
grounds for the suspension or postponement or the declaration of failure of the election existed.
There was also a failure of election because it was not conducted in the manner prescribed by
law.
1. The place where the voting was conducted was illegal.

It was held at the residence of the former mayor which is located at barangay Pandarianao,
instead of the officially designated polling precinct at Cagayan Elementary School. Such
"election" cannot be valid, as it was not held within the barangay of the officials who were
being elected.
2. Voting time was irregular.

The "election" was held after 9:00 p.m. until the wee hours of the following day. Such schedule
was not in accordance with law or the COMELEC rules.
 What is meant by the second sentence of Section 22, Article IV of COMELEC Resolution 2971,
which states that "[i]f at three o'clock [in the afternoon], there are still voters within thirty meters in
front of the polling place who have not cast their votes, the voting shall continue to allow said voters to
cast their votes without interruption.
The law did not state instead that "the voting may also start even beyond 3:00 p.m. If
there are voters within thirty meters in front of the polling place.”
3. Election date was invalid

Any suspension or postponement of an election is governed by Section 2 of RA. 6679, which

states that "[w]hen 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 election motu proprio 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.”
4. Election postponement was invalid

Election officer postponed the election from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. of Aug 30, 1997 to 10:00
p.m. of August 30 until the early morning of Aug 31. Election postponement was invalid for
failure to observe the procedure laid down by law.
Only the COMELEC is vested with the authority to postpone an election, motu proprio or upon
petition by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing.
5. Notice was irregular

The electorate was not given due notice that the election would push through after 9:00 p.m.
that same day. Apparently, the election officer's decision to hold the election on the night of
August 30, 1997 was precipitate. Only after additional military troops had arrived at their site
in a nearby barangay about 8:30 p.m. and "after announcing it over the mosque.”
The announcement was made only minutes before the supposed voting. If one-day notice was
held to be insufficient in Hassan vs Comelec, the much shorter notice in the present case
should all the more be declared wanting. It should be equated with "no notice."
An election must be held at the place, date and time prescribed by law. Likewise, its
suspension or postponement must comply requirements. Otherwise, it is irregular and void.
Only the COMELEC is vested with the authority to postpone an election, motu proprio
or upon petition by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing.
 Mitmug vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 106270-73
February 10, 1994
FACTS: Mitmug and Dagalangit were among the candidates for the mayoralty position of Lumba-
Bayabao during the May 11, 1992 election.
There were sixty-seven (67) precincts in the said municipality.
Voter turnout was low, particularly in forty-nine (49) precincts where 22.26%, i.e., only 2,330
out of 9,830 casted their votes. Five (5) of the said precinct did not conduct actual voting at all and a
special election was held for the five (5) precincts.
Mitmug filed this petition for certiorari seeking the declaration of failure of election in forty-
nine (49) precincts where less than a quarter of the electorate were able to cast their votes.
He also prayed for the issuance of temporary restraining order to enjoin Datu Dagalangit from
assuming office.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure of elections should be declared in forty-nine (49) precincts where
less than a quarter of the electorate were able to cast their votes?
RULING: No. Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election,
two (2) conditions must concur:
1. no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there
was voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect; and

2. the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.

There is no concurrence of the two (2) conditions in the present petition.

In the case before us, it is indubitable that the votes not cast will definitely affect the outcome
of the election.
Indeed, the fact that a verified petition is filed does not automatically mean that a hearing on
the case will be held before COMELEC will act on it. The petition must still show on its face that the
conditions to declare a failure to elect are present. In the absence thereof, the petition must be denied
outright, without need of hearing.
There is no provision in our election laws which requires that a majority of registered
voters must cast their votes. All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected
by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less
than 25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts cast their votes, the same must still be
respected.
 Banaga, Jr vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 134696
July 31, 2000

FACTS: Banaga and Bernabe were both candidates for vice-mayor of Paranaque in the May 1998
election. In said election, the city board of canvassers proclaimed respondent Bernabe as the winner
for having garnered 71,977 votes over Banaga.
Dissatisfied with the result, Banaga filed with COMELEC on May 1998, a petition to declare
failure of elections and/or for annulment of elections, alleging that said election was replete with
election offenses, such as vote buying and flying voters.
He also argued that numerous election returns pertaining to the position of vice mayor
appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated. In fact, there were people arrested who admitted the said
election offenses. Therefore, the incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of elections because it
cannot be considered as the true will of the people.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not petition to declare a failure of elections and/or for annulment of
election is considered as an election protest.
No. Banaga’s petition is a special civil action under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Banaga also did not comply with the requirements for filing an election protest such as failing to pay
filing fee and cash deposits for an election protest. The petition is docketed as a Special Civil Action.

Election Protest Petition to Declare Failure of Elections

Ordinary Action Special Action

Rule 20 Rule 26

final and executory after thirty (30) final and executory after five (5) days from
days from its promulgation promulgation, unless restrained by the
Supreme Court

1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure

2. Whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
petition.

No, COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. The
petition to declare a failure of election and/or to annul election results must show on its face that the
conditions necessary to declare a failure to elect are present.
Instances where a failure of election may be declared:
1. The election in any polling place has not been on the date fixed; [election not held]

2. The election in any polling place has been suspended before the hour fixed by law
for closing of the voting [election suspended] or
 3. After the voting and during the preparation of the election returns or in the custody
or canvass thereof. [nobody emerged as winner]

The instances enumerated above, being not present, cause the COMELEC to have no other
recourse but dismiss the petition.
As ruled in Mitmug vs COMELEC, two conditions must concur:
1. no voting took place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there
was voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect; and

2. the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.

The cause of such failure of election could only be any of the following: force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION, FAILURE OR ANNULMENT OF
ELECTIONS, CALL FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS and SPECIAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

Fortuna, Elaine

AMPATUAN vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 149803 January 31, 2002

FACTS:
Datu Andal S. Ampatuan and Datu Zacaria A. Candao were candidates for the provincial
elective positions in the province of Maguindanao in the May 14, 2001 election. Petitioner Ampatuan
and respondent Candao vied for the gubernatorial position. When Ampatuan emerged as the winning
candidate, Candao filed a petition with the COMELEC for the annulment of election returns and/or
declaration of failure of elections in several municipalities in Maguindanao for massive fraud and
terrorism. The COMELEC initially suspended proclamation but eventually lifted the same.

Petitioners were then proclaimed winners and assumed their offices. In the meantime, the
COMELEC ordered the random technical examination of several precincts and issued an order
outlining the procedure therefor. Petitioners filed the present recourse claiming that by virtue of
their proclamation the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of
failure of elections but an election protest.

ISSUE:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after
proclamation of petitioners as winners.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the proclamation of a candidate does not deprive the COMELEC the
authority to annul canvass and illegal proclamation. The COMELEC is duty-bound to conduct an
investigation as to the veracity of Candao‘s allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended
the conduct of the May 14, 2001 election.

The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of its
authority to annul any canvass and illegal proclamation. Candao’s allegations of massive fraud and
terrorism, which led to a failure to elect, fell squarely within Sec 6. Of the Omnibus Election Code
(Failure of Election). There can be no assumption that Ampatuan’s proclamation and assumption into
office on June 30, 2001, was legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was
put in issue.
 Moreover, to reiterate the oft-cited rule that the validity of a proclamation may be challenged
even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate has assumed office.

WILMAR P. LUCERO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE L. ONG, JR.

G.R. No. 149803; July 20, 1994

FACTS:
Petitioner Lucero and Ong were two of the five candidates for Representative of the Second
Legislative District of Northern Samar in the synchronized national and local elections held on May
11, 1992.

The canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) credited:

Jose L. Ong – 24, 272 votes.

Wilmar P. Lucero – 24,068 votes.

(A lead by Ong of 204 votes. )

However, this tally did not include the results of:

Precinct No. 7 – election returns were illegible

Precinct No. 13 – the ballot boxes were snatched and no election was held.

Precinct No. 16 – all copies of the election returns were missing.

Hence, Lucero asked the COMELEC to:

 Suspend the proclamation of Ong.

 Direct the PBC to correct the certificate of canvass.
 Order a special election in Precinct 13
 Order a recount of votes in 52 precincts to correct manifest errors and the impounding and
safekeeping of the ballot boxes of all said precincts to preserve the integrity of the ballots and
other election paraphernalia.

After several motions from the contending parties, the COMELEC issued a resolution:

 To include in the municipal certificate of canvass of the Brgy. in Silvino Lobos the recounted
votes of Precinct No. 16 and Precinct No. 7.
 To issue an Order calling for a special election in the last remaining Precinct No. 13 (Barangay
Gusaran) of the Municipality of Silvino Lobos if justified by the result of the canvass by the
Provincial Board of Canvassers for Northern Samar, and to notify the parties of the schedule
of election activities for that precinct; and
  After including in the tabulation the results of the special election of Precinct No. 13, to decide
the issue of the recount of the votes (ballots) of Precinct No. 7 of Silvino Lobos, pursuant to
Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, to resolve the discrepancy of the votes of
petitioner Lucero in the same return, if such discrepancy of votes of the candidates concerned
would affect the over-all results of the election after the totality of the votes contending
parties shall have been determined."

Both Lucero and Ong have come to the Court by way of separate special civil actions for certiorari to
challenge the Resolution. Ong specifically questioned the authority of the COMELEC to hold a special
election.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in calling for a special
election in Precinct No. 13 after almost two (2) years following the day of the synchronized elections.

RULING:

On the authority of the COMELEC to order the holding of a special election:

There are 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.

The parties admit that the failure of the election in Precinct No. 13 was due to ballot-box
snatching and do not dispute the finding of the COMELEC as to the necessity and inevitability of the
holding of a special election in said precinct, even if the result of Precinct No. 7 should be based on
the questionable "Comelec Copy" of its election returns.

The COMELEC held that based on the adjudged correction of the votes in favor of Lucero, the
results of the recount votes of Precinct 16, and the votes reflected in the available copy of the election
returns for Precinct No. 7 the original lead of private respondent Ong of two hundred four (204) votes
against petitioner Lucero —24,272 as against 24,068 — will be reduced to either 175 or 173
depending on whether Lucero will be credited a low of 29 or a high of 31 votes as reflected in the
election returns of Precinct No. 7.

Given the established lead of private respondent Ong over petitioner Lucero, the COMELEC
answered in the affirmative. According to COMELEC records, the number of registered voters in
Precinct No. 13 is two hundred thirteen (213). Since the lead of respondent Ong is less than the
number of registered voters, the votes in that precinct could affect the existing result because of the
possibility that petitioner Lucero might get a majority over Ong in that precinct and that majority
might be more than the present lead of Ong.
 The two requirements for a special election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
have indeed been met.

On the lapse of almost two years:

In fixing the date of the special election, the COMELEC should see to it that:

(1) it should be not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the
postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect, and
(2)it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended, or
which resulted in failure to elect.

The first involves questions of fact. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar
circumstances of a case.

In the instant case, the delay was not attributable to the poor voters of Precinct No. 13 or to
the rest of the electorate of the Second Legislative District of Northern Samar. The delay was
primarily caused by the legal skirmishes or maneuvers of the petitioners which muddled simple
issues.

Considering then that the petitioners themselves must share the blame for the delay, and
taking into account the fact that since the term of office of the contested position is only three years,
the holding of a special election is Precinct No. 13 within the next few months may still be considered
"reasonably close to the date of the election not held."

BENJAMIN U. BORJA, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PATEROS MUNICIPAL BOARD OF

CANVASSERS and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR.
G.R. No. 149803; July 20, 1994

FACTS:
During the May 8, 1995 elections, Borja and private respondent Jose T. Capco vied for the
position of Mayor of the Municipality of Pateros which was won by Capco by a margin of 6,330 votes.
Capco was consequently proclaimed and has since been serving as Mayor of Pateros.

Alleging lack of notice of the date and time of canvass, fraud, violence terrorism and
analogous causes, such as disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying voters, and unqualified
members of the Board of Election Inspectors, Borja filed before the COMELEC a petition to declare a
failure of election and nullify the canvass and proclamation made by the Pateros Board of Canvassers.

Concluding that the grounds relied upon by Borja were warranted only in an election contest,
the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition in its resolution dated May 25, 1995. It declared that
"force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud and other analogous causes . . . are merely the causes which
may give rise to the grounds to declare failure of elections." These grounds, which include (a) no
election held on the designated election date; (b) suspension of election before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of voting; and (c) election in any polling place resulted in a failure to elect, were not
present in Borja's petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Borja’s
petition to declare a failure of election.

RULING:
A petition to declare a failure of election is neither a pre-proclamation controversy as
classified under Section 5(h), Rule 1 of the Revised COMELEC Rules of Procedure, not an election
case. It must be remembered that Capco was duly elected and proclaimed as Mayor of Pateros. "Such
proclamation enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity." To destroy the presumption, Borja
must convincingly show that his opponent’s victory was procured through extra-legal means. This
he tried to do by alleging matters in his petition which he thought constituted failure of election, such
as lack of notice of the date and time of canvass; fraud, violence, terrorism and analogous causes;
disenfranchisement of voters; presence of flying voters; and unqualified members of the Board of
Election Inspectors. These grounds, however, as correctly pointed out by the COMELEC, are proper
only in an election contest but not in a petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify a
proclamation.
POWER TO DECLARE FAILURE OR ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS

Francisquete, Maria Genevieve T.

SARDEA v. COMELEC

FACTS:
• On May 12, 1992, the respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers of Mauban, Quezon, convened at
the Municipal Hall and canvassed the first batch of election returns for the just concluded May 11,
1992 elections in that municipality.
• In the late afternoon of May 13, 1992, while the canvassing of the election returns was going on,
some sympathizers of petitioner Edwin Sardea, a defeated mayoralty candidate of LAKAS-NUCD,
"stormed the municipal building" and "destroyed . . . all election materials and paraphernalia
including, among others, the copies of election returns furnished to respondent Board . . ." (p. 86,
Rollo).
• All election materials and paraphernalia with the municipal board of canvassers were destroyed
by the sympathizers of Edwin Sardea.
• On May 14, 1992, the respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and assessed the
extent of the damage wrought by the demonstrators. It discovered that the election returns in the
possession of the MTC Judge of Mauban were intact, so it ordered the retrieval of said election
returns for use in the canvass.
• The board then decided to use the copies of election returns furnished to the municipal trial court.
• Petitioner therein filed a petition to stop the proceedings of the board of canvassers on the ground
that it had no authority to use said election returns obtained from the municipal trial court.
• The petition was denied.
• Next, he filed a petition assailing the composition of the board of canvassers. Despite that petition,
the board of canvassers proclaimed the winning candidates.
• Later on, petitioner filed a petition to declare a failure of election alleging that the attendant facts
would justify declaration of such failure.

ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying the petition to declare a failure of
election in Mauban, Quezon province.
HELD:
• On review, the court ruled that petitioner’s first two actions involved pre-proclamation
controversies which can no longer be entertained after the winning candidates have been
proclaimed.
- petition to stop the proceedings of the board of canvassers on the ground that it had no authority
to use said election returns obtained from the municipal trial court
- petition assailing the composition of the board of canvassers
"Sec. 241. Definition. — A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by
any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the
Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns." (Art. XX
Omnibus Election Code; Emphasis supplied.)
• Regarding the petition to declare a failure of election, the court held that the destruction and loss
of copies of election returns intended for the Municipal Board of Canvassers on account of violence
is NOT one of the causes that would warrant the declaration of failure of election. The reason is that
voting actually took place as scheduled and other valid election returns still existed. Moreover, the
destruction or loss did not affect the result of the election.
• R.A. 7166 presupposes that other copies of the election returns are existent and may be compared
with the copies of the MTC. It does not preclude the use of such authentic copies in the canvass
when the copies submitted to the Board of Canvassers have been lost or destroyed.
• The duplicate copy of election returns that were used in the canvass of votes were not only
authentic copies or certified copies but duplicate originals, and to use such is not contrary to the
law.
• The court also declared that there is failure of elections, ONLY when the will of the electorate has
been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, the same must as
far as possible be respected.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED, with costs against the petitioners.

BALINDONG v. COMELEC
FACTS:
• Petitioner Sultan Amer Balindong seeks to annul the resolution, dated June 26, 1995, of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), dismissing his petition to annul the proclamation of his
opponent, private respondent Cabib A. Tanog, as Mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur; and the resolution,
dated March 12, 1996, of the COMELEC en banc, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• On May 17, 1995, petitioner filed in the COMELEC a Petition to Suspend and/or Annul
Proclamation of respondent Cabib Tanog. He alleged that the polling place in Precinct No. 4 had
been transferred to another barangay, without prior notice and hearing, with the result that 66
voters were not able to cast their votes.
• The resolution of the Board of Election Inspectors transferring the polling place was signed by the
chairman, the poll clerk, and the member, as well as by the two watchers of the candidates for
Mayor, although it is claimed that petitioner’s watchers were intimidated to sign the resolution.
• Petitioner claimed that, over his objection, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proceeded
with the canvass, including therein the election returns from Precinct No. 4.
• On June 17, 1995, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set for Hearing and Supplemental
Petition. He alleged that the Election Return from Precinct No. 4 was "obviously manufactured" and
therefore should have been excluded from the canvass, because of "massive substitute voting"
which could be established by a technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks affixed in
the List of Voters (C.E. Form No. 2) and Voters’ Affidavits (C.E. Form No. 1) of Precinct No. 4
• In its resolution dated June 26, 1996, the Second Division of the COMELEC dismissed the Petition
to Suspend/Annul Proclamation and the Supplemental Petition for lack of merit.
• The COMELEC en banc held that the transfer of the polling place of Precinct No. 4 was illegal,
without notice and hearing and in violation of the prohibition against transfers less than 45 days
before a regular election, as provided in sections 153-154 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The
COMELEC, therefore, ordered its Law Department to investigate the matter and determine the
parties responsible for it.
• The COMELEC held, however, that a failure of election could not be declared because for such a
declaration to be proper under sec. 6 of the OEC, two conditions must concur, namely, (1) that no
voting has taken place in the precinct on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the
election results in a failure to elect; and (2) that the votes not cast would affect the result of the
election.
• Hence, the court issued a temporary restraining order, ordering private respondent to cease and
desist from exercising the duties and functions of the Office of the Mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur,
until further orders from this Court.
ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to declare failure of elections
HELD:
• The fact that the transfer of polling place was not made in accordance with law does NOT warrant
a declaration of failure of election and the annulment of the proclamation of the winning candidate,
unless the number of uncast votes will affect the result of the election. (Co. v. COMELEC)
• In the case at bar, although the COMELEC declared the transfer of the polling place to be illegal,
the fact is that only 66 out of 255 registered voters in Precinct No. 4 were not able to vote.
Assuming that all the 63 signatures on the affidavit submitted by petitioner were authentic and that
the 63 voters who signed the complaint-affidavit would have voted for petitioner, their votes would
increase petitioner’s 2,122 votes to 2,185 only, which is still less than private respondent’s total of
2,271 votes. The additional votes would not have materially affected the results of the election so as
to warrant a declaration of failure of election.
• The contention is without merit, as regards issue on “obviously manufactured” ERs
- As the court ruled in Loong v. COMELEC, "as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly
accomplished on their face, the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify
allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of the votes…”
• The COMELEC thus correctly denied petitioner’s motion for technical examination of the Voters’
Lists and Voters’ Affidavits (C.E. Form Nos. 1 & 2).
• Petitioner’s remedy is to raise the issues he seeks to ventilate in this case in an election protest
before the RTC.
• The records show that he filed two pre-proclamation controversies before private respondent.
The second of these petitions questioned the validity of the returns. As his petition was not acted
upon by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, he filed a petition for the annulment of private
respondent’s proclamation in the COMELEC. Pursuant to Sec. 248 of the OEC, the filing of this case
for suspension or annulment of the proclamation of Tanog suspended the running of the period for
filing an election protest.
• Sec. 248. Effect of filing petition to annual or to suspend the proclamation. - The filing with the
Commission of a petition to annual or to suspend the proclamation of any candidate
shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto
proceedings.
• WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on March 19,
1996 is LIFTED effective immediately.

BULAONG v. COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong, M.D. and private respondent Luis Villafuerte were both candidates for
the office of the provincial governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 local elections.
Petitioner, having obtained a total of 184,654 votes as against private respondent’s vote of 155,359
or a difference of 29,295 votes, was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly
elected governor on June 30, 1992. Accordingly, petitioner took his oath of office on July 1, 1992.
• On July 9, 1992, private respondent filed an election protest, alleging fraud and other
irregularities in 594 precincts located in 10 municipalities and one city (Iriga City) of Camarines
Sur. He prayed that a revision of the ballots and other election documents and their technical
examination be ordered, that the results of the elections be annulled and that he be declared the
duly elected Governor of Camarines Sur.
• On motion of private respondent the Commission on Elections ordered the revision of the ballots
to be held in Manila.
• Acting on private respondent’s prayer, the First Division of the COMELEC through its order dated
September 9, 1992 granted private respondent’s prayer for a revision of ballots to be held in
Manila.
• The Commission denied the petition.
• Again, petitioner filed with the COMELEC en banc a manifestation and motion praying that his
motions for reconsideration and his Omnibus Motion filed with the First Division be ordered
certified to it for resolution.
• On December 3, 1992, the First Division of the COMELEC denied petitioner’s manifestation that its
motions for reconsiderations be certified to the COMELEC en banc
• Hence, this instant petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining
order to enjoin the order to the First Division of the COMELEC dated September 9,1992.
• On December 14,1992, this Court issued a temporary restraining order against public
Respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether the Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions for
reconsideration and writ of Mandamus.

HELD:
It is the opinion of the court that the COMELEC did NOT commit grave abuse of discretion. For said
motion to be considered en banc, it requires the unanimous vote of the members of the division as
mandated by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the case at bar, there was an absence of
such vote.
• Similarly, a mandamus proceeding involving a discretionary power of the COMELEC does not lie. A
perusal of the aforecited section impliedly reveals the discretionary power of the COMELEC
Division or En Banc to order a revision of ballots.
• This can be gleaned from the use of the phrase, "whenever in the opinion of the Commission or
Division the interest of justice so demand." Although in most instances the revision of ballots takes
place in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned, revision of ballots may also be held in "such
places as the Commission or Division shall designate."
• Petitioner is to be reminded that mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an
act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot compel the doing of an act involving the exercise
of discretion one way or the other.
• WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued
by this court against the First Division of the COMELEC enjoining the transfer of ballot boxes to
Manila is hereby LIF
POWER TO DECLARE SPECIAL REGISTRATION AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Fuentes, Arczft Ran Z.

AKBAYAN – YOUTH, et. al. vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 147066 MARCH 26, 2001

FACTS:
AKBAYAN Et Al. - representing the youth sector - seek to direct the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to conduct a 2-days special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections, of
new voters ages 18 to 21.
According to AKBAYAN, around four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27,
2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
A public hearing was called for such purpose and they agreed on that meeting that they would
allow. However, the Regional Electoral Directors denied this because it was 120-days before the
regular elections.
COMELEC issued a resolution of this decision and denied AKBAYAN’s prayer for 2-days special
registration on the ground of OPERATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Aggrieved, Akbayan, Et. Al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to annul the COMELEC’s
resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether COMELEC acted in grave abuse of Discretion in denying the 2-days special registration.

RULING:
NO. Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies in the present case, for the purpose of upholding the assailed
COMELEC Resolution, considering that the aforesaid law explicitly provides that no registration
shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
election.
SEC. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The Personal filing of application of registration
of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No
registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120)
days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election,"
COMELEC in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration, acted within the
bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter.
In issuing the assailed Resolution, COMELEC simply performed its constitutional task to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, inter alia, questions
relating to the registration of voters;
COMELEC merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls
within the proper sphere of its constitutionally mandated powers.
Hence, whatever action COMELEC takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically
on matters involving voters' registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act.

SAMBARINI VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 160427 September 15, 2004

FACTS:
In the 15 July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections was held in Lanao
del Sur.
Due to a failure of elections in eleven barangays in Lanao del Sur, the COMELEC issued Resolution
No. 5479 setting special elections on 13 August 2002 in the affected barangays in Lanao del Sur.
Including the 5 barangays which petitioned in this case.
However, there were no special elections held in August 13, 2002 because Election Officer Maulay
failed to comply with Commissioner’s directive.
COMELEC issued a Resolution directing DILG to appoint the Barangay Captains, Kagawads and SK
Chairmen and SK Kagawads in the affected Barangays.
COMELEC’s ruling: To hold another special election is untenable. The COMELEC explained that it is
no longer in a position to call for another special election since Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code provides that "special elections shall be held on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, but not later than thirty days after cessation of the cause of such postponement."
Since more than 30 days had elapsed since the failed election, it is the view of COMELEC that a
special election is untenable.

ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion when they failed to held a special election
on a reasonably close to the date of election.
HELD:
YES. The prohibition on conducting special elections after thirty days from the cessation of the
cause of the failure of elections is not absolute. It is directory, not mandatory, and the COMELEC
possesses residual power to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law.
The deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat the right of suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the
Constitution. The COMELEC erroneously perceived that the deadline in Section 6 is absolute.
The COMELEC has broad power or authority to fix other dates for special elections to enable the
people to exercise their right of suffrage. The COMELEC may fix other dates for the conduct of
special elections when the same cannot be reasonably held within the period prescribed by law.
Also, in Sec. 45 of the Omnibus Election Code, 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.
Unlike Section 6, Section 45 does not state that special elections should be held on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held. Instead, Section 45 states that special elections
should be held within thirty days from the cessation of the causes for postponement.
Logically, special elections could be held anytime, provided the date of the special elections is
within thirty days from the time the cause of postponement has ceased.
Had the COMELEC resolved to hold special elections in its Resolution dated 8 October 2003, it
would not be as pressed for time as it is now. The operational, logistical and financial problems
which COMELEC claims it will encounter with the holding of a second special election can be solved
with proper planning, coordination and cooperation among its personnel and other deputized
agencies of the government.
In this case, the cause of postponement after the second failure of elections was COMELEC’s refusal
to hold a special election because of (1) its erroneous interpretation of the law, and (2) its
perceived logistical, operational and financial problems. COMELEC’s reasons for refusing to hold
another special election are void.
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES and ACCREDITATION OF CITIZEN ARMS
Gomez, Rosalita P.

ALCANTARA vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 203646 │April 16, 2013

FACTS:
Petitioner Samson Alcantara, along with his fellow law teachers, organized in 2003 a party
which was initially named Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied
Workers. It was changed to Abakada Guro Party List in 2004 which was duly approved by the
COMELEC. When ABAKADA participated in 2007 elections, it won a seat and Jonathan dela Cruz,
being its first nominee, became its sole representative in Congress. In 2009, dela Cruz tendered his
"irrevocable" resignation but refused to vacate his seat. Thus, petitioners Alcantara et.al filed a quo
warranto with the Supreme Court but was subsequently dismissed for being moot and academic. In
several occasions in last quarter of 2009, dela Cruz requested Alcantara in writing to convene the
Supreme Assembly. Under ABAKADA’s CBL, a Supreme Assembly meeting should be held at least
once every three years but no Supreme Assembly had been called and held since 2004. In his letter-
response, Alcantara explained that the Supreme Assembly cannot be held as requested because many
of the members reside in the provinces and the party do not have funds to cover the necessary
expenses. Alcantara suggested instead that it would be more "feasible to hold the Supreme Assembly
early of the following year as may be determined by their National Executive Board.

However, all Leaders Assembly was convened in December 2009 wherein it was proposed
and adopted that a Supreme Assembly is to be convened in February 2010 with the agenda of
amending the ABAKADA CBL, election of new officers, and discussion of other election related
matters. Although Alcantara failed to attend said meeting, he sent Noel Tiampong in his stead. Party’s
chapters and members were notified of the holding of the first Supreme Assembly. The said Supreme
Assembly resulted in the approval and ratification of the revised ABAKADA CBL; the ouster of Samson
Alcantara, Noel Tiampong and Pedro Dabu from their positions as President, Vice President for the
Visayas and Secretary, respectively; the expulsion of the petitioners from the party; and the election
of De la Cruz and Albano as new President and Secretary-General, respectively. Thus, petitioners filed
a petition with the COMELEC to (i) declare the Supreme Assembly void and (ii) restrain the
respondents from falsely representing themselves as the duly elected officers of ABAKADA

Petitioners alleged that first, the sending of notices and the holding of a Supreme Assembly
were contrary to the party’s CBL since they have not been authorized by the President and by the
party’s National Executive Board; second, Albano has no authority to sign and send notices, much
less call a Supreme Assembly, since he is not the party’s Secretary; and third, membership status of
several participants who attended the Supreme Assembly have neither been approved nor accepted
in accordance with the party’s CBL

The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition and ruled that the holding of an
assembly for purposes of electing party’s officers and the amendment of the party’s CBL have long
been overdue under the leadership of Alcantara as there was no Supreme Assembly convened since
ABAKADA’s accreditation in 2004. Respondents Dela Cruz et.al, as members in good standing, had
every right to ask Alcantara to make a call for a Supreme Assembly and had “good cause” to initiate
the holding of the meeting because the latter failed to heed such request pursuant to the party’s CBL.
On the other hand, the COMELEC En Banc denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and
ruled that the Member’s Personal Data Cards" that have been submitted by petitioners only evince
that people listed therein are members of the party as of 2003 but do not prove that the attendees in
the assailed Supreme Assembly are not legitimate members of the party.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the Supreme Assembly is void for being not convened in accordance with
ABAKADA`s CBL.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Supreme Assembly is valid as its general membership has
spoken.

It was held that COMELEC has clear jurisdictional authority to resolve the issue of party
leadership and party identity because the COMELEC is empowered to register political parties under
Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution. As part of its power to enforce and administer laws relative
to the conduct of election, the COMELEC possesses the power to register national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions for purposes of the party-list system of elections. This
registration under the party-list system confers the party-list group with juridical personality for
election related purposes which can only validly act as juridical entity through its authorized
representative/s. Corollary to its power to register parties is the COMELEC’s power to pass upon the
question of who, among the legitimate officers of the party-list group, are entitled to exercise the
rights and privileges granted to a party-list group under the law.

Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that the attendees in the Supreme
Assembly were not legitimate members of the party. As COMELEC correctly observed, all the
petitioners established is the group’s membership as of 2003 and failed to account the group’s actual
membership at least as of 2009 or the year immediately prior to the holding of Supreme Assembly in
February 2010. As to Alcantara’s allegation that he has denied the membership of most of those who
attended the 2010 Supreme Assembly, petitioners have not pointed out the basis for such broad claim
of authority because the applications for party membership are approved by the membership council
in the municipal, city, provincial or regional levels as based on ABAKADA’s CBL. Thus, ABAKADA
should be allowed as a sectoral party to determine its own affairs under its present leadership.

LIBERAL PARTY vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 191771│ May 6, 2010

FACTS:
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8646 on July 14, 2009 setting August 17, 2009 as the
last day for the filing of petitions for registration of political parties. Subsequently, COMELEC
promulgated Resolution No. 8752 on January 21, 2010, providing, among others, for the rules for the
filing of petitions for accreditation for the determination of the dominant majority party, the
dominant minority party, ten major national parties, and two major local parties for the May 2010
elections. Same Resolution also set the deadline for filing of petitions for accreditation on February
12, 2010 and required that accreditation applicants be registered political parties, organizations or
coalitions.
 The Liberal Party (LP) filed with the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as dominant
minority party on February 12, 2010. On the same date, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the
Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) filed a petition for registration as a coalition (NP-NPC) and asked
that "it be recognized and accredited as the dominant minority party for purposes of the May 2010
elections. Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8752, the said petition of NP-NPC was docketed as
an accreditation case.

Thereafter, LP filed its Opposition to the said petition on February 23, 2010 on the grounds
that NP-NPC was not a duly registered coalition of political parties at the time of filing of their petition
for accreditation as dominant minority party; COMELEC en banc has no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition for registration as a coalition because the petition should have been first brought before the
proper Division; NP-NPC’s petition for registration as a coalition was filed with the Clerk of the
Commission instead of the Law Department in violation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Said
petition for registration as a coalition was filed beyond the August 17, 2009 deadline set by the
COMELEC; and the respective chapters, incumbents and candidates of the NP and the NPC separately
cannot be taken into account for purposes of accreditation as dominant minority party because the
NP-NPC as a coalition is an entirely different entity.

Nevertheless, COMELEC issued an Order and a Notice of Hearing, setting for hearing the
petitions for accreditation and for the purpose of determining the dominant majority party, dominant
minority party, ten (10) major national parties and two (2) major local parties in connection with the
May 2010 elections. The NP-NPC’s petitions for accreditation as the dominant minority party were
among of the petitions set for hearing. LP presented as its witness Rep. Lualhati Antonino, a member
of the NPC’s National Convention, who testified that the NPC National Convention did not authorize
its National Central Committee to enter into a coalition with the NP and that neither the National
Convention nor the general membership was ever consulted about the merger with the NP. On the
other hand, NP-NPC presented former Gov. Faustino Dy, Jr. to refute Rep. Antonino’s testimony.

The COMELEC En Banc granted the NP-NPC’s petition for registration as a coalition and
deferred the resolution of the NP-NPC’s application for accreditation as dominant minority party
through its Resolution dated April 12, 2010. It held that it can directly act on the petition for
registration of coalition because such matter is well-within its administrative powers and there is no
constitutional requirement that a petition for registration of a coalition should be decided first by a
division. It further held that although the NP-NPC’s failure to file the petition with the Law
Department constituted a violation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (COMELEC Rules), the en
banc has the discretion to suspend the application of the rules in the interest of justice and speedy
disposition of cases. In any case, it added that the authority to approve or deny the Law Department’s
recommendation on the registration of the coalition rests with it. Finally, it held that no rule exists
setting a deadline for the registration of coalitions as it opined that the registration of a coalition is
simply a recognition of a political reality and the approval of its registration is a mere recognition of
an "operative fact." by the COMELEC.

It was found that both the NP and the NPC have validly agreed to join forces for political or
election purposes and satisfactorily submitted all the documentary requirements to prove the
merger’s validity. In any case, LP which is a stranger to the internal dynamics of both parties, does
not have the standing to question the coalition because only the representatives or members of either
party possess such standing if the Constitution and By-Laws of either the NP or the NPC was violated
by the merger.
ISSUES:
WHETHER OR NOT the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC, viewed as a petition for
registration, is time-barred.

Whether or not COMELEC En Banc gravely abuse its discretion when it allowed the
registration of the NP-NPC.

Whether or not the NP-NPC is an operative fact that the COMELEC simply has to note and
recognize without need of registration.

RULING:
The registration of a coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority party are two
separate matters and are substantively distinct from each other. Registration is the act that bestows
juridical personality for purposes of our election laws while accreditation, on the other hand, relates
to the privileged participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered parties. Section
2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution and Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules regulate the registration of
political parties, organizations or coalitions of political parties while COMELEC Resolution No. 8752
governs the accreditation of dominant party. Section 1 of said Resolution states that the petition for
accreditation shall be filed with the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it as an SPP (DM) case
- just like how the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC was docketed. While the registration of
political parties is a special proceeding clearly assigned to a Division for handling under Section 1,
Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules on Special Proceedings, no similar clear-cut rule is available for a
petition for accreditation as a dominant party.

Accreditation can only be granted to a registered political party, organization or coalition.

Thus, 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. Where the
registration is flawed for having been attended by grave abuse of discretion, as alleged in the petition,
the filing of a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a preliminary injunction can only be expected
as a logical remedial move; otherwise, accreditation, unless restrained, will follow.

The NP-NPC’s petition for registration as a coalition is time-barred. Thus, the en banc
gravely abused its discretion when it disregarded its own deadline in ruling on the registration of
the NP-NPC as a coalition.
Resolution No. 8646 simply states that August 17, 2009 is the Last day for filing petitions for
registration of political parties and is simply a listing of electoral activities and deadlines for the May
2010 elections. It is not in any way a resolution aimed at establishing distinctions among political
parties, organizations, and coalitions. In the absence of any note, the term political parties should be
understood in its generic sense that covers both political organizations and political coalitions. To
rule otherwise is to introduce through a COMELEC deadline-setting resolution a meaning or intent
into Section 2(5), Article IX-C, which was not clearly intended by the Constitution or by the COMELEC
Rules; and Resolution No. 8646 would effectively differentiate between political parties, on the one
hand, and political organizations and coalitions, on the other. No substantial distinction exists among
these entities germane to the act of registration that would justify creating distinctions among them
in terms of deadlines. Such distinctions in the deadlines for the registration of political organizations
and coalitions, if allowed, may even wreak havoc on the procedural orderliness of elections by
allowing these registrations to introduce late and confusing signals to the electorate, not to mention
their possible adverse effects on election systems and procedures.
 With the very significant participation of registered political parties on election day, during
the voting and thereafter, the deadline for registration cannot but be a firm and mandatory deadline
that the COMELEC has set.

Given the mandatory nature of the deadline, subject only to a systemic change, the en banc
acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it granted the registration of NP-NPC as a coalition beyond
the deadline the COMELEC itself had set because the authority to register political parties under
mandatory terms is only up to the deadline. Effectively, the mandatory deadline is a jurisdictional
matter that should have been satisfied but was not.
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES and ACCREDITATION OF CITIZEN ARMS
Gonzaga, Nhassie John G.

LOKIN, JR. vs COMELEC

GR. nos. 17943-32, June 22, 2010

Doctrine/Principle: Allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees through withdrawal
of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of nominees
circumvents the voters’ demand for transparency.

Facts: The Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) was one of the organized groups duly
registered under the party-list system of representation that manifested their intent to participate
in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections.
CIBAC, through its president, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted a list of five nominees from
which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the required number of qualifying
votes. The nominees, in the order that their names appeared in the certificate of nomination dated
March 29, 2007,3 were: (1) Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva; (2) herein petitioner Luis K. Lokin, Jr.; (3)
Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5) Emil L. Galang. The nominees’ certificates of
acceptance were attached to the certificate of nomination filed by CIBAC. The list of nominees was
later published in two newspapers of general circulation.
Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC, still through Villanueva, filed a certificate of nomination,
substitution and amendment of the list of nominees dated May 7, 2007, whereby it withdrew the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees.
The amended list of nominees of CIBAC thus included: (1) Villanueva, (2) Cruz-Gonzales, and (3)
Borje.
Following the close of the polls, or on June 20, 2007, Villanueva sent a letter to COMELEC Chairperson
Benjamin Abalos, transmitting therewith the signed petitions of more than 81% of the CIBAC
members, in order to confirm the withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and the
substitution of Borje. In their petitions, the members of CIBAC averred that Lokin and Tugna were
not among the nominees presented and proclaimed by CIBAC in its proclamation rally held in May
2007; and that Galang had signified his desire to focus on his family life.
Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc approves the withdrawal of the nomination Lokin, Tugna and
Galang as the second, third and fourth nominee.
The COMELEC en banc explained that the actions of Villanueva in his capacity as the president of
CIBAC were presumed to be within the scope of his authority as such; that the president was charged
by Section 1 of Article IV of the CIBAC By-Laws to oversee and direct the corporate activities, which
included the act of submitting the party’s manifestation of intent to participate in the May 14, 2007
elections.
As a result, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official second nominee of CIBAC.
Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a Party-List Representative of CIBAC on September 17, 2007.
Lokin assails Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 promulgated on January 12, 2007; and the resolution
dated September 14, 2007 issued in E.M. No. 07-054 (approving CIBAC’s withdrawal of the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang as CIBAC’s second, third and fourth nominees, respectively,
and the substitution by Cruz-Gonzales and Borje in their stead, based on the right of CIBAC to change
its nominees under Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804). He alleges that Section 13 of Resolution No.
7804 expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941. The law that the COMELEC seeks to thereby implement.

Issue: Whether or not the substitution made by CIBAC Party-list after the latter had submitted the
list of nominees to the COMELEC valid.

Ruling: NO, pursuant to Section 8 of the Party-list system act, the usage of “No” in Section 8—“No
change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have
been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing
his nomination, or becomes incapacitated, in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall
be placed last in the list”— Section 8 does not unduly deprive the party-list organization of its right
to choose its nominees, but merely divests it of the right to change its nominees or to alter the order
in the list of its nominees’ names after submission of the list to the COMELEC.
The prohibition is not arbitrary or capricious; neither is it without reason on the part of lawmakers.
The COMELEC can rightly presume from the submission of the list that the list reflects the true will
of the party-list organization. The COMELEC will not concern itself with whether or not the list
contains the real intended nominees of the party-list organization, but will only determine whether
the nominees pass all the requirements prescribed by the law and whether or not the nominees
possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Thereafter, the names of the nominees
will be published in newspapers of general circulation. Although the people vote for the party-list
organization itself in a party-list system of election, not for the individual nominees, they still have
the right to know who the nominees of any particular party-list organization are. The publication of
the list of the party-list nominees in newspapers of general circulation serves that right of the people,
enabling the voters to make intelligent and informed choices.
In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees through withdrawal of their
nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of nominees
circumvents the voters’ demand for transparency. The lawmakers’ exclusion of such arbitrary
withdrawal has eliminated the possibility of such circumvention.
ATIENZA, JR., et al. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
GR. No. 188920, FEBRUARY 16, 2010

Doctrine/Principle: The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party dispute is limited. It does not have
blanket authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties.

Facts: On July 5, 2005 Franklin M. Drilon as erstwhile president of the Liberal Party, announced his
party’s withdrawal of support for the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. But Jose
L. Atienza, Jr, LP Chairman, and a number of party members denounced Drilon’s move, claiming that
he made the announcement without consulting his party.
On March 2, 2006, Atienza hosted a party conference to supposedly discuss local autonomy and party
matters but, when convened, the assembly proceeded to declare all positions in the LP’s ruling body
vacant and elected new officers, with Atienza as LP president. Drilon, immediately filed a petition
with the COMELEC to nullify the elections. He claimed that it was illegal considering the party’s
electing bodies, the National Executive Council (NECO) and the National Political Council (NAPOLCO),
were not properly convened.
On October 13, 2006, the COMELEC issued a resolution partially granting respondent Drilon’s
petition. It annulled the March 2, 2006 elections and ordered the holding of a new election under
COMELEC supervision. Subsequently, the LP held a NECO meeting to elect new party leaders,
eventually, that meeting installed Manuel Roxas II as the new LP President.
Atienza filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory injunction before the COMELEC against Roxas.
They questioned the existence of a quorum. On the other hand, Roxas claimed that the party deemed
Atienza, et al., resigned for holding the illegal election of LP officers last March 2, 2006.
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Elections have jurisdiction over intra-party disputes.
Ruling: The COMELEC’s has limited jurisdiction over intra-party dispute.
It does not have blanket authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties.
Political parties are generally free to conduct their respective activities without interference from the
state. The COMELEC may intervene in disputes internal to a party only when necessary to the
discharge of its constitutional functions.
In the case of Kalaw vs. COMELEC, the COMELEC’s powers and functions under Section 2, Article IX-
C of the Constitution, “include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate
officers responsible for its acts”. The court also declared in another case that the COMELEC’s power
to register political parties necessarily involved determination of the persons who must act on its
behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought
before it, as an incident of its power to register political parties.
In this case, the validity of Roxas’ election as LP President is a leadership issue that the COMELEC had
to settle. On the other hand, the validity or invalidity of Atienza, et al’s expulsion was purely
membership issue that had to be settled within the party. It is an internal party matter over which
the COMELEC has no jurisdiction.
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES and ACCREDITATION OF CITIZEN ARMS
Gultiano, Ernie Y.

LICO vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205505; September 29, 2015

Facts: Ating Koop was declared as one of the winning party-list groups on December 8, 2010. It
earned a seat at the House of Representatives, with petitioner Atty. Isidro Q. Lico as its party-list
representative.

On May 14, 2011, Ating Koop introduced amendments to its constitution, which cut short the three-
year term of the incumbent members.

On December 5, 2011, the Interim Central Committee of Ating Koop expelled Lico for disloyalty.
There were allegations of graft and corruption, and Lico’s refusal to honor the term-sharing
agreement.

The Lico group held a special meeting in Cebu City, while the Rimas group held a Special National
Convention in Paranaque City. The Rimas group filed a Petition with COMELEC praying that Lico be
ordered to vacate his office and to nullify the meeting that happened in Cebu.

COMELEC Second Division upheld the expulsion of Lico and declared Roberto Mascarina, the elected
representative during the Paranaque meeting, as the duly qualified nominee of the party-list group.

Issue: Which, between the two contending groups, is the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop?

Ruling: The COMELECs jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within the party is well
established. This power to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the
COMELEC as an incident of its enforcement powers.

However, the COMELEC has committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the Rimas Group as the
legitimate set of Ating Koop officers for the simple reason that the amendments to the Constitution
and By-laws of Ating Koop were not registered with the COMELEC. Hence, neither of the elections
held during the Cebu meeting and the Paranaque conference pursuant to the said amendments, were
valid.

There is no showing that the amendments were actually filed with the COMELEC. A party-list
organization owes its existence to the State and the latter's approval must be obtained through its
agent, the COMELEC.

The State, through the COMELEC, is a party to the principal contracts entered into by the party-list
organization and its members - the Constitution and By-laws - such that any amendment to these
contracts would constitute a novation requiring the consent of all the parties involved. An
amendment to the by-laws of a party-list organization should become effective only upon approval
by the COMELEC.

Thus, there being no showing that the amendments on the by-laws of Ating Koop were filed with and
subsequently approved by the COMELEC, any election conducted pursuant thereto may not be
considered valid. Without such requisite proof, neither the Lico Group nor the Rimas Group can claim
to be the legitimate set of officers of Ating Koop.

LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO vs. COMELEC

G.R. NO. 161265; February 24, 2004

Facts: The General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political
party, informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, Senator
Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the
party’s official candidates. The same Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP
Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on “indefinite forced leave.” In the meantime,
Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary General.

However, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, contending that the Party Chairman does not have the
authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the Manifestation filed by the
LDP General Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to disregard the same.

The COMELEC granted the petition with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. The
candidates for President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad nominated and endorsed by
LDP Chairman Edgardo J. Angara are recognized by the Commission as official candidates of LDP
Angara Wing. On the other hand, the candidates from President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan
Kagawad as nominated and endorsed by LDP Secretary General Agapito Butz Aquino are likewise
recognized as official candidates of LDP Aquino Wing.

Issues: (1) Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over the ascertainment of the identity of the political
party and its officers? (2) Was the decision of the COMELEC granting the Petition based on Equity
proper?

Ruling: (1) Yes. The COMELEC correctly stated that the ascertainment of the identity of a political
party and its legitimate officers is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this
authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and
function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election.

Citing Palmares vs. Commission on Elections, the SC ruled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over
the issue of leadership in a political party. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is empowered to
register political parties [Sec. 2(5), Article IX-C.] In the exercise of such power, the COMELEC must
determine who these officers are. Consequently, if there is any controversy as to leadership, the
COMELEC may, in a proper case brought before it, resolve the issue incidental to its power to register
political parties.

In the instant case, Angara, the Party Chairman, purporting to represent the LDP, contends that under
the Party Constitution only he or his representative, to the exclusion of Aquino, the Secretary General,
has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations. Aquino vigorously disputes this claim and
maintains his own authority. Clearly, the question of party identity or leadership has to be resolved
if the COMELEC is to ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate party standard bearers or not.
To prevent party misrepresentations, the COMELEC has the power and the duty to step in and enforce
the law not only to protect the party but, more importantly, the electorate, in line with the
Commissions broad constitutional mandate to ensure orderly elections.

(2) No. The COMELEC need only to turn to the Party Constitution. It need not go so far as to resolve
the root of the conflict between the party officials. It need only resolve such questions as may be
necessary in the exercise of its enforcement powers.

Accordingly, the Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party, whose powers and
functions include:

(1) To represent the Party in all external affairs and concerns, sign documents for and on its
behalf, xxx

The Secretary General, on the other hand, assists the Party Chairman in overseeing the day-to-day
operations of the Party. Among his powers and functions is:

(1) When empowered by the Party Chairman, to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party.

Therefore, the Secretary General’s authority to sign documents is only a delegated power, which
originally pertains to the Party Chairman.

Assuming that Aquino previously had such authority, the SC cannot share the COMELEC’s finding that
the same has not been revoked or recalled. No revocation of such authority can be more explicit than
the totality of Sen. Angara’s Manifestations and Petition before the COMELEC, through which he
informed the Commission that Aquino had been placed on indefinite forced leave and that
Ambassador Zaldivar has been designated Acting Secretary General, who shall henceforth exercise
all the powers and functions of the Secretary General under the Constitution and By-Laws of the LDP.

Hence, it is plain that the COMELEC misapplied equity in the present case. For all its conceded merits,
equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. The COMELEC should have
decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws. It chose not to because of its
irrational fear of treading on unchartered territories. In truth, the COMELEC Resolution is indecision
in the guise of equity.
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES and ACCREDITATION OF CITIZEN ARMS
Gunda, Geneveive D.

AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE (A-IPRA), Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MELVIN G. LOTA, MAC-MAC BERNALES, MARY ANNE P. SANTOS,
JEAN ANNABELL S. GAROTA, JOSEPH T. EVANGELISTA, ET AL. Respondents.
G.R. No. 204591 April 16, 2013

Facts:
Petitioner, Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) is a sectoral political party
whose primordial objectives are the recognition, protection, and promotion of the rights of the
indigenous people. COMELEC granted the application of A-IPRA as a partly-list group dated January
13, 2010
A-IPRA participated in the May 2010 elections, with the following as nominees and officers
(Insigne Group):
Nominees:
1. Atty. Eugenio A. Insigne
2. Atty. Gregorio A. Andolana
3. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo
Officers:
1. Ruben R. Sison, President
2. Ricardo B. Rivera, Vice President for External Affairs
3. Larry G. Ramos, Vice President for Internal Affairs
4. Oscar B. Rivera, Public Information Officer
5. Ronnie T. Dizon, Secretary
6. Antonio M. Sumilang, Treasurer
However, the Insigne Group failed to obtain a seat in Congress.
On May 31, 2012, A-IPRA filed a Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the May 2013
Elections with the COMELEC, with the following list of nominees and officers (Lota Group):
Nominees:
1. Melvin G. Lota
2. Mac-Mac Bernales
3. Mary Anne P. Santos
4. Jean Annabell S. Garota
5. Joseph T. Evangelista
Officers:
1. Antonio S. Abad, Chairman
2. Jennita G. Bascones, Vice Chairman for Internal Affairs
 3. Consolacion B. Abad, Vice Chairman for External Affairs
4. Jordan P. Cimafranca, Secretary General
5. Oscar D. Celeste, Treasurer
6. Thomas A. Siy, III, Auditor
7. Frances Trina A. Salvante, Public Relations Officer
On October 11, 2012, the Insigne Group, under the name of A-IPRA, filed a Petition for
Intervention with Opposition to the Nomination filed by Bogus Officers of A-IPRA. They alleged that
their members remain the legitimate nominees and officers of A-IPRA as they were never replaced
in accordance with procedure stated in the by-laws of the organization. They charged the Lota Group
of submitting fake documents which contained forged signatures. Thus, they prayed that the Lota
Group be disqualified as nominees and officers of A-IPRA and that they be recognized as the
legitimate nominees and officers of the group and be allowed to participate in the May 2013 elections.
On November 7, 2012, COMELEC en banc cancelled the registration and accreditation of A-
IPRA. A-IPRA failed to convince the Commission that it has satisfied the guidelines pertaining to
party-list nominees.
On December 13, 2012, the Insigne Group filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court, claiming that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing Resolution dated
November 7, 2012 and reiterating their prayer to be recognized as the legitimate nominees and
officers of A-IPRA.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the registration and
accreditation of A-IPRA.

Ruling:
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Insigne Group impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing
Resolution dated November 7, 2012 which cancelled A-IPRA’s registration/accreditation on the
ground of disqualification of its nominees. This issue, however, had already been resolved by this
Court in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections. Lota Group also filed a separate petition for
certiorari with this Court, challenging the same resolution of the COMELEC. The said petition was
docketed as G.R. No. 204125 and was consolidated with several other cases questioning similar
issuances by the COMELEC. Eventually, the Court resolved the consolidated cases in Atong Paglaum
by upholding the validity of the issuances of the COMELEC, ordering that all the petitions be
remanded to the COMELEC for reevaluation of the qualifications of the party-list groups based on the
new set of parameters laid down in the mentioned decision.
In Atong Paglaum, the Court specifically ruled that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its
discretion. Thus, the court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
following prevailing decisions.
The COMELEC failed to resolve the issue of the legitimacy of the nomination of the Lota Group
and this was raised as an issue by the Insigne Group in the instant petition. However, with the remand
of all the petitions to the COMELEC and the directive for it to redetermine the qualifications of the
petitioning party-list groups, it is only appropriate that the Insigne Group present their challenge to
the legitimacy of the Lota Group’s nomination before the Commission to give it the opportunity to
rule on the matter at the same time that it reevaluates A-IPRA’s qualifications to run in the May 2013
elections.

ATTY. LUCKY M. DAMASEN, Petitioner,

vs.
OSCAR G. TUMAMAO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 173165 February 17, 2010

Facts:
Vice Mayor Nelia Tumamao of San Isidro, Isabella died on December 2, 2004. As a result, a
permanent vacancy was created in the Office of the Vice Mayor. Ligaya C. Alonzo (Alonzo) was
elevated to the position of Vice Mayor, she being the highest-ranking member of the Sangguniang
Bayan. Consequently, a permanent vacancy was created in the Sangguniang Bayan. To fill up the
ensuing vacancy in the Sangguniang Bayan, San Isidro Mayor Abraham T. Lim (Mayor Lim)
recommended to Governor Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca (Gov. Padaca), the appointment of
respondent Oscar G. Tumamao (Tumamao), a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LDP), the same political party to which Alonzo belonged. On April 15, 2005, Tumamao took his oath
as a member of the Sangguninang Bayan before Mayor Lim.
On May 2005, Atty. Lucky Damasen (Damasen), became a member of LDP after taking his
oath before LDP Provincial Chairman, Ms. Ana Benita Balauag (Provincial Chairman Balauag).
Damasen obtained a letter of nomination from Provincial Chairman Balauag addressed to Gov.
Padaca for his appointment to the Sangguniang Bayan. Damasen was appointed by Gov. Padaca as
Sangguniang Bayan member and took his oath before Gov. Padaca. Damasen attended the
Sangguniang Bayan session, but with Tumamao present, he was not duly recognized.
Damasen filed with the RTC a Petition for Quo Warranto with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction, seeking to be declared the rightful member of the Sangguniang Bayan,
claiming that he had been nominated by LDP Provincial Chairman Balauag and had been appointed
thereto by Gov. Padaca.
Tumamao called to the witness stand his counsel Atty. Ernest Soberano (Soberano), who
identified a letter dated June 14, 2005, signed by LDP Provincial Chairman Balauag, which states that
she was revoking her nomination of Damasen, and that she was confirming Tumamao’s nomination
made by Mayor Lim. Later, Tumamao presented Provincial Chairman Balauag who affirmed the
contents of her letter revoking the nomination of Damasen.
RTC ruled in favor or Damasen.
Tumamao appealed the decision of the RTC. The CA held that Damasen is not entitled to
assume the vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Damasen is a bonafide member of LDP and hence has the right to succeed the
vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan.

Ruling:
No. Damasen is not a bona fide member of LDP and has no right to succeed the vacant position
in the Sangguniang Bayan.
Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160, which provides for the rule on succession in cases of permanent
vacancies in the Sanggunian:
1. the appointee shall come from the same political party as that of the Sanggunian member who
caused the vacancy
2. the appointee must have a nomination and a Certificate of Membership from the highest
official of the political party concerned
In the present case, the permanent vacancy in the Sanggunian occurred because of the
elevation of LDP Member Alonzo to Vice Mayor. It follows that the person to succeed her should also
belong to the LDP. Based on the documents submitted, Damasen was not a bona fide member of LDP.
Damasen admitted that he was previously member of Lakas-CIMD, and that he ran for the
position of Mayor in 2004 elections under the said party and did not resign from the party when he
joined LDP.
While the revocation of Damasen’s nomination came after his appointment, the Supreme
Court still cannot rule in favor of Damasen since the first requirement of Sec 45(b) is that the
appointee must come from political party is that of the Sanggunian member who caused the vacancy.
Records also reveal that Tumamao has the nomination of Sen. Edgardo Angara, the Party Chairman,
the highest official of the LDP. In addition, he is a member in good standing of the LDP.
Petition by Damasen is denied, and the decision of CA is affirmed that Damasen was not
entitled to assume the vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan.