ELECTION LAW
file certiorari to the SC.
I. The Legal Framework
(see ppt for the list of governing laws)
II. The Institutional Framework
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Q: What are the issues that the
COMELEC should take cognizance of?
A: Enforcement: all laws and
regulations on election — plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall.
Judicial Power: Election, election
returns, and qualifications of the
candidates.
But not pertaining to suffrage or the
right to vote.
Jurisdiction:
1. Original - if the issue involves
regional, provincial and city
officials
2. Appellate - if the issue involves
municipal and barangay officials
Q: What are the recourse available if
the judgment or decision is not
favorable to you?
A: En banc and by division
Process: By division, you file for a
motion for reconsideration to en banc;
if still the decision is adverse then you
Powers of the COMELEC:
1. Judicial
➢ Contempt power
2. Administrative
3. Investigative and Prosecute
Election Offense
4. Annulment of Book of Voters
Judicial Power
_______________________________________
It is its power to decide on
disqualifications, election protest, quo
warranto (but different from that of the
quo warranto as discussed in the Rules
of Court), pre-proclamation, and
annulment of proclamation.
Javier vs COMELEC
G.R. No. L-22248
On May 13, 1984, the eve of the
elections, the bitter contest between
the two came to a head when several
followers of the petitioner were
ambushed and killed, allegedly by
the latter's men. Seven suspects,
including respondent Pacificador,
are now facing... trial for these
murders. The incident naturally
heightened tension in the province
and sharpened the climate of fear
among the electorate. Conceivably,
it intimidated voters against
supporting the Opposition candidate
or into supporting the candidate of
the ruling party.
It was in this atmosphere that the
voting was held, and the
post-election developments were to
1
run true to form. Owing to what he
claimed were attempts to railroad
the private respondent's
proclamation, the petitioner went to
the Commission on Elections to
question the canvass of the election
returns. His complaints were
dismissed and the private
respondent was proclaimed winner
by the Second Division of the said
body. The petitioner thereupon
came to this Court, arguing that the
proclamation was void because
made only by a division and not by
the Commission on Elections en
banc as required by the Constitution.
Meanwhile, on the strength of his
proclamation, the private respondent
took his oath as a member of the
Batasang Pambansa.
On May 18, 1984, the Second Division
of the Commission on Elections
directed the provincial board of
canvassers of Antique to proceed
with the canvass but to suspend the
proclamation of the winning
candidate until further orders. On
June 7, 1984, the same Second
Division ordered the board to
immediately convene and to
proclaim the winner without
prejudice to the outcome of the case
before the Commission... before this
Court, the proclamation made by the
board of canvassers was set aside... as
premature, having been made
before the lapse of the 5-day period
of appeal, which the petitioner had
seasonably made
Issues:
WON the Second Division of the
Commission on Elections authorized
to promulgate its decision of July 23,
1984, proclaiming the private
respondent the winner in the
election
Ruling:
Section 2 confers on the Commission
on Elections the power to:
"(2) Be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of all member of the
Batasang Pambansa and elective
provincial and city officials."
The exception was the election
contest involving the members of
the Batasang Pambansa, which
had... to be heard and decided en
banc.[11] The en banc requirement
would apply only from the time a
candidate for the Batasang
Pambansa was proclaimed as
winner, for it was only then that a
contest could be permitted under
the law.
As the Court sees it, the effect of this
interpretation would be to divide the
jurisdiction of the Commission on
Elections into two, viz.: (1) over
matters arising before the
proclamation, which should be heard
and decided by division in the
exercise of its administrative power;
and (2) over matters arising after the
proclamation, which could be heard
and decided only en banc in the
exercise of its judicial power.
This Court has repeatedly and
consistently demanded "the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge" as
the indispensable imperative of due
process... we have held that the
judge must not only be impartial but
must also appear to... be impartial as
an added assurance to the parties
that his decision will be just.
Due process is intended to insure
that confidence by requiring
2
compliance with what Justice
Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair
play. Fair play calls for equal justice
The judge will reach his conclusions
only after all the evidence is in and all
the arguments are filed, on the basis
of the established facts and the
pertinent... law.
WHEREFORE, let it be spread in the
records of this case that were it not
for the supervening events that have
legally rendered it moot and
academic, this petition would have
been granted and the decision of the
Commission on Elections dated July
23, 1984, set aside as... violative of the
Constitution.
Administrative Power
______________________________________
It determines whether or not there is
failure of elections or whether or not
there is sufficient grounds for the
postponement of elections.
Pungutan vs Abubakar
Facts: Respondent Comelec
excluded from the canvass for the
election of delegates for the lone
district of the province of Sulu the
returns from 107 precincts of Siasi, 56
precincts of Tapul, 67 precincts of
Parang and 60 precincts of Luuk for...
being spurious or manufactured and
therefore no returns at all.
Unless set aside then, petitioner
Abdulgafar Puñgutan, who
otherwise would have been entitled
to the last remaining seat for
delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, there being no question
as to the election of the other two
delegates, would lose out to
respondent Benjamin Abubakar.
Petitioner thus dispute the power of
the respondent Commission to
exclude such returns as a result of
oral testimony as well as the
examination of the... fingerprints and
signatures of those who allegedly
voted as the basis for the holding
that no election in fact did take
place.
This contention is, however,
unavailing a petition filed by
respondent Abubakar alleging that
in the towns of Siasi, Tapul, Parang
and Luuk, no elections were... in
effect held in view of massive
violence, terrorism and fraud.
Respondents now petitioner
Puñgutan, answered that the
elections were duly held in the
above-mentioned municipalities...
and denied the allegation as to the
existence of massive fraud, terrorism
and serious irregularities.
Respondent Commission came to
this conclusion that. the elections in
said municipalities
Actually no elections were held in
said municipalities as the voting was
done by persons other than the
registered voters while armed men
went from precinct. to precinct,
prepared the ballots and dictated
how the election returns were to be
prepared.
No returns at all or spurious or
manufactured returns not one...
notch above returns prepared at
gunpoint compel us with much
greater justification to find that the
3
returns from Siasi, Tapul, Parang and the boards of inspectors crediting
Luuk are spurious returns or each candidate with the votes duly
manufactured returns and no obtained after an honest count.
returns at all and that the elections
in said municipalities are sham." This It is on that basis that. election
petition for the review of the above returns are to be made.
resolution... of the respondent Where no such election was in fact
Commission was filed. held as was found by respondent
Respondent Commission such a Commission... it is not only justified
resolution had to be issued but it is its clear duty to stigmatize
considering the "massive voting the alleged returns as clearly
anomalies ranging from substitute spurious and manufactured and...
voting to... grabbing of ballots to therefore bereft of any value.
preparation of election returns and the power to reject returns of such a
other election documents at character has been exercised most
gunpoint" thus justifying its judiciously.
conclusion that the elections in the
four towns amounted to a sham. there was care and circumspection
to assure that the constitutional
Issues: objective of insuring that an election
WON the recognition of such be "free, orderly and honest" be
prerogative on the part of realized
respondent Commission would "The Commission on Elections is... a
contravene the constitutional constitutional body. It is intended to
provision that it cannot pass on the play a distinct and important part in
right to vote. our scheme of government. In the
Ruling: discharge of its functions, it should
not be hampered with restrictions
Respondent Commission must be that would be fully warranted in the
sustained. case of a less responsible
organization.
It is the decision of this Court, that
the challenged resolution of The Commission may err, so may this
respondent Commission of May 14, Court also. It should be allowed
1971 is in accordance with law. The considerable latitude in devising
petition must therefore fail. means and methods that will insure
the accomplishment of the great
There is no merit to the contention objective for which it was created
that respondent Commission is free, orderly and honest elections.
devoid of power to disregard and We may not agree fully... with its
annul the alleged returns for being choice of means, but unless these
spurious or manufactured. are clearly illegal or constitute gross
What is contemplated in the law is abuse of discretion, this court should
that the electors in the exercise of not interfere."
their free will can go to the polls and "pursuant to our Administrative Law,
exercise their right of suffrage, with the findings of fact of administrative

4
organs created by ordinary
legislation will not be disturbed by
courts of justice, except when there
is absolutely no evidence or no
substantial evidence in support of
such findings
The right to vote... is a... political right
enabling every citizen to participate
in the process of government to
assure that it derives its power from
the consent of the governed.
expressed by Justice Laurel
"As long as popular government is an
end to be... achieved and
safeguarded, suffrage, whatever may
be the modality and form devised,
must continue to be the means by
which the great reservoir of power
must be emptied into the
receptacular agencies wrought by
the people through their
Constitution in the interest of good...
government and the common weal.
Republicanism, in so far as it implies
the adoption of a representative type
of government, necessarily points to
the enfranchised citizen as a particle
of popular sovereignty and as the
ultimate source of the established...
authority."
How such a right is to be exercised is
regulated by the Election Code.[22]
Its enforcement under the
Constitution is, as noted, vested in
respondent Commission. Such a
power, however, is purely executive
or administrative.
It becomes obvious then why the
right to vote, a denial of which
should find redress in the judiciary as
the guardian of constitutional rights,
is excluded from the authority vested
in respondent Commission.
the question of inclusion or exclusion
from the list of voters is properly
judicial.
As to whether or not an election has
been held is a question... is properly
within the administrative...
jurisdiction of respondent
Commission.
WHEREFORE , the petition is
dismissed and the resolution of the
Commission on Elections is affirmed.
Carlos vs. Angeles
Facts: In the May 11, 1998 elections,
Jose Carlos was proclaimed as the
duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
over Antonio Serapio. Serapio filed an
election protest challenging the
results and the case was assigned to
Judge Angeles of the RTC of
Caloocan (because of the inhibition
of all the judges of the RTC in
Valenzuela). The final tally showed
that Carlos won over a margin of
17,007 votes. However, the trial court
set aside the final tally of valid votes
because of its finding of “significant
badges of fraud”. The trial court held
that the fraud was attributable to
Carlos and it declared Serapio as the
duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
City.
Issue: WON the SC has jurisdiction
Ruling: YES. The SC has jurisdiction
over the present petition. Both the
Supreme Court and Comelec (in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction) have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus over decisions of trial
courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in
5
election cases involving elective
municipal officials. The Court that
takes jurisdiction first shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Investigative Power and Prosecute
Election Offense
_______________________________________
The Comelec also has its investigative
power and may prosecute election
offenses. However, Comelec does not
search or gather proof. (Kilosbayan vs.
Comelec)
There must be a complaint filed in
order for the COMELEC to prosecute or
investigate election offenses.
Kilosbayan vs. Comelec
G.R. 128054
Facts: Kilosbayan vs COMELEC GR
No. 128054 October 16, 1997 Facts: •
Special Provision no. 1 of the
Countrywide Development Fund
(CDF) under RA 7180 (General
Appropriations Act of 1992) allocates
a specific amount of government
funds for infrastructure and other
priority projects and activities.
In order to be valid, the use and
release of said amount would have to
proceed upon strict compliance with
the following mandatory
requirements: (1) approval by the
President of the Philippines; (2)
release of the amount directly to the
appropriate implementing agency;
and (3) list of projects and activities. •
Sarino, then Sec. of DILG, requested
authority to negotiate, enter into and
sign MOAs with NGOs in order to
utilize them to projects of the CDF. •
Drilon, then Exec. Sec., granted
Sarino's request. Such authority was
granted to all the Regional Directors
of the DILG.
Relucio, Regional Director of
DILG-NCR, entered into a MOA with
an accredited NGO, Philippine Youth
Health and Sports Development
Foundation, Inc. (PYHSDFI). P70M
was released as financial assistance
to PYHSDFI.
Kilosbayan sent a letter to COMELEC
informing them of 2 serious
violations of election laws: 1) that the
amount was released to a private
entity, which was led be Puno, who
was a key member of the Sulu Hotel
Operations (SHO), which had
reportedbly engaged in dirty
election tricks and practices; and 2)
an illegal diversion of funds from
CDF to DILG. Kilosbayan requested
that these offenses and malpractices
be investigated promptly. The
evidence presented by Kilosbayan to
supports its allegations include
published writings in the Philippine
Star newspaper, and transcripts of
records of testimony of Sec. Enriquez
before the Commission on
Appointments that he overhears
Drilon and de Jesus discussing party
plans to use the funds.
COMELEC dismissed the case due to
insufficiency of evidence to establish
a probable cause, and instead, held
in abeyance the case against Puno et
al.
Note: the election offense here is the
prohibition against release and use
of public funds)
6
Issue: WON the complaint should be
dismissed due to insufficiency of
evidence
Ruling: The COMELEC did not
commit any act constituting grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing
Kilosbayan's letter-complaint.
Section 2 (7) of Article IX-C of the
1987 Constitution provides that the
Comelec shall exercise the power to
“investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of
election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election
frauds, offenses, and malpractices”.
Insofar as the prosecution of election
offenses is concerned, therefore, the
Comelec is the “public prosecutor
with the exclusive authority to
conduct the preliminary
investigation and the prosecution of
election offenses punishable under
the [Omnibus Election] Code before
the competent court.”
This constitutional and statutory
mandate for Comelec to investigate
and prosecute cases of violation of
election law translates, in effect, to
the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigations in cases
involving election offenses for the
twin purpose of filing an
information in court and helping the
Judge determine, in the course of
preliminary inquiry, whether or not a
warrant of arrest should be issued.
COMELEC has the authority to
prosecute election offenses and to
delegate such authority to other
arms of government. The Comelec,
whenever any election offense
charge is filed before it, must have
first, before dismissing the same or
filing the corresponding
information, conducted the
preliminary investigation proper of
the case. At this initial stage of
criminal prosecution, the primordial
task of the Comelec is the
determination of probable cause, i.e.,
whether or not there is reason to
believe that the accused is guilty of
the offense charged and, therefore,
whether or not he should be
subjected to the expense, rigors and
embarrassment of trial or as the
Comelec Rules of the Procedure
phrase it, whether or not “there is
reasonable ground to believe that a
crime has been committed."
Kilosbayan must have necessarily
tendered evidence, independent of
and in support of the allegations in
its letter-complaint, of such quality
as to engender belief in an ordinarily
prudent and cautious man that the
offense charged therein has been
committed by herein respondents.
The contention of petitioner
Kilosbayan – that it is the Comelec
that is duty-bound to search for
evidence to prove its
letter-complaint – is downright
erroneous. The task of the Comelec
as investigator and prosecutor,
acting upon any election offenses
complaint, is not the physical
searching and gathering of proof in
support of a complaint for an
alleged commission of an election
offense. A complainant, who in
effect accuses another person of
having committed an act
constituting an election offense, has
the burden, as it is his responsibility,
to follow through his accusation and
prove his complaint. If the
complainant fails to proffer the
7
necessary evidence to show
probable cause, notwithstanding the
lack of denial or any evidence in
controversion, of the accusation, the
complaint must be dismissed, since
any person accused of a crime is
presumed innocent and does not at
all have to make a response or
reaction to charges against him.
There is no proof of the
electioneering activities alleged by
petitioner Kilosbayan to have been
perpetrated by PYHSDFI during the
May 11, 1992 elections.
Annulment of Book of Voters
_______________________________________
Sarangani vs COMELEC
Facts: Way back in the 1950's and
during the martial law era, it has
been said that even the dead, the
birds and the bees voted in Lanao
This petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court which seeks
to nullify the Order issued by the
Commission on Elections [COMELEC,
for brevity] dated June 29, 1998,
finding Padian Torogan in Madalum,
Lanao Del Sur as "ghost precinct,"
On September 15, 1997, a petition for
annulment of several precincts and
annulment of book of voters in
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed
with the COMELEC by, among
others, Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru
counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin
Among the precincts sought to be
annulled was Padian Torogan,
subject matter of the present
petition for certiorari.
On September 18, 1997, the
COMELEC, thru the Clerk of the
Commission sent telegrams to the
respective Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI) of the questioned
precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur,
including Padian Torogan, to file
their answer to the petition for
abolition of... precincts and
annulment of book of voters
On October 31, 1997, the incumbent
mayor of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur,
Usman T. Sarangani, herein
petitioner, together with other
oppositors who were allegedly
barangay chairmen of the twenty-
three (23) barangays the "Books of
Voters" and precincts of which were
sought to be annulled and abolished,
respectively, filed an "Answer in
Opposition" which included the
affidavits of the barangay chairmen
of the affected precincts attesting to
the fact that the move to annul the
book of voters and abolish the
questioned election precincts were
for the purpose of diminishing the
bailiwicks of the incumbent mayor of
Madalum, Lanao del Sur
The COMELEC issued a
memorandum dated April 29, 1998 to
conduct a rigorous incisive
investigation on the alleged ghost
precincts and thereafter submit a
report on the investigation
conducted.
The area supposedly Barangay
Padian Torogan there are only two
structures: One is a concrete house
with no roof, and the other is a
wooden structure without walls and
roof. This obviously mean that no
single human being could possibly
reside in these two structures.
Also, it came out that the name
8
Padian-Torogan means a cemetery
not a residential place. So this
contradicts the records being
brought by the COMELEC Team from
the Census saying that the area has
45 households with a total
population of 285.
Election Officer Casan Macadato
submitted to the Provincial Election
Supervisor of COMELEC in Marawi
City its 1st Indorsement dated June
19, 1998 reporting the results of the
ocular inspection that Padian
Torogan and Rakutan were...
uninhabited.
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission En
Banc resolves to GRANT the request
(2)Finds Padian Torogan as ghost
precinct and shall be excluded from
the special election to be conducted
in Madalum.
On November 3, 1998, Sultan Usman
Sarangani, Soraida M. Sarangani and
Hadji Nor Hassan, in their respective
capacity as former Municipal Mayor,
incumbent Mayor and Vice-Mayor of
Madalum filed the instant petition
for certiorari and mandamus urging
us to nullify the
Order issued by the COMELEC, for
having been issued with grave abuse
of discretion.
Issues:
WON the respondent COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion
in declaring Padian-Torogan as ghost
precinct
Ruling:
The determination of whether a
certain election precinct actually
exists or not and whether the voters
registered in said precinct are real
voters is a factual matter. On such
issue, it is a time-honored precept
that factual findings of the COMELEC
based on its own assessments and
duly supported by evidence, are
conclusive... upon this Court, more
so, in the absence of a substantiated
attack on the validity of the same.
the Court finds that the COMELEC
had exerted efforts to investigate the
facts and verified that there were no
public or private... buildings in the
said place, hence its conclusion that
there were no inhabitants. If there
were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there
can be no registered voters, or the
registered voters may have left the
place. It is not impossible for a
certain barangay not to actually...
have inhabitants considering that
people migrate. A barangay may
officially exist on record and the fact
that nobody resides in the place
does not result in its automatic
cessation as a unit of local
government.
The COMELEC has broad powers to
ascertain the true results of an
election by means available to it.
Pursuant to COMELEC's
administrative powers and in the
absence of any finding of grave
abuse of discretion in... declaring a
precinct as non-existent, said order
shall stand. Judicial interference is
unnecessary and uncalled for
No voter is disenfranchised because
no such voter exist. The sacred right
of suffrage guaranteed by the
Constitution is not tampered when a
list of fictitious voters is excluded
from an electoral exercise. Suffrage is
conferred by the Constitution only on
citizens who are qualified to vote and
are not otherwise disqualified by law.
9

On the contrary, such exclusion of...
non-existent voters all the more
protects the validity and credibility of
the electoral process as well as the
right of suffrage because the
"electoral will" would not be
rendered nugatory by the inclusion
of some ghost votes. Election laws
should give effect to, rather than...
frustrate the will of the people.
Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
III. Voters
Concept
As enshrined in our Constitution, as
citizens, we have the right to suffrage
or the right to vote. It is a right, and not
an obligation.
The qualifications of voters are defined
in our Constitution, thus, the Congress
may not add such qualifications.
However, the Congress may add
disqualifications so long as the latter
will not tantamount to additional
qualifications.
Comelec has also the power to
regulate in the registration of voters,
however, the procedural requirements
must not involve substantive
requirements.
For the disqualifications, they are not
enshrined in the Constitution and are
defined in a Statute. There may be a
law that can be passed in order to limit
disqualifications of the voters.
Must allow: Absentee voting, Dual
Citizenship, Disabled and Illiterates to
vote.
Qualifications of Voters
1. Must be a Filipino Citizen;
2. At least 18 years of age on
election day;
3. Resident of the Philippines for at
least 1 year prior to election day;
4. Resided in the place where he
proposes to vote for at least 6
months prior to election day;
(Sec. 1, Art. V, 1987 Constitution)
5. Must be free from
disqualifications; and
6. Must be a registered voter*
Nota bene: These requirements are
continuing requirements, hence, res
judicata will not apply.
Disqualifications
1. Sentenced by final judgment to
suffer imprisonment of 1 year or
more, unless you are granted
plenary pardon or amnesty;
2. Sentenced to suffer accessory
penalty of forfeiture of political
rights (e.g. civil interdiction);
3. Convicted by final judgment of
any of the following cases, to wit;
● Crimes involving
disloyalty to the
government;
● Violated against national
security; and
● Violated the firearms laws
10
Nota bene: You can reacquire your
right to vote under these first three
circumstances, aside from the granting
of plenary pardon and amnesty, upon
expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence referred to in these cases.
4. Court-declared insane and
incompetent persons
Nota bene: One can reacquire his right
to vote under this circumstance by
showing a proof such as an order from
the court or from a competent
authority that you are now competent
to vote.
Registration
Registration refers to the act of
accomplishing and filing of a sworn
application for registration by a
qualified voter before the election
officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the
same in the book of registered voters
upon approval by the Election
Registration Board. (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
8189 - Voter’s Registration Act of 1996)
Discussion:
Registration does not confer the right
to vote (Yra vs. Abano). It is only a
condition precedent to the exercise of
the right to vote; only a procedural
requirement for you to exercise your
right to vote.
Registration is a regulation and not a
qualification.
a. Continuing
G.R.: There is a system of continuing
registration; anytime pwede ka
magpa register during regular office
hours.
XPN: 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. (Sec. 8, R.A.
No. 8189)
b. Computerized List
c. 200 Voter per precinct
- But under the Automated
Election Law, it was regulated
into clustered precincts since
there are only limited voting
counting machines.
d. Registration is permanent but
may be changed
- New voters; transfer voters
Double registrants - pertains to any
person who, being a registered voter,
registers a new without filing for the
cancellation of the previous
registration.
Q: Are they still qualified to vote?
A: Yes, provided that the COMELEC has
to make a determination on which
registration is valid and which
registration is void.
11
While the first registration of any voter
subsist, any subsequent registration
thereto is void ab initio. (COMELEC
Minute Resolution No. 00-1513)
Opposition to Registration
Q: If you register, can the other parties
or other persons oppose such
registration?
A: Yes.
Q: Where to oppose?
A: Election Registration Board
Q: How to oppose?
A: File your written opposition.
Grounds:
1. The person applying for such
registration is not qualified; or
2. The identity of such person is
fictitious
Deactivation of Registration
Q: When can one be disqualified to
vote or when can one be deactivated?
A: 1. When a voter failed to vote in 2
preceding elections;
2. When registration is excluded by the
Court; or
3.When a person lose his Filipino
Citizenship
Inclusion/Exclusion Proceedings
Petition for inclusion - Any person
whose application for registration has
been disapproved by the board of
election inspectors or whose name has
been stricken out from the list may
apply in the Court petition to include
his name in the permanent list of
voters at any time, except 105 days
prior to a regular election or 75 days
prior to a special election. (B.P. 881,
Omnibus Election Code)
Petition for exclusion - Any registered
voter, representative of any political
party or even the election officer, may
file with the Court its sworn petition for
the exclusion of the voter from the
permanent list of voters, giving the
name, address and precinct of the
challenged voter at any time, except
100 days prior to a regular election or
65 days prior to a special election. (B.P.
881, Omnibus Election Code)
Q: Where to file the petition for
inclusion or exclusion cases?
A: MTC (not COMELEC) because
ultimately, inclusion and exclusion
proceedings ultimately affects your
constitutional right to vote. MTC
exercising its original and exclusive
jurisdiction.
Then it can be appealed to the RTC.
Grounds for inclusion:
1. Disapproval; or
2. Name has been stricken out
12
Grounds for exclusion: stricken out from
the list of voters 3. Election
(OEC, Sec. 139) Officer (RA
1. The person is not qualified to be 8189, Sec. 39)
3. COMELEC 4. COMELEC
registered; or
2. A fictitious person Period of Any time except 105 Any time
filing days before regular except 100
election or 75 days days before a
Procedure: before a special regular
election. (COMELEC election or 65
Resolution No. days before a
1. File a petition before the Court 8820) special
election
and the respondent must be the (COMELEC
Election Registration Board Resolution No.
9021)
members;
1. Application for 1.Not qualified
registration has for possessing
2. Service of notice (may be been disapproved disqualification
Grounds by the board; or
personal, leaving, registered 2. Flying voters;
mail or posting in city/municipal 2. Name has been or
stricken out form
hall and in 2 other places); the list 3. Ghost voters

3. Any voter, candidate or political

Annulment of Book of Voters
party may intervene;
Q: Where to file the annulment of
4. It involves summary
Book of Voters?
proceedings;
A: COMELEC

5. Presentation of evidence (no

Q: Who may file?
stipulation of facts)
A: Any voter, Election Officer or
registered Political Party
6. Decision must be given within
10 days from filing; and
Grounds:

7. Appeal with RTC (5 days)

1. Book has been prepared
improperly;
Distinctions:
2. The preparation was attended
with forgery or fraud,
Inclusion Exclusion intimidation, or bribery;
3. Book contains statistically
Who may 1.Any person whose 1.Any
file application was registered improbable data
disapproved by the voter in the
Election city/
Registration Board. municipality.
(OEC, Sec. 142)
2. Those whose 2. Rep. of
names were political party

13
Election Day
Q: During election day, can you
challenge an illegal voter?
A: Yes.
Q: Who may challenge?
A: Watchers or members of the
Election Board
Grounds:
1. The person is not registered;
2. Using fictitious name;
3. Disqualified by law (in doing
illegal acts, i.e. vote buying, vote
selling, vote betting, promise to
induce or withhold vote); or
4. The person is a multiple
registrant
However, they can still be allowed to
vote if there is someone who can
identify the person, or through
presenting an identification card or
other proof of identity, or any other
person who identifies you who will
take an oath before the electoral
board.
IV. Officials
Elective
1. National Office - President,
Vice-President, Senators),
Representatives (District and
Party-List)
2. Local Office - Local Chief
Executive, Governor, Mayor and
Punong Barangay; Vice Local
Chief Executive, Vice-Governor
and Vice- Mayor; Sangguinian
members, Sangguniang
Kabataan
Party-List
The party-list system is present
because of multi-partism, party-loyalty
and social justice as enshrined in our
Constitution.
The purpose of the party-list system is
to make marginalized and the
under-represented not merely passive
recipients of the State’s benevolence
but active participants in the
mainstream of representative
democracy. (Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589)
Furthermore, to democratize political
power by giving political parties that
cannot win in legislative district
elections a chance to win seats in the
House of Representatives. (Atong
Paglaum Party-list vs. COMELEC et al.)
House of Representatives:
-Composition of 20% of the total
number of seats.
- 2% Threshold (and until filled up) = 1
guaranteed seat
(since they will be ranked basing on
the number of votes they garnered)
-3-seat maximum (nominees)
14
Generally, there are no limitations as to
who or what you would want to
represent in a party-list. As long as you
can prove that your party-list is one of
the marginalized or under-represented
parties, then you can join.
However, according to the COMELEC,
there are parties which cannot be
registered.
The COMELEC may motu proprio or
upon verified complaint after due
notice and hearing cancel the
registration of the party, organization
or coalition on any of the following
grounds:
1. The party is a religious sect,
denomination, organization or
association organized for
religious purposes (e.g. Ang
Dating Daan Party-list) ;
2. Parties that advocates violence
or unlawful means to seek its
goal;
3. Those which refuse to adhere to
the Constitution;
4. Foreign party or organization;
5. Domestic organization or party
in which such organization or
party is receiving support from
any foreign government or any
foreign political party,
foundation or organization,
whether directly through any of
its officers or members, or
indirectly through third parties
for election purposes
Candidates
A Candidate refers to any person
aspiring for or seeking an elective
public office, who has filed a certificate
of candidacy by himself or through an
accredited political party,
aggroupment, or coalition of parties.
(Sec. 79, B.P.881, OEC)
Effect of non-filing:
You are not considered as a candidate;
you are not liable for unlawful acts and
omissions.
Q: What is the effect of filing COC on
your tenure as an incumbent
government public official?
A: It depends. You have to distinguish
whether such official is appointive or
elective official.
If appointive official - at the moment
you file your COC, you are considered
ipso facto resigned from office and
such resignation is irrevocable.
If elective public official - upon filing
the COC, the official is not deemed
resigned.
Q: Does it now violate the equal
protection clause under the
Constitution?
A: No. Substantial distinctions clearly
exist between elective officials and
15
appointive officials. (Quinto vs.
Comelec)
Quinto vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 189698
Ruling: The equal protection of the
law clause in the constitution is not
absolute, but is subject to reasonable
classification if the groupings are
characterized by substantial
distinctions that make real
differences, one class may be treated
and regulated differently from the
other.
The equal protection of the law
clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as
hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. It is not
intended to prohibit legislation
which is limited either in the object
to which it is directed or by territory
within which it is to operate. It does
not demand absolute equality
among residents; it merely requires
that all persons shall be treated alike
under like circumstances and
conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.
The equal protection clause is not
infringed by legislation which applies
only to those persons falling within a
specified class, if it applies alike to all
persons within such class and
reasonable ground exists for making
a distinction between those who fall
within such class and those who do
not.
Substantial distinctions clearly
exist between elective officials and
appointive officials. Elective
officials occupy their office by
virtue of the mandate of the
electorate. Appointive officials hold
their office by virtue of their
designation by an appointing
authority.
Discussion:
Elective officials occupy their office by
virtue of the mandate of the electorate.
They are elected for an office for a
definite term and may be removed
therefrom by stringent conditions.
On the other hand, appointive officials
hold their office by virtue of their
designation thereto by an appointing
authority. Some appointive officials
hold their office in a permanent
capacity and are entitled to security of
tenure while others serve the pleasure
of the appointing authority.
Q: What is the effect of filing two
certificates of Candidacy?
A: It disqualifies the person to run for
both elective positions. (Sec. 73, OEC)
Substitution
An official candidate of a duly
registered political party or coalition
dies, withdraws, or is disqualified for
any cause after the last day of the filing
of COC may be substituted by a
candidate belonging to and
nominated by the same political party
or coalition. (Omnibus Election Code)
Grounds for substitution: (DWD)
1. Death;
16
 2. Withdrawal; and
3. Disqualification
Hence, no substitution shall be allowed
for any independent candidate.
Both the substitute and the
substituted must be qualified.
Q: When can there be substitution?
A: Up to mid-day of election day.
However, there may be rules and
regulations to be provided for by the
Comelec that may set for an earlier
deadline.
The substituted can no longer run for
any other position. Withdrawal does
not affect liabilities.
Votes cast for the substituted are stray
unless they have the same surname.
Requisites for a valid substitution:
1. The substitute must belong to
the same party or coalition; and
2. The deceased, disqualified or
withdrawn candidate must have
duly filed a valid COC. (Tagolino
vs. HRET, G.R. No. 202202)
Tagolino vs. HRET
G.R. No. 202202
FACTS: Richard Gomez filed his
Certificate of Candidacy seeking the
Congressional office of the House of
Representatives for the 4th District
of Leyte. In his CoC, he indicated
that he resided in 910 Carlota Hills,
Canadieng Ormoc City.
Bueneventura Juntilla, one of the
opposing candidates, questioned the
residence indicated in the CoC
before the COMELEC. Juntilla
argued that, Richard is a resident of
Colgate St, East Greenhills, San Juan
City, Metro Manila and not of
Can-adieng Ormoc City COMELEC
1st division ruling: It granted
Juntilla's petition without any
qualification. And in its dispositive
portion it stated, "Richard Gomez is
DISQUALIFIED as a candidate for the
Office of Congresssman, Fourt
District of Leyte, for lack of residency
requirement" Lucy Torres-Gomez
then filed her CoC together with a
Certificate of Nomination and
Acceptance from the Liberal Party
endorsing her as the party’s official
substitute candidate of her husband
Richard wherein the COMELEC En
Banc approved such substitution.
COMELEC En Banc's ruling: It held
that the disqualification does not
automatically cancel one's CoC and
the political party is still allowed to
substitute the candidate whose
candidacy was declared disqualified.
Juntilla filed a motion for
reconsideration from the ruling of
the COMELEC En Banc. Pending the
resolution of the motion, the
elections were held and the name of
Richard Gomez remained in the
ballots which garnered majority of
the votes.
Due to the approved substitution by
the COMELEC, votes for Richard were
credited in favor of Lucy and she was
proclaimed the Representative of the
4th District of Leyte Juntilla opposed
17
and filed a Petition for quo warranto
before the HRET arguing that, Lucy
did not validly substitute Richard
because his CoC was void ab initio.
HRET ruling: It dismissed Juntilla's
petition and declared the
substitution as valid It also said that
the COMELEC 1st Division's
resolution spoke of disqualification
and not the cancellation of the CoC
Juntilla filed for Certiorari and
Prohibition before the Supreme
Court
ISSUE: Was there a valid
substitution? And as a consequence
of such substitution, was Lucy
Torres-Gomez validly elected as a
representative of the 4th District of
Leyte? NO
HELD: A valid COC as a condition
sine qua non for the substitution of
candidate Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code provides
that, if an official candidate of a
registered or accredited political
party dies, withdraws or is
disqualified for any cause, a person
belonging to and certified by the
same political party may file a
certificate of candidacy to replace
the candidate who died, withdrew or
was disqualified Evidently, Section
77 requires that there be an “official
candidate” before candidate
substitution proceeds.
As defined under Section 79(a) of
the OEC, the term “candidate” refers
to any person aspiring for or seeking
an elective public office who has filed
a certificate of candidacy by himself
or through an accredited political
party, aggroupment, or coalition of
parties. Clearly, the law requires that
one must have validly filed a CoC in
order to be considered a candidate.
Effect of Sec 68 and Sec 78 on
candidate substitution under Sec 77
Sec 681 speaks of a disqualification of
the candidate:
Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any
candidate who, in an action or
protest in which he is a party is
declared by final decision of a
competent court guilty of, or found
by the Commission of having (a)
given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials
performing electoral functions; (b)
committed acts of terrorism to
enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in
his election campaign an amount in
excess of that allowed by this Code;
(d) solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under
Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e)
violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86
and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified
from continuing as a election
offenses enumerated therein while
Sec 78 speaks of due course to
and/or cancellation of a CoC based
on a person’s misrepresentation of
any of the material qualifications
required for the elective office
aspired for.
It is not enough that there was lack
of qualification but there was also a
false representation in the CoC. And
under Sec 68, a person disqualified
can be validly substituted pursuant
to Sec 77 because he remains a
candidate but is ordered to
discontinue such candidacy as a
form of penal sanction by the
commission of the election offenses
18
enumerated in Sec 68. But a person
whose CoC has been denied due
course to and/or cancelled under Sec
78 cannot be substituted because he
is not considered a candidate. Hence,
being a cancelled CoC it is
considered void ab initio and thus
cannot give rise to a valid candidacy
and valid votes.
In this case, there was confusion as
to the word "disqualified" in the
resolution of the COMELEC 1st
division, which was also adopted by
the COMELEC En Banc and HRET.
But it must be noted that Richard's
"disqualification" was due to his
failure to comply with the residency
requirement and misrepresenting
his residence which is a ground for
denial due course to and/or
cancellation of CoC under Sec 78.
Hence, there was no valid
substitution and Lucy Torres Gomez
was not a bona fide candidate for the
position when she ran for office,
which means she could not have
been elected candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the
office. Any person who is a
permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign country shall
not be qualified to run for any
elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his
status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence
requirement provided for in the
election laws.
Qualifications of Public Officials
1. Must be a Filipino Citizen;
2. Age requirement (differs for
every position);
3. Resident of the Philippines;
Gayo vs. Verceles
Ruling: The term “residence,” as used
in the election law, imports not only
an intention to reside in a fixed place
but also personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.
“Domicile” denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which when
absent for business or pleasure, or for
like reasons, one intends to
return….that a new domicile is
reacquired if the following conditions
concur: (1)residence or bodily
presence in the new locality; (2) an
intention to remain there; and (3)
an intention to abandon the old
domicile. There must be animus
manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in
or at the domicile of choice must be
for an indefinite period of time; the
change of residence must be
voluntary; and the residence at the
place chosen for the new domicile
must be actual.
Applying case law to the present
case, it can be said that the
respondent effectively abandoned
her residency in the Philippines by
her acquisition of the status of a
permanent U.S. resident.
Nonetheless, we find that the
respondent reacquired her residency
in the Philippines even before the
holding of the May 2001 elections.
The records show that she
19
surrendered her green card to the
Immigration and Naturalization
Service of the American Embassy
way back in 1998. By such act, her
intention to abandon her U.S.
residency could not have been made
clearer. Moreover, when she decided
to relocate to the Philippines for
good in 1993, she continued living
here and only went to the U.S.A. on
periodic visits to her children who
were residing there.
Moreover, she was elected Mayor in
the 1998 elections and served as
such for the duration of her term.
We find such acts sufficient to
establish that the respondent
intended to stay in the Philippines
indefinitely and, ultimately, that she
has once again made the Philippines
her permanent residence.
Imelda Marcos vs. COMELEC
Issue: WON petitioner was a
resident, for election purposes, of the
First District of Leyte at the time of
the May 9, 1995 elections
Ruling: Yes. The honest mistake in
the Certificate of Candidacy
regarding the period of residency
does not negate the fact of residence
if such fact is established by means
more convincing than a mere entry
on a piece of paper. It is settled that
when the Constitution speaks of
“residence” in election law, it actually
means only “domicile.” It was held
that Tacloban, Leyte was in fact the
domicile of origin of Imelda by
operation of law for a minor follows
the domicile of her parents (which
was the same). In its Resolution,
COMELEC was obviously referring to
Imelda’s various places of actual
residence, not her domicile (legal
residence). An individual does not
lose her domicile even if she has
lived and maintained residences in
different places. Successfully
changing residence requires an
actual and deliberate
abandonment,* and Imelda has
clearly always chosen to return to her
domicile of origin. Even at the height
of the Marcos Regime’s powers, she
kept her close ties to her domicile of
origin by establishing residences in
Tacloban, celebrating important
personal milestones there,
instituting well-publicized projects
for its benefit and establishing a
political power base where her
siblings and close relatives held
positions of power always with either
her influence or consent.
____________________________________
*To successfully effect a change in
domicile, one must demonstrate:
(1) actual removal or an actual
change of domicile,
(2) a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new
one; and
(3) acts which correspond with the
purpose (Marcos v. COMELEC, 248
SCRA 331)
4. Must be a registered voter;
5. There is a qualification of
literacy; and
6. Free from disqualifications;
Specific Qualifications of the
Candidates:
20

● National Level
A. President and Vice-President
1. Natural born citizen;
2. At least 40 yrs. of age on the day
of election;
3. Able to read and write;
4. Registered voter; and
5. Resident of the Philippines for at
least 10 yrs. immediately
preceding the day of the
election (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
B. For Senator
1. Natural born citizen;
2. At least 35 yrs. of age on the day
of election;
3. Able to read and write;
4. Registered voter; and
5. Resident of the Philippines for at
least 10 yrs. immediately
preceding the day of the
election (Sec. 3, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
● Local Level
A. District Representatives
1. Natural born citizen;
2. Registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected;
3. Resident of the same district for
a period not less than one year
immediately preceding the day
of the election;
4. Able to read and write; and
5. At least 25 yrs. of age on the day
of election (Sec. 6, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
B. Governors, Vice-Governor, Mayor,
Vice-Mayor, Punong Barangay and
Sangguniang Members (1994, 2005
Bar):
1. Citizens of the Philippines;
2. Registered voter in the
barangay, municipality, city, or
province or, in the case of a
member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Panlungsod or
Sangguniang Bayan, the district
where he intends to be elected;
3. Resident therein for at least one
year immediately preceding the
day of election;
4. Able to read and write Filipino or
any other local language or
dialect (Sec. 39, R.A. 7160, Local
Government Code of the
Philippines)
In re Residency : SC ruled in a case that
the fact that a candidate has no
registered property under his name in
the locality wherein he seeks to be
elected does not belie his actual
residence therein because property
ownership is not among the
qualifications required of candidates
for local election.
It is enough that he should live in the
locality even if it is a rented house or
that of a friend or relative.
Grounds for disqualifications for the
candidates (1994, 1999, 2010 Bar):
21
 have acquired to reside abroad
1. Declared as incompetent or and continue to avail of the
insane by competent authority; same right;
2. Convicted by final judgment for 15. Insane or feeble-minded;
subversion, insurrection, 16. Nuisance candidate;
rebellion, or any offense for 17. Violation of Sec. 73, OEC with
which he has been sentenced to regard to COC; or
a penalty of 18 months 18. Violation of Sec. 78 on material
imprisonment; misrepresentation of the COC
3. Convicted by final judgment for
a crime involving moral Nota bene: This is not an exclusive list.
turpitude;
4. Election offenses under Sec. 261 Ministerial Duty of the Comelec to
of the OEC; receive Certificates of Candidacy
5. Committing acts of terrorism to
enhance candidacy; G.R: The Comelec shall have the
6. Spending in his election ministerial duty to receive and
campaign an amount in excess acknowledge receipt of the COCs.
of that allowed; Provided, that said certificates are
7. Soliciting, receiving, or making under oath and contain all the
prohibited contributions; required data and in the form
8. Not possessing qualifications prescribed by the Commission (Sec. 7,
and possessing disqualifications OEC; Cerafica vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
under the LGC; 205136)
9. Sentenced by final judgment for
an offense involving moral XPNs: COMELEC may go beyond the
turpitude or for an offense face of the COC in the following:
punishable by one year or more
of imprisonment within two 1. Nuisance Candidates (Sec. 69,
years after serving sentence; OEC)
10. Removed from office as a result 2. Petition to deny due course or
of an administrative case; to cancel a COC (Sec. 7, OEC); or
11. Convicted by final judgment for 3. Filing of a disqualification case
violating the oath of allegiance on any of the grounds
to the Republic; enumerated in Sec. 68, OEC.
12. Dual Citizenship (more
specifically, dual allegiance); Nuisance Candidates
13. Fugitives from justice in criminal
or non-political cases here or Any registered candidate for the same
abroad; office may file a petition to declare a
14. Permanent residents in a duly registered candidate as a
foreign country or those who nuisance candidate, personally or

22
through duly authorized
representative with COMELEC, within 5
days from the last day of filing of COC.
(R.A. 6646, The Electoral Reforms Law
of 1987, Sec. 5)
Grounds:
The COMELEC may motu proprio or
upon verified petition of an interested
party, refuse to give due course to or
cancel a COC upon showing of the
above-stated circumstances (Sec. 69,
OEC) :
1. Put the election process in
mockery or disrepute;
2. Cause confusion among the
voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered
candidates; or
3. Clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has no bona fide
intention to run for the office for
which the COC has been filed
and thus prevent a faithful
determination of the true will of
the electorate. (Sec. 69, OEC)
Power of the COMELEC
G.R: The COMELEC may motu proprio
or upon verified petition of an
interested party, refuse to give due
course to or cancel a COC upon
showing of the above-stated
circumstances. (Sec. 69, OEC)
XPN: The COMELEC cannot motu
proprio deny due course to or cancel
an alleged nuisance candidate’s
certificate of candidacy without
providing the candidate his
opportunity to be heard. (Timbol vs.
COMELEC, G.R No. 206004)
Timbol vs. COMELEC
G.R No. 206004
Facts: Timbol filed a Certificate of
Candidacy for the position of
Member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the Second District of
Caloocan City for the May 13, 2013
elections. However, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 9610 declaring Timbol
a nuisance candidate and ordering
the removal of his name from the
certified list of candidates, and
Minute Resolution denying his
petition to have his name listed in
the certified list of candidates and
printed on the ballots for the May 13,
2013 elections. Timbol, together with
his counsel, appeared before
Election Officer Valencia, pursuant to
the Subpoena issued upon him, for a
clarificatory hearing. He contended
that he was not a nuisance
candidate, that in fact he placed 8 th
among all candidates who ran for
city councilor of Caloocan City, and
that he had sufficient resources to
sustain his campaign.
Valencia recommended that
Timbol’s name be removed from the
list of nuisance candidates in the
COMELEC’s website and that his CoC
be given due course. However, the
recommendation was never acted
upon.
23
ISSUE: WON COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in denying
Timbol’s Petition for inclusion in the
certified list of candidates
HELD: YES. Respondent’s power to
motu proprio deny due course to a
certificate of candidacy is subject to
the candidate’s opportunity to be
heard. Under Art. II, Sec. 26 of the
Constitution, “the State shall
guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service.” This,
however, does not guarantee a
constitutional right to run for or hold
public office. To run for public office
is a mere privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law, such as
prohibition on nuisance candidates.
Nuisance candidates are persons
who file their certificates of
candidacy “to put the election
process in mockery or disrepute or to
cause confusion among the voters
by the similarity of the names of the
registered candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has
no bona fide intention to run for the
office for which the certificate of
candidacy has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of
the true will of the electorate.”
To minimize logistical confusion
caused by nuisance candidates, their
CoCs may be denied due course or
cancelled by COMELEC, through
motu proprio or upon verified
petition of an interested party,
subject to an opportunity to be
heard. In election cases, due process
requirements are satisfied when the
parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain
their side of the controversy at hand.
COMELEC declared Timbol a
nuisance candidate without giving
him a chance to explain his bona fide
intention to run for office. It issued
Resolution No. 9610 when Timbol
appeared before Valencia in a
clarificatory hearing. This was an
ineffective opportunity to be heard.
Petition for inclusion in the certified
list of candidates did not cure the
defect in the issuance of Resolution
No. 9610. First, he would not have to
file the Petition had he been given
an opportunity to be heard in the
first place. Second, in the Minute
Resolution, COMELEC denied
Timbol’s petition on the sole ground
that the printing of ballots had
already begun on February 4, 2013.
Although reprinting of ballots would
indeed be costly, COMELEC should
balance its duty to ensure that the
electoral process is clean, honest,
orderly and peaceful with the right of
a candidate to explain his or her
bona fide intention to run for public
office before he/she is declared a
nuisance candidate.
Effect of voting a nuisance candidate:
24
The votes cast for a nuisance candidate
are not stray but counted in favor of
the bona fide candidate. (Dela Cruz vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221)
Petition to Deny due course or
Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy
A verified petition seeking to deny due
course or to cancel a COC may be filed
by any person exclusively on the
ground that any material
representation contained therein as
required under Sec. 74 of the OEC is
false (Sec. 78, B.P. 881), provided that:
1. The false representation
pertains to material matter
affecting substantive rights of
the candidate; and
2. The false representation must
consist of deliberate attempt to
mislead, misinform, or hide a
fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.
(Salcedo II vs. COMELEC, GR. No.
135886)
Salcedo II vs. COMELEC
GR. No. 135886
Facts: This is a petition for Certiorari
filed by petitioner Victorino Salcedo II
seeking to reverse the earlier
Resolution issued by its Second
Division on August 12, 1998.
Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes
Celiz, which marriage was evidenced
by a certified true copy of the
marriage contract issued by the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Ajuy,
Iloilo. Without his first marriage
having been dissolved, Neptali P.
Salcedo married private respondent
Ermelita Cacao in a civil ceremony.
Two days later, Ermelita Cacao
contracted another marriage with a
certain Jesus Aguirre, as shown by a
marriage certificate filed with the
Office of the Civil Registrar.
Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and
private respondent Ermelita Cacao
Salcedo both ran for the position of
mayor of the municipality of Sara,
Iloilo in the May 11, 1998 elections,
both of them having filed their
respective certificates of candidacy
However, petitioner filed with the
Comelec a petition seeking the
cancellation of private respondent's
certificate of candidacy on the
ground that she had made a false
representation therein by stating
that her surname was "Salcedo."
Petitioner contended that the
private respondent had no right to
use said surname because she was
not legally married to Neptali
Salcedo. Private respondent was
proclaimed as the duly elected
mayor of Sara, Iloilo.
In her answer, private respondent
claimed that she had no information
or knowledge at the time she
married Neptali Salcedo that he was
in fact already married; that, upon
learning of his existing marriage, she
encouraged her husband to take
steps to annul his marriage with
Agnes Celiz because the latter had
abandoned their marital home.
Neptali Salcedo filed a petition for
declaration of presumptive death
which was granted by the court that
Neptali Salcedo and Jesus Aguirre
are one and the same person; and
25
that since 1986 up to the present she
has been using the surname
"Salcedo" in all her personal,
commercial and public transactions.
Comelec's Second Division ruled that
since there is an existing valid
marriage between Neptali Salcedo
and Agnes Celiz, the subsequent
marriage of the former with private
respondent is null and void.
Consequently, the use by private
respondent of the surname "Salcedo"
constitutes material
misrepresentation and is a ground
for the cancellation of her certificate
of candidacy.
However, in its en banc Resolution,
the Comelec overturned its previous
resolution, ruling that private
respondent's certificate of candidacy
did not contain any material
misrepresentation. A Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the
petitioner was affirmed by the
division which gives rise to the
petition to review such
promulgation.
Issue:
WON the use by respondent of the
surname "Salcedo" in her certificate
of candidacy constitutes material
misrepresentation under Section 78
in relation to Section 74 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Held:
Private respondent did not commit
any material misrepresentation by
the use of the surname "Salcedo" in
her certificate of candidacy.
A false representation under section
78 must consist of a "deliberate
attempt to mislead, misinform, or
hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible." It
must be made with an intention to
deceive the electorate as to one's
qualifications for public office. The
use of a surname, when not
intended to mislead or deceive the
public as to one's identity, is not
within the scope of the provision.
There is absolutely no showing that
the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were
deceived by the use of such surname
by private respondent. Petitioner
does not allege that the electorate
did not know who they were voting
for when they cast their ballots in
favor of "Ermelita Cacao Salcedo" or
that they were fooled into voting for
someone else by the use of such
name.
The Court AFFIRMS the en banc
Resolution of the Commission on
Elections denying the petition to
cancel private respondent's
certificate of candidacy.
Material Representation
Material misrepresentation in a COC
refers to the candidate’s eligibility or
qualification for elective office, which
includes false statements as to age,
residency, citizenship, being a
registered voter and any other legal
qualifications necessary to run for an
elective office.
Effect of Disqualification:
26
 1. Final judgment before election - Maquiling vs. Emilio Ramon “E.R”
the candidate shall not be voted COMELEC, G.R. No. Ejercito vs. COMELEC,
195649, April 16, 2013 G.R. No. 212398,
for, and the votes cast for him November 25, 2014)
shall not be counted.
2. No final judgment until after Discussion:
election and receives the
highest number of votes in the So, this is the difference between the
election - The Court or two cases — if by reason of the
Commission shall continue with disqualification of the candidate is on
the trial and hearing of the the grounds that will affect his
action, inquiry or protest and qualifications or his eligibility to run for
upon motion of the office, then what will govern is the
complainant or any intervenor, Maquiling case, the rule on succession
may, during the pendency under the LGC will not apply. Since he
thereof, order the suspension of is not eligible to run for office, it is as if
the proclamation of such he is not a candidate at all, hence, the
candidate whenever the second placer in the elections will take
evidence of his guilt is strong. over.

If, on the other hand, he is disqualified

Application of the rule on succession
MAQUILING CASE
The rule on succession
under the LGC will not
apply because the issue
here is his citizenship
which is a continuing
requirement. Being a
continuing
requirement, he must
possess it before and
after elections until the
end of his term. His use
of US passport after
reacquiring his
citizenship negated his
Affidavit of
Renunciation. As a dual
citizen, he is disqualified
from the beginning to
run for office. With him
being barred to run for
office, he is not
considered as a qualifications and none
candidate at all.
by any other reason that will not affect
his eligibility to run, then the rules on
E.R. EJERCITO CASE succession will apply. So, in the E.R.
The rule on succession Ejercito case, he is a qualified and
provided for in Sec. 44 eligible candidate, hence, since there is
of RA 7160 or the LGC
applies in this case a vacancy of the position upon his
because what occurred disqualification, the rules on
here after his
disqualification is a succession shall apply; the vice
permanent vacancy in
the position. What is
governor in this case shall succeed the
involved in this case is position.
the commission of an
election offense
(overspending)
provided for in Sec. 68
of OEC which in effect,
disqualifies the
candidate from holding
office.
Here, the candidate
possesses all the
of the disqualifications
to run for office.

Therefore, he is a valid
candidate.

27
Procedural Remedies of a candidate Petition to disqualify candidate
in election irregularities under Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules

The following can be done before the Grounds: Commission of acts which
election in seeking to disqualify any are grounds for disqualification under
candidate: Sec. 68, but this requires final
judgment by a court:
1. Petition to deny or cancel COC
under Sec. 76 of the OEC; a. giving money to corrupt voters
2. Petition to disqualify candidate or public officials;
under Rule 25 of the COMELEC b. committed acts of terrorism to
Rules; and enhance his candidacy;
3. Petition to declare a candidate c. Incurred excessive spending;
as nuisance under Rule 24, Sec. d. Received prohibited
3. contributions;
e. Engaged in illegal campaign
Nota bene: The remedy of quo
warranto can only be had after there (this may be relevant for future
has been an election and elections and not the immediate
proclamation. elections as final judgment can take a
long time)
Petition to deny or cancel COC
Nota bene: This is not an exclusive list.
Ground: Material Misrepresentation in
the COC such as: Period of filing: last day of filing of COC
but not later than proclamation of the
a. Date of birth candidate.
b. Residency
c. Citizenship Petition to declare a candidate as
d. Party nuisance under Rule 24, Sec. 3
e. Address
f. Insanity Period of filing: within 5 days from the
g. Conviction last day of filing of the COC

Nota bene: These are material entries But take note that the COMELEC can
because it pertains to the qualification declare a candidate nuisance motu
or disqualification of a candidate. proprio.

It must be filed: NOT LATER THAN 25 Q: May the Candidate be disqualified

days after filing of COC. on the ground that his COC was
defectively filed, e.g only Cedula (CTC),
not a competent evidence of identity

28
as required by the Notarial Rules of
2004, was presented to the notary?
A: No. It is not a ground to disqualify
him. (Amora Jr. vs. COMELEC, 640
SCRA 273; 2011)
It is only a formal defect and not
essential to disqualify a candidate.
Q: Where a candidate for Senate
stated in his certificate of candidacy
that he is single, when he is very much
married, though separated, can he be
disqualified? (Bar Question)
A: No, it remains valid. Being single or
married has nothing to do with your
qualifications.
V. Campaign
Election Campaign refers to an act
designed to promote the election or
defeat of a particular candidate.
Campaign period:
a. National - 90 days;
b. Local - 45 days;
c. Barangay - 15 days
Nota bene: It cannot be increased by
law.
Reason why campaign period is
regulated: To avoid demoralization in
government service. Public service will
be hampered as every elective
officials-candidates will be busy
campaigning to the prejudice of the
basic services to its constituents.
Discussion:
In the case of Osmeña vs. COMELEC,
the SC declared the law increasing the
campaign period (R.A. 7065) as
unconstitutional. The Congress cannot
lengthen the campaign period. The
Constitution provides for an election
period of 90 days before and 30 days
after, except in special cases which
may be fixed by the Commission.
a. Premature Campaigning
Section 80. Election campaign or
partisan political activity outside
campaign period. - It shall be unlawful
for any person, whether or not a voter
or candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an
election campaign or partisan political
activity except during the campaign
period: Provided, That political parties
may hold political conventions or
meetings to nominate their official
candidates within thirty days before
the commencement of the campaign
period and forty-five days for
Presidential and Vice-Presidential
election.
Situation: Penera filed her COC as
Mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao del
Norte. One day before the start of the
campaign period, she conducted a
motorcade.( Penera vs. COMELEC)
Q: Is she liable for premature
campaigning?
29
A: No. The SC held that she did not
commit premature campaigning.
Discussion:
According to the SC, Sec. 79 (a) of the
Omnibus Election Code defines a
candidate as “any person aspiring for
or seeking an elective public office,
who has filed a certificate of candidacy
x x x.”
The law is clear that you are considered
a candidate at the start of the
campaign period for which he filed his
certificate of candidacy. “Unlawful acts
or omissions applicable to a candidate
shall take effect only upon the start of
the aforesaid campaign period.” (Sec.
15 R.A. 8436, as amended by Sec. 13 of
R.A. 9369)
In summary of the Penera vs.
COMELEC case:
1. Premature campaign is the act
of campaigning by a candidate
before the campaign period;
2. However, before the campaign
period no one can be
considered a candidate yet;
3. Therefore, campaigning before
the campaign period is not
premature campaigning (this is
now the prevailing rule)
Observation: Take note of the case of
Osmeña vs. COMELEC. The SC seems
to forget the principle laid down in the
Osmeña case where it ruled that you
cannot pass a law increasing the
campaign period because you are
actually increasing the election period.
But when the Penera case came out,
the SC seems to say that there is no
longer a campaign period because you
can campaign anytime without
violating the prohibition of premature
campaigning. In the end, the law
prohibiting the premature
campaigning would be rendered
inutile as it indirectly increases the
campaign period with no more
parameters.
b. Prohibited Contributions
(Section 95-97, Omnibus Election
Code)
Section 95. Prohibited contributions. -
No contribution for purposes of
partisan political activity shall be made
directly or indirectly by any of the
following:
(a) Public or private financial
institutions: Provided, however, That
nothing herein shall prevent the
making of any loan to a candidate or
political party by any such public or
private financial institutions legally in
the business of lending money, and
that the loan is made in accordance
with laws and regulations and in the
ordinary course of business;
- Bank and lending entities
cannot make such contributions
to candidates.
(b) Natural and juridical persons
operating a public utility or in
possession of or exploiting any natural
resources of the nation;
30
 - E.g. PAL, PLDT, Mining P100,000 by the government or any of
Companies are not allowed. its divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities including
(c) Natural and juridical persons who government-owned or controlled
hold contracts or sub-contracts to corporations;
supply the government or any of its
divisions, subdivisions or (f) Educational institutions which have
instrumentalities, with goods or received grants of public funds
services or to perform construction or amounting to no less than
other works; P100,000.00;

(d) Natural and juridical persons who (g) Officials or employees in the Civil
have been granted franchises, Service, or members of the Armed
incentives, exemptions, allocations or Forces of the Philippines; and
similar privileges or concessions by the
government or any of its divisions, (h) Foreigners and foreign
subdivisions or instrumentalities, corporations.
including government-owned or
It shall be unlawful for any person to
controlled corporations;
solicit or receive any contribution from
- e.g. owner of the cockpit is any of the persons or entities
prohibited. enumerated herein.

Discussion: Q: In the Philippines, are corporations

prohibited in making political
Prohibited: donations?

A: No. Only those public utilities or

1. Financial Institutions (bank and
engaged in the exploitation of natural
lending entities);
resources, or granted loans or
2. Public utilities and those
franchises by the government.
exploiting natural resources
(mining firms);
3. Contractors of public works and
services; VI. Board of Canvassers
4. Those granted franchises,
incentives, exemptions, Canvass is the opening and
allocations or similar privileges examination of the election returns
or concessions. and compilation of a summarized
statement showing the result of the
(e) Natural and juridical persons who,
election in a particular area.
within one year prior to the date of the
election, have been granted loans or
other accommodations in excess of

31
Nature of Canvass
1. Ministerial - the board of
canvassers (BOC) will add up all
the returns and declare a result.
As long as they are not forged or
spurious and signed, the Board
cannot reject.
Situation: Voters were bribed.
Q: Can the BOC act on that issue?
A: No. You cannot claim that voters
were bribed because it does not
appear on the canvass. Their job is only
ministerial – just to collect all the
election returns and add it up.
Q: What if your allegations involve
flying voters?
A: Still no, it cannot be claimed. It does
not appear in the election returns. Your
only evidence is the certificate of
canvass of the election returns. It
cannot go beyond.
2. Quasi-judicial - because it can
determine when the election
returns are genuine. But such
determination has to be limited
on the face of the return — it
must be apparent or patent.
a. Erasures
b. No signatures
c. 2 returns are submitted
3. An ad hoc body under the
control and supervision of the
COMELEC - as such, it can be ordered
by the latter to stop the canvassing,
annul a proclamation made by it, or
change the members. Courts cannot
interfere with its functions.
Ad hoc body: it disappears as soon as
the canvass is over. It exists only the
moment the canvass starts and ceases
when the same or the functions are
finished.
New Rules of Canvassing
Governing law: R.A. 9369 (2007)
Sec. 25 - Canvassing by Provincial, City,
District and Municipal Boards of
Canvassers. – The City or Municipal
board of canvassers shall canvass the
votes for the president, vice-president,
senators, and parties, organization or
coalitions participating under the
party-list system by consolidating the
electronically transmitted results
contained in the data storage
devices used in the printing of the
election returns. Upon completion of
the canvass, it shall print the certificate
of canvass of votes for president,
vice-president, senators and members
of the House of Representatives and
elective provincial officials and
thereafter, proclaim the elected city or
municipal officials, as the case may be.
Discussion:
With the passage of the Electronic
Voting Law, Canvass may now be
defined as the act of consolidating the
electronically transmitted results
contained in the data storage device
used in the printing of election returns.
What will happen is that after the
voting ends, part of the machine will
32
be pressed and a certificate of canvass
shall be printed. Such canvass shall be
forwarded to the municipality. With
that, you can no longer object
anymore as the mere pressing of the
machine will result in the printing of a
certificate of canvass. So there can be
no more objections as to such canvass.
Composition of the Board of
Canvassers
There are different BOCs:
1. Congress - for President and
Vice-President; sits in a joint
public session.
Q: May it be delegated to a joint
committee?
A: Yes, the Congress may sit as joint
committee canvassers for the
President and Vice-President. Here the
Congress created a joint committee as
it used to be for the previous elections.
The SC sustained the validity of such
committee since it has been the
standard practice of Congress.
(Pimentel vs. Joint Committee of
Congress)
Sec. 28 - Congress as the National
Board of Canvassers for President and
Vice-President. – The Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint
public session shall compose the
national board of canvassers for
president and vice-president. The
certificate of canvass for president and
vice-president duly certified by the
board of canvassers of each province or
city, shall be electronically transmitted
to the Congress, directed to the
president of the Senate. Upon receipt
of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later
than thirty (30) days after the day of
the election, open all the certificates
in the presence of the Senate and the
House of representatives in joint public
session and the Congress upon
determination of the authenticity and
the due execution thereof in the
manner provided by law, canvass all
the results for president and
vice-president and thereafter, proclaim
the winning candidates. (R.A. 9369)
Discussion:
The Canvassing in provinces or cities is
done electronically by simply pressing
the machine and there a certificate of
canvass is printed. Here in the
Congress, they have to open the
certificates in the presence of the
house of the representatives and the
senate and they have to do it
manually. The reason is because it is
constitutionally mandated.
2. Commission on Elections - it
may also sit as National BOC for:
a. Senators;
b. Paty-list Representatives;
c. ARMM Official
- including absentee voting returns
3. Provincial Board
a. Members of the House of
Representatives;
b. Provincial Officials;
33
Members of the Board: Petition to deny due course to COC

a. Provincial Election Supervisor (already discussed in the preceding

b. Provincial Prosecutor topics)
c. DepEd Provincial
Superintendent Petition to Declare Failure of
Election
4. District Board of Canvassers - applies
only in Metro Manila Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on
account of force majeure, violence,
5. City Board of Canvassers - for city terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
officials causes the election in any polling place
has not been held on the date fixed, or
Members: had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the
a. City election Registrar
voting, or after the voting and during
b. City Prosecutor
the preparation and the transmission
c. Division Superintendent
of the election returns or in the
6. Municipal Board of Canvassers - for custody or canvass thereof, such
Municipal Officials election results in a failure to elect,
and in any of such cases the failure
a. Municipal Election Officer or suspension of election would
b. Municipal Treasurer affect the result of the election, the
c. District School Supervisor Commission shall, on the basis of a
verified petition by any interested
7. Board of Election Tellers - Barangay
party and after due notice and
Officials
hearing, call for the holding or
a. 3 public school teachers continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a
failure to elect on a date reasonably
VII. Remedies and Jurisdiction in
Election Law close to the date of the election not
held, suspended or which resulted in a
1. Petition to deny due course to failure to elect but not later than thirty
certificate of candidacy; days after the cessation of the cause of
2. Petition to declare failure of such postponement or suspension of
elections; the election or failure to elect. (B.P. 881,
3. Pre-Proclamation Controversy Omnibus Election Code)
4. Election Protest
Requisites in order to file failure of
(post-proclamation controversy)
election:
5. Quo Warranto
1. There must occur any of the
following:

34
 a. Election in any polling
place has not been held
in the date fixed; or
b. Election or had been
suspended before the
hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting; or
c. After the voting and
during the preparation
and the transmission of
the election returns or in
the custody or canvass
thereof, the election
results in a failure to elect.
2. The failure or suspension of election
would affect the result of the election.
3. The failure was due to force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes.
Nota bene: These three requisites
must concur. Absent one, you cannot
file for a failure of elections.
Q: Suppose that after a peaceful voting
where a big majority voted, but almost
all the PCOS machines malfunctioned,
can there be a failure of election?
A: No, there can be no failure of
election. While there is a PCOS
machine malfunctioning, the votes are
still there. It can be manually counted
and tallied, otherwise stated, the votes
can still be ascertained. It is still on the
ballots.
Q: Suppose after a peaceful voting,
only 3 people showed up to vote in
Tagum City and 2 voted for you, one for
me, is there a failure of election?
A: No, there is no failure of election.
You won. There is no requirement that
at least a majority should have voted or
cast their votes. Election is determined
by the majority of the votes cast
regardless of how many people who
actually voted.
Q: Who can file for a failure of
election?
A: Any interested party. Apparently you
have to be a candidate.
Q: Can the COMELEC declare a failure
of election on its own?
A: No. It must at the instance of the
interested party.
Q: In what unit can a failure of election
be declared?
A: There can be a precinct level
declaration of failure of election
provided it can affect the result of the
election.
Q: Where will you file a petition for the
declaration of failure of election?
A: COMELEC
Pre-Proclamation Controversies
Any question pertaining to or affecting
the proceedings of the Board of
Canvassers which may be raised by any
candidate or registered political party
in relation to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and
appearance of election returns.
In effect, it is any dispute prior to
proclamation but pertaining to
35
decisions of the Board of Canvassers
whether or not to include a return in
the canvass or even its composition.
Q: What about the appreciation of
ballots, can you question that?
A: No. It does not include the
appreciation of ballots because such is
determined at the precinct level. What
you do in canvass has only relation to
the preparation, transmission, receipt
custody and appearance of election
returns.
You should have raised it to the
precinct level where the counting and
appreciation of ballots are made. But
you can still raise the question of
appreciation of ballots in an election
protest.
Q: What about nuisance candidates,
can you raise it as a pre-proclamation
controversy?
A: Not a proclamation controversy
because it does not appear on the face
of the Election return.
Q: What about questioning the
qualification?
A: Not a proclamation controversy
because it does not appear on the face
of the election return.
RECENT GOVERNING LAW IN
PRE-PROCLAMATION PROCEEDINGS:
COMELEC RESOLUTION 009 S. 2010
Q: What are the issues that may be
raised during the consolidation/
canvass?
A: Issues affecting the composition or
proceedings of the Board.
Take note that it must be recorded
only in the minutes. It cannot delay the
conduct of the canvass.
It may be initiated by filing a verified
petition before the Board or directly
with the Commission.
If the petition is filed directly with the
Board, its decision may be appealed to
the Commission within 3 days from
issuance thereof. However, if the
commenced directly with the
Commission, the verified petition shall
be filed immediately when the board
begins to act illegally, or at the time of
the appointment of the member of the
objected to.
There shall be no pre-proclamation
cases on issues/controversies relating
to the generation/printing,
transmission, recit and custody and
appreciation of the election returns or
the COCs.
So, apparently when you look into the
resolution, no more pre-proclamation
is allowed. No more objections on the
election returns.
The only thing that can be subject to
pre-proclamation controversy is the
issues affecting the composition or
proceedings of the Boards which
applies to all positions and illegal
proceedings of the board.
36
Jurisdiction of the Comelec in
pre-proclamation controversies
Exclusive jurisdiction in
pre-proclamation controversies arising
from national, regional and local
elections.
A pre-proc. Controversy may be raised
by any candidate or by any registered
political party, organization, or coalition
of political parties before the BOC, or
directly with the Commission.
Issues affecting the commission or
proceedings of the Board may be
initiated by filing a verified petition
before the Board or directly with the
Commission.
Illegal Composition of the Board of
Canvassers
If any of the members do not possess
legal qualifications and appointments.
The information technology capable
person required to assist the BOC by
R.A No. 9369 shall be included as
among those whose lack of
qualifications may be required.
Illegal proceedings by the Board of
Canvassers
There is illegal proceedings of the BOC
when the canvassing is a sham or
mere ceremony, the results of which
are pre-determined and manipulated
as when any of the following
circumstances are present:
a. Precipitate canvassing
-meaning the time for voting
has not yet lapse but you started
to canvass
b. Terrorism;
c. Lack of sufficient notice to the
members of the BOC’s
-lawyers should be notified
d. Improper venue
When and how commenced
Questions affecting the composition or
proceedings of the BOC may be
initiated in the BOC or directly with the
Commission, with a verified petition,
clearly stating the specific grounds for
illegality of the composition and/or
proceedings of the board.
Generally, you can only file a
pre-proclamation controversy when
the candidate was not yet proclaimed.
Sec. 16. - All pre-proclamation cases
pending before the Commission shall
be deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office
involved and the rulings of the boards
of canvassers concerned shall be
deemed affirmed, without prejudice to
the filing of a regular election protest
by the aggrieved party. However,
proceedings may continue when on
the basis of the evidence thus far
presented, the Commission
determined that the petition appears
meritorious and accordingly issues
an order for the proceeding to
continue or when an appropriate
order has been issued by the
37
Supreme Court in a petition for
certiorari. (R.A. 7166)
All pre-proclamation controversies are
deemed terminated on June 30 with
the exception of the above.
Q: Can the COMELEC annul the
proclamation made by the BOC?
A: Yes, since the BOC is under the
control of the COMELEC. If the
proclamation is void, it is as if there is
no proclamation.
Illegal proceedings discovered after
proclamation
A verified petition to annul the
proclamation may be filed before the
COMELEC within 10 days after the day
of the proclamation.
Librados vs. Casar
Facts: To avoid alleged “bloodshed
and revival of Muslim-Christian
conflict” and MTC judge in Lanao del
Norte issued an order retsraining the
canvassing of the election returns
form a precinct until the COMELEC
or the RTC could act on a petition
filed.
Issue: WON it is valid
Ruling: No. The MTC has no
jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
Postponement of Election:
Sec. 5. Postponement of election. -
When for any serious cause such as
violence, terrorism, loss or destruction
of election paraphernalia or records,
force majeure, and other analogous
causes of such a nature that the
holding of a free, orderly and honest
election should become impossible in
any political subdivision, the
Commission, motu proprio or upon a
verified petition by any interested
party, and after due notice and
hearing, whereby all interested parties
are afforded equal opportunity to be
heard, shall postpone the election
therein to a date which should be
reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
Who can file?
1. The COMELEC motu proprio
2. Any interested party upon
verified petition
Nota bene: This can be distinguished
from failure of election where only the
interested party upon verified
complaint can file. The COMELEC
cannot make it motu proprio.
Votes Required:
1. Division - 2/1
2. En banc - 3/2
(Cua vs. Comelec)
Election Protest
The purpose is to oust the winning
candidate from office. It is strictly a
contest between the defeated and the
38
winning candidates, based on the formal objections may be
grounds of the electoral frauds and disregarded to ascertain the will
irregularities, to determine who of the people (Kahilan vs.
between them has actually obtained Tabalba, 230 SCRA 208)
the majority of the legal votes cast and
is entitled to hold the office. It can only
be filed by a candidate who has duly
a. Jurisdiction (over election
filed a certificate of candidacy and has
protest)
been voted for in the preceding
elections. (Lokin vs. COMELEC, June 22,
President/VP PET
2010)
Senators SET
It can be pursued only after one
candidate has been proclaimed by the Congressmen HRET
appropriate Board of Canvassers.
Reg/Prov?City COMELEC
Nota bene: The distinction of election Official
protest and quo warranto. Both are
Municipal RTC
remedies that may be availed only Officials
after proclamation.
Barangay MTC/MCTC
Nature: Officials

1. Special statutory proceedings b. Appeal

(neither criminal, civil, nor
administrative);
2. It does not involve only the
personal interests of rival
candidates, but also public
interests, as it involves the
determination of the will of the
people (no abated by death,
except Poe vs. GMA)
Hence death does not result in
abandonment of protest with the
single exception in the case of Poe vs.
GMA for the reason that there was no
valid substitution of the person of FPJ
by Susan Roces.
3. Rules regulating it are liberally
construed so that technical and
1. MTC - RTC — to COMELEC.
RA 6679 which authorizes
appeals from MTC to RTC is
unconstitutional (Flores vs.
Comelec)
2. MTC to RTC
Cases heard by the MTC
involving Kabataang Barangay
Officials should be to the RTC
(Mercado vs. Board, 243 SCRA
423)
Nota bene: In all cases, appeals to the
COMELEC is 5 days. Motion for
Reconsideration is prohibited.
3. COMELEC

39
 Decisions of these agencies may
be reviewed by the SC on
certiorari within 30 days as
provided in the Constitution.
SET/HRET - 60 days based on grave
abuse of discretion.
Grounds for Election Protest:
1. Fraud;
2. Terrorism;
3. Illegal acts committed before,
during, after the casting; and
4. Counting of votes
Q: In an election protest, can you raise
the authenticity of ballots?
A: Yes, you can raise it. You can even
demand for recount. If it turns out that
the ballots there are fake, you can even
demand to exclude them from
counting.
Q: Can you raise that unregistered
voters were allowed to vote?
A: Yes. It can be determined because
only registered voter can vote. For
instance, this can be demonstrated as
when there are only 200 registered
voters when there are actually 499
voters. Hence, there are really
unregistered voters here. You can
annul the result there.
Q: Can you raise that disqualified
people were allowed to register?
A: This is not allowed this time. Note
that the list of voters is conclusive. You
should have filed a petition for
inclusion and exclusion proceedings.
This cannot be a ground for election
protest or annulment of list of voters.
Q: Can there be execution pending
appeal?
A: Yes. Under good reasons, under Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, not COMELEC
Rules.
Good reasons:
1. Term is about to end;
2. Public interest; and
3. Filing of bond (required)
Situation: Suppose I lost the election,
and I filed an election protest before
the Comelec where it was ruled that I
won. Obviously, you will appeal so that
I can hold the position being declared
the winner in the protest.
Q: When to file?
A: During the period to file an appeal
only. (Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243
SCRA 690)
If the COMELEC renders that decision,
you can only file the petition there. You
file it before the tribunal which
rendered the decision in favor of you.
You cannot file it after the lapse of
period to appeal.
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
Rules (Rule 14)
Election Protest
The registered candidate for President
or Vice-President of the Philippines
who received the second or third
highest number of votes may contest
40
the election of the President or
Vice-President, as the case may be, by
filing a verified election protest with
the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal within 30 days after the
proclamation of the winner.
Discussion:
This was the reason why Susan Roces
was not allowed to substitute FPJ in an
election protest. The proper party
should be the registered candidate
who received the second or third
highest number of votes.
Quo Warranto
A verified petition for quo warranto
contesting the election of the
President or Vice-President on the
ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to
the Republic of the Philippines may be
filed by any registered voter who has
voted in the election concerned within
10 days after the proclamation of the
winner.
Discussion:
Note that an election protest can be
filed only by a candidate who received
the second or third highest number of
votes while quo warranto can be filed
by any registered voter provided he
has voted in the election concerned.
Any voter is allowed to file QW because
this involves the qualification of
eligibility of the elected official. So any
registered voter has interest, as
distinguished in election protest.
Rule 14. Election Protest - A verified
petition contesting the election of any
member of the State shall be filed by
any candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and been
voted for the Office of the Senator
within 15 days after the proclamation
of the protestee. No joint election
protest shall be admitted, but the
Tribunal, for good and sufficient
reasons, may consolidate individual
protests and hear and decide them
jointly.
Rule 15. Quo Warranto - A verified
petition for quo warranto contesting
the election of a Member of the Senate
on the ground of ineligibility or
disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines shall be filed by any voter
within 10 days after the proclamation
of the respondent.
Quo Warranto - a special civil action for
quo warranto refers to questions of
disloyalty to the State, or of ineligibility
of the winning candidate. The
objective of the action is to unseat the
ineligible person from the office, but
not to install the petitioner in his place.
Any voter may initiate the action,
which is, strictly speaking, not a
contest where the parties strive for
supremacy. (Lokin vs. COMELEC, June
22, 2010)
Under the Rules of Special
Proceedings, quo warranto may be
filed in the following:
1. To unseat the ineligible person
from the office;
41
 2. To question the existence of a de
facto LGU or Public Corporation;
3. To question a defectively formed
corporation;
4. To challenge a public official
who is without proper title,
elective or appointive . Note also
that in public appointive office,
quo warranto may be filed only a
person claiming better right to
the position while in elective
office, it may be filed by any
registered voter
Quo Warranto vs. Election Protest
1. As to ground - Election protest
pertains to disputes connected
with the conduct of election,
counting of votes and canvass of
votes; while QW pertains to the
eligibility of the winning
candidate sought to be
disqualified.
Nota bene: If there is no proclamation,
the remedy is disqualification.
2. As to who can initiate - an
election protest can be filed
only by a losing candidate; but a
QW may be filed by a candidate
or a voter.
3. As to effect - an election
protest can result to the
proclamation of the protestant,
but a QW cannot result to
proclamation of the person who
filed a case.
Q: Can you file both a quo warranto
and Election Protest?
A: Yes. They can be filed
simultaneously because aside from the
fat that you cheated during the
elections, you are also disqualified to
hold such office.
Q: Can you join them?
A: No. You have to file them separately.
(De la Rosa vs. Yonson, 52 Phils. 446)
Periods:
The period to file a petition (10 days) for
quo warranto or election protest is
suspended by:
1. Valid pre-proclamation
controversy;
2. Petition to suspend or annul
proclamation
The period (of 10 days from
proclamation) may not be observed
where the ground:
1. Arose after proclamation; or
-this happens when a senator in the
middle of his term acquired foreign
citizenship. Here the period is
obviously do not apply and note that
the requirement of citizenship is a
continuing requirement.
2. Evidence is discovered late
-this happens when you have been an
alien all along bit it was discovered
after proclamation or in the middle of
your term; again the requirement of
citizenship is a continuing
requirement.
42
The Period of 10 days does not apply to accordance with the Civil Code.
citizenship. (Limkaichong vs. (Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA
COMELEC, 583 SCRA 1) 400; 1996)

But it applies to age; after the lapse of
10 days, you cannot file it anymore.
Effect of proclamation on petition
for disqualification
1. All pending appeals with the SC/
COMELEC are dismissed if they
involve members of Congress or
the President and
Vice-President.
Q: A candidate who commits vote
buying on Election Day itself shall be
prosecuted by?
A: COMELEC or the City or Provincial
Prosecutor.
Nota bene: the power to prosecute
election offenses of the COMELEC is
now concurrent with the prosecuting
arms of the government.

-The principle here is that SET, HRET or

PET is the sole judge on matters
relating to the qualifications of —o0o—
members of Congress or the President
or VP after having been proclaimed as
the case may be. Such cases shall have
to be dismissed and a new petition
shall be filed with the proper tribunal.

2. Those before the COMELEC and

the SC involving local officials

-In the absence of the law providing a

sole judge on such matters relating to
disqualification of a local executive
official. It is believed that the pending
disqualification case before the
Comelec shall continue.

Q: Can one obtain damages in an

election protest or quo warranto?

A: If moral damages (mental anguish,

sleepless nights, besmirched
reputation) — never;

If actual damages (expenses, atty’s fees

“in accordance with law”) — yes, in

43