1
ELECTION CONTROVERSIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON DISQUALIFICATION:
REMEDIES
BEFORE ELECTION
A. DISQUALIFICATION PETITIONS
Electoral Aspect
Whether or not the offender should be disqualified from being a candidate or from
holding office Proceedings are summary in character and require only a clear
preponderance of evidence An erring candidate may be disqualified even without
prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation
Criminal Aspect
Whether or not there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense:
The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department which determines
whether or not probable cause exists.
If there is probable cause: The COMELEC’s Law Department files the criminal
information before the proper court Proceedings before the proper court demand a
full blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may
even include disqualification from holding a future public office.
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION:
1. Lacking qualifications.
2. Filing a CoC for more than 1 office
3. False and material representation in the CoC.
4. Disqualifications under the LGC.
5. Nuisance candidate.
6. Election offenses enumerated under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code
7. Declared insane or incompetent by competent authority.
8. Sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or an
offense which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months, or a
crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon/ amnesty.
The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the oath
of renunciation. Matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office
must be strictly complied with. A candidate cannot simply be allowed to
correct the deficiency in his qualification by submitting another oath of
renunciation. (Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, Aug. 18, 2015.)
The petitioner's continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the USA through
using his USA passport after the renunciation of his USA citizenship reverted
him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion disqualified him from
being elected to public office. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207105, Nov
10, 2015.)
Disqualifications under the LGC:
1. Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving Moral turpitude or for
an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment within 2 years after
serving sentence.
2. Removed from office as a result of an Administrative case.
3. Convicted by final judgment for violating the Oath of allegiance to the
Republic.
4. Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad.
5. Dual allegiance.
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right.
4BLUE95. A candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office, and
he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualifications for elective office. Even if the
COMELEC made no finding that the petitioner had deliberately attempted to
mislead or to misinform as to warrant the cancellation of his CoC, the COMELEC
could still declare him disqualified for not meeting the requisite eligibility under the
Local Government Code. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207105, Nov. 10,
2015.)
A COMELEC resolution declaring a candidate disqualified for the said position is not yet final if a
motion for reconsideration has been timely filed. At that point, he still remains qualified and his
proclamation thereafter is valid. As a result, COMELEC's jurisdiction to contest his citizenship
ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192856, Mar.
8, 2011.)
A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC in an election
protest may not directly assail the order in this Court through a special civil action for certiorari.
The remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the
Division in due course. The court may have the power to review any decision, order or ruling of
the COMELEC, limits such power to a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc, and
does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Otherwise
stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final
resolution issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Where the Commission in division committed
grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing interlocutory
orders relative to an action pending before it and the controversy did not fall under any of the
instances mentioned in Section 2, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the remedy of the
aggrieved party is not to refer the controversy to the Commission en banc as this is not permissible
under its present rules but to elevate it to this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. (Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139, Jan. 24, 2012.)
The phrase in the presidential pardon which declares that the person "is hereby restored to his civil
and political rights" substantially complies with the requirement of express restoration of his right
to hold public office, or the right of suffrage. Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code should
be construed in a way that will give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the President,
instead of indulging in an overly strict interpretation that may serve to impair or diminish the
import of the pardon which emanated from the Office of the President and duly signed by the
Chief Executive himself/herself. The said codal provisions must be construed to harmonize the
power of Congress to define crimes and prescribe the penalties for such crimes and the power of
the President to grant executive clemency. All that the said provisions impart is that the pardon of
the principal penalty does not carry with it the remission of the accessory penalties unless the
President expressly includes said accessory penalties in the pardon. It still recognizes the
Presidential prerogative to grant executive clemency and, specifically, to decide to pardon the
principal penalty while excluding its accessory penalties or to pardon both. Thus, Articles 36 and
41 only clarify the effect of the pardon so decided upon by the President on the penalties imposed
in accordance with law. (RisosVidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, Jan. 21, 2015.)
A whereas clause in a pardon which states that the person ―publicly committed to no longer seek
any elective position or office‖ does not make the pardon conditional. Whereas clauses do not
form part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the
statute. The whereas clause is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does
not by itself alone operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent
upon the fulfillment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.
(Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, Jan. 21, 2015.)
Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and
political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office. The wording of
the pardon extended to him is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. The fact that the pardon
did not specify the specific rights restored does not mean that GMA did not intend to restore his
right to suffrage. (Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, Jan. 21, 2015.)
The disqualification from running for public office due to libel shall be removed after service of
the five-year sentence, which is counted from the date the fine is paid. (Ty-Delgado v. HRET,
G.R. No. 219603, Jan. 26, 2016.)
To resolve the tie, there shall be drawing of lots. Whenever it shall appear from the canvass that
two or more candidates have received an equal and highest number of votes, or in cases where two
or more candidates are to be elected for the same position and two or more candidates received the
same number of votes for the last place in the number to be elected, the board of canvassers, after
recording this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution, upon five days’ notice to all the tied
candidates, hold a special public meeting at which the board of canvassers shall proceed to the
drawing of lots of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who
may favored by luck, and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the
same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of votes. The board of canvassers shall
forthwith make a certificate stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck and
his proclamation on the basis thereof. Nothing in this section shall be construed as depriving a
candidate of his right to contest the election. (Omnibus Election Code, § 240.; Tugade v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 171063, Mar. 2, 2007.)
Q: The 1st Legislative District of South Cotabato is composed of General Santos and three
municipalities including Polomolok. During the canvassing proceedings before the District Board
of Canvassers in connection with the 2007 congressional elections, candidate MP objected to the
certificate of canvass for Polomolok on the ground that it was obviously manufactured, submitting
as evidence the affidavit of a mayoralty candidate of Polomok. The certificate of canvass for
General Santos was likewise objected to by MP on the basis of the confirmed report of the local
NAMFREL that 10 election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the certificate.
MP moved that the certificate of canvass for General Santos be corrected to exclude the results
from the nonexistent precincts. The District Board of Canvassers denied both objections and ruled
to include the certificate of canvass. May MP appeal the rulings to the COMELEC? Explain.
(2008 BAR)
A: NO, MP cannot appeal the rulings to the Commission on Elections. Under Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, no pre-proclamation controversies
regarding the appreciation of election returns and certificates of canvass maybe entertained in
elections for members of the House of Representatives. The canvassing body may correct manifest
errors in the certificate of canvass. His recourse is to file a regular election protest before the
HRET (Pimentel v. COMELEC, 548 SCRA 169 [2008]).

DECLARED WINNER WHEN WINNING CANDIDATE IS DISQUALIFIED OR
FAILS TO QUALIFY
1. VALID at the start but due to declaration by Final Judgment was disqualified
4blue95. limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the first-placer
was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a
violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing
of the certificate of candidacy
If NOT FINAL BEFORE election = hence, still a candidate = second-placer is not
the winner (Doctrine of Rejection of Second-Placer); succession rules will apply;
If FINAL BEFORE election = hence, not a candidate = second-placer wins because
he/she gets next HIGHEST votes among the qualified candidates
4blue95. However, the SC in Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013) declared the second-placer
as winner even if the disqualified candidate continued to be a candidate (no final
disqualification) and was even proclaimed as the winner, to wit: the votes cast in favor of
the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.
Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the electorate
is still respected, and even more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do
not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor
of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected
2. VOID ab initio
In Halili v. COMELEC (2019), the SC ruled that in case of vacancies caused by those
with void ab initio COCs, the person legally entitled to the vacant position would be
the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes among those eligible.
Citing Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (2012), the SC explained: ―Decisions
of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-
placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the
certificate of candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time of filing but
subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a
legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. If the
certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, then legally the person who filed such void
certificate of candidacy was never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes
for such non-candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non-
candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections.
If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is CANCELLED ON THE DAY, OR
BEFORE THE DAY, of the election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes
for that candidate are stray votes.
If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is CANCELLED ONE DAY OR MORE
AFTER THE ELECTIONS, all votes for such candidate should also be stray votes
because the certificate of candidacy is void from the very beginning. This is the more
equitable and logical approach on the effect of the cancellation of a certificate of
candidacy that is void ab initio.‖
GENERAL RULE: The COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who
obtains the 2nd highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is ineligible or
disqualified. When a winner is declared ineligible, the candidate who finished 2nd
cannot assume the position. (Quizon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177927, Feb. 15, 2008.)
EXCEPTION:
1. The one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified, and
2. The electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to
bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes
in favor of the ineligible candidate. (Pundaodaya v. COMELEC, G.R.No. 179313, Sep. 17,
2009.)
A candidate who was elected but was later disqualified for failing to meet the residency
requirement was never a valid candidate from the very beginning, and was merely a de
facto officer. The eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of votes must
assume the office. The rule on succession in the Local Government Code does not apply.
(Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193314, Jun. 25, 2013; Ty-Delgado v. HRET, G.R. No.
219603, Jan. 26, 2016.)
ABANDONMENT
A protestant who runs for another office is deemed to have abandoned his protest. This is
especially true in a case where the protestant pending the election protest, ran, won,
assumed the post and discharged the duties as such. (Idulza v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
160130, Apr. 14, 2004.)
2
PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION (SEC. 68) V. PETITION TO DENY DUE
COURSE/CANCEL COC (SEC. 78):
There are two remedies available to prevent a candidate from running in an electoral race.
One is through a petition for disqualification and the other through a petition to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
The Court differentiated the two remedies in Fermin v. Commission on Elections, thus
wise: x x x A petition for disqualification, on the one hand, can be premised on Section 12
or 68 of the OEC, or Section 40 of the Local Government Code. On the other hand, a
petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a statement of a
material representation in the said certificate that is false. The petitions also have different
effects. While a person who is disqualified under Sec. 68 is merely prohibited to continue
as a candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Sec. 78
is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC. In the event that a
candidate is disqualified to run for a public office, or dies, or withdraws his CoC before the
elections, Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code provides the option of substitution.
Nonetheless, whether the ground for substitution is death, withdrawal or disqualification of
a candidate, Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code unequivocally states that only an
official candidate of a registered or accredited party may be substituted. It is underscored,
however, that a Section 78 petition should not be interchanged or confused with a Section
68 petition. The remedies under the two sections are different, for they are based on
different grounds, and can result in different eventualities. A person who is disqualified
under Section 68 is prohibited to continue as a candidate, but a person whose CoC is
cancelled or denied due course under Section 78 is not considered as a candidate at all
because his status is that of a person who has not filed a CoC. Miranda v. Abaya has
clarified that a candidate who is disqualified under Section 68 can be validly substituted
pursuant to Section 77 because he remains a candidate until disqualified; but a person
whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled under Section 78 cannot be
substituted because he is not considered a candidate. [Talaga v. COMELEC, GR No.
196804, 9 Oct 2012]
B. 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. [Sec. 5, OEC]
THUS: When for any serious cause such as violence, loss of election paraphernalia,
force majeure, and other analogous causes elections cannot be held, COMELEC shall
motu proprio or upon petition by any interested party postpone the election not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement (Omnibus Election
Code, § 5.)
C. FAILURE OF ELECTION
When Failure of Elections May Be Declared:
1. Election was Suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting
2. Election in any polling place was Not held on the date fixed
3. Elections Results in a failure to elect (after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof). (Carlos v. Angeles, G.R. No. 142907, Nov. 29, 2000).)
Grounds:
Force majeure
Fraud
Violence
Terrorism
Analogous circumstances (Carlos v. Angeles, G.R. No. 142907, Nov. 29,
2000).)

D. PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES
any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers
which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition
of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter
raised under Sections 233 (Election Returns are delayed, lost, and destroyed), 234
(Material Defects in the Election Returns), 235 (Election Returns appear to be
falsified or tampered) and 236 (Discrepancies in Election Returns) in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.
[Sec. 241, OEC]
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES must first be heard and decided by a
division of the Commission — and a petition for correction of manifest error in the
Statement of Votes, like SPC No. 95-198 is a preproclamation controversy — in none of
the cases cited to support this proposition was the issue the correction of a manifest error in
the Statement of Votes under 231 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) or §15 of
R.A. No. 7166. On the other hand, Rule 27, §5 of the 1993 Rules of the COMELEC
expressly provides that preproclamation controversies involving, inter alia, manifest errors
in the tabulation or tallying of the results may be filed directly with the COMELEC en
banc
Summary Nature:
• Pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the COMELEC.
• Its decision shall be executory after 5 days from receipt by the losing party of the
decision, unless restrained by the SC. (Omnibus Election Code, § 246.)
General Rule: Pre-proclamation cases are deemed terminated:
1. At the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the
BOC concerned deemed affirmed.
2. This is without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the
aggrieved party. (Sarmiento v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105628, Aug. 6, 1992.)
Exceptions: Proceedings may continue if:
1. COMELEC determines that the petition is meritorious and issues an order
for the proceedings to continue.
2. The SC issues an order for the proceedings to continue in a petition for
certiorari. (Sarmiento v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105628, Aug. 6, 1992.)
Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the
proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power
to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. (Federico v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
199612, Jan. 22, 2013).
4BLUE95.But the remedy of filing a pre-proclamation case is still available after
proclamation if the proclamation should have been suspended because of contested
election returns. (Jainal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174551, Mar. 7, 2007.)
Grounds for Recount:
1. Material defects in the ERs
2. ERs are tampered or falsified
3. Discrepancies in the ERs (Omnibus Election Code, § 236.)
When Recount is Possible:
1. COMELEC order BEI to conduct recount
2. Integrity and identity of ballot box is not violated
3. BEI ascertains that integrity of ballots in box preserved
4. BEI recounts and complete/correct returns
In regular election contests, the general averment of fraud or irregularities in the counting
of votes justifies the examination of the ballots and recounting of votes. This process of
examination is the revision of the ballots pursuant to Section 6, Rule 20 of the 1993
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The protests involved herein assailed the authenticity of
the election returns and the veracity of the counting of the ballots. In that regard, the
ballots themselves are the best evidence. The only means to overcome the presumption of
legitimacy of the election returns is to examine and determine first whether the ballot
boxes have been substantially preserved in the manner mandated by law. Hence, the
necessity to issue the order of revision. Note: The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion when it ordered the revision of 44 ballots with the Senate Electoral Tribunal
without first resolving whether 16 of those 44 ballots should be included in the revision.
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187958, Apr. 7, 2010)
3
Statistically Improbable Data
1. Uniformity of tally in favor of candidates belonging to 1 party.
2. Systematic blanking out of candidates belonging to another party.
General Rule: Pre-proclamation cases are NOT allowed in elections for the President, Vice
President, Senator and members of the House of Representatives.
Exceptions:
1. Manifest Errors in the ERs or COCs may be corrected motu proprio or upon
written complaint of any interested person.
Manifest Errors:
1. Mistake in adding
2. Mistake in copying of figures from ER or Statement of Votes
3. ERs from non-existent precinct canvassed
4. Copy of ER tabulated more than twice
5. 2 or more copies of ER and COC in 1 precinct counted separately
The grounds for manifest errors are inclusive. The allowable margin of error
is 60%. It suspends the running of the period within which to file an election
protest or quo warranto proceeding. Notwithstanding the pendency of any
preproclamation controversy, the Commission may summarily order the
proclamation of other winning candidates whose election will not be affected
by the outcome of the controversy.
2. Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers
may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in accordance with
Section 19 (R.A. No. 7166).
Election Return (ER)
A document in electronic and printed form directly produced by the counting or
voting machine, showing the date of the election, the province, municipality and
the precinct in which it is held and the votes in figures for each candidate in a
precinct in areas where AES is utilized. [Sec. 2(4), RA 8436 as amended by RA
9369]
4BLUE95 NOTE: This is the report on the votes PER PRECINCT that is
transmitted to the board of canvassers for tabulation.
Certificate of Canvass
A document in electronic and printed form containing the total votes in figures
obtained by each candidate in a city / municipality / district / province as the case
may be. The electronic certificates of canvass shall be the official canvass results
in the aforementioned jurisdictions. [Sec. 2(6), RA 8436 as amended by RA 9369]
4BLUE95 NOTE: This is the report on the votes per city / municipality / district /
province based on the Election Returns that is canvassed or tabulated at the local
and national level.
Statement of Votes
A document containing the votes obtained by candidates in each precinct in a
city/municipality. [Sec. 2(5), RA 8436 as amended by RA 9369]
4BLUE95 NOTE: This is another report generated at the canvassing stage
containing the votes breakdown per precinct for national (e.g. party-list) and local
(e.g. mayor) races. It supports the Certificate of Canvass that serves as the basis
for proclamation.
Absentee Voting:
• Members of the board of election inspectors and their substitutes may vote in the precinct
where they are assigned. (Omnibus Election Code, § 169.)
• Absentee voting for President, Vice President and Senators is allowed for members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police and other government
employees assigned in connection with the performance of election duties to places where
they are not registered. (R.A. No. 7166, § 12.)
Q: Give three issues that can be properly raised and brought in a pre-proclamation contest. A:
According to Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the following issues can be properly
raised: a. The composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers are illegal; b. The canvassed
election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, approved to be tampered with, or contain
discrepancy in the same returns or in other authenticated copies; c. The election returns were
prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or
not authentic; and d. Substitute or fraudulent returns in controverter polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates. However, according to Section 15 of the Synchronized Election Law, no pre-
proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass with respect to the
positions of President, Vice- President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. No
pre-proclamation case is allowed in the case of barangay elections.
 4

GROUNDS FOR PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES:

1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers 4. ERs prepared under duress, threats, coercion, intimidation, obviously manufactured
a. Filed with the BOC or with COMELEC • ―Obviously manufactured‖ - According to the Court, when it follows the doctrine of
b. Within 3 days from a ruling (if based on illegal proceedings), or as soon as the statistical improbabilities or ―Statistically improbable data‖.
Board begins to act.

4BLUE95. Contested composition or proceedings of the board - May be initiated in

the Board of canvassers or COMELEC Contested ERs - Should be brought in the 1st
instance before the board of canvassers only

General Rule: When the Electoral Tribunal obtains jurisdiction, it precludes the
COMELEC from exercising powers over pre-proclamation controversies. 5. Substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places are canvassed, and the
results materially affect the standing of candidates. (Omnibus Election Code, § 243.)
Exceptions:
NOTE: Grounds for pre-proclamation controversies are exclusive.
1. BOC was Improperly constituted
2. Proclamation was null and void
3. Quo warranto is not the proper remedy
4. What was filed was a Petition to annul a proclamation, and not quo warranto or
election protest.
5. Election contest expressly made without prejudice to PPC or it was made Ad
cautelam (cautionary). (FOR 3,4,AND 5)

In exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate to protect the
integrity of elections, the COMELEC ―must not be straight-jacketed by procedural
rules in resolving election disputes.‖ (Violago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194143, Oct.
4, 2011.)
Two Objection Rule
General Rule: COMELEC cannot go behind the face of an election return. It is
beyond the jurisdiction of COMELEC to go beyond the face of the returns or
investigateelection irregularities.
Exception: When there is prima facie showing that the ER is not genuine (e.g., as when
several entries have been omitted). (Lee vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157004, Jul. 4, 2003.)

Submit oral objection and written objection simultaneously to BOC chairperson

before ERs have been canvassed. There is substantial compliance even if the oral
objection is filed first, then the written objection with evidence is submitted within 24
hours.
However, in Marabur vs. COMELEC, the Court held that there is substantial
compliance if despite the absence of a written objection, an offer of evidence is made
within the 24-hour period. (Marabur vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 169513, Feb. 26,
2007.)

2. Irregularities in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and

appreciation of election returns and certificates of canvass:

a. ERs are delayed, lost or destroyed

b. Material defects in the ERs
c. ERs appear to be tampered with or falsified
d. Discrepancies in the ERs

COMELEC JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION CONTESTS:

3. Canvassed returns are incomplete, contain material defects
1. Original Jurisdiction over contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of all
Grounds For Material Defects: elective:
1. Omission of name of candidates a. Regional b. Provincial c. City officials
2. Omission of votes for candidates
2. Appellate Jurisdiction over contests involving:
a. Elective Municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction
b. Elective Barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction
c. COMELEC may issue extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

4BLUE95 A petition for mandamus will lie against the Speaker of the House and the
House Secretary General for not performing their ministerial duties to administer the oath
of the second placer and enter his name in the Roll of Members of the House of
Representatives, when the winner’s COC had been cancelled due to ineligibility. (Velasco
v. Belmonte, G.R. 211140, 2016)

a. ERs are delayed, lost, destroyed KINDS OF ELECTION CONTEST:

i. In this case, the Board can use any of the authentic copies
ii. Or terminate canvass if the missing returns will not affect the results anyway
b. Missing requisites
i. Board calls for members of the BEI to complete or correct the return. DO NOT
EXCLUDE, if correctable
c. ERs are tampered, falsified, altered after these left the hands of BEI, not authentic,
prepared under duress, force, intimidation, etc.
i. Resort to other ERs
ii. If all are tampered, can have ballot boxes reopened and counted
1. Election Protest
2. Quo Warranto
4BLUE95. Withdrawal of nomination and substitution by another nominee is neither an
election protest nor an action for quo warranto. Petitioner correctly brought before the
Supreme Court this special civil action for certiorari under Section 7 of Article IX-A of the
1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the proclamation of, and assumption of office by, the
substitute nominee. (Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC G.R. No. 179431-32/180443, Jun. 22, 2010.)

d. Discrepancies in other authentic copies of the returns or discrepancies in the votes

of any candidate in words/figures – and these would affect results of the election
i. Order opening of ballot boxes for recount
 5

BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS AND BOARD OF CANVASSERS Buildings Not Valid as a Polling Place:

COMPOSITION 1. Public or private building owned, leased or occupied by any candidate of any person
who is related to any candidate within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or
Provincial any officer of the government or leader of any political party

1. Provincial election supervisor of lawyer in the regional office of the COMELEC 2. Building or surrounding premises under the actual control of a private entity
(Chairman);
2. Provincial fiscal (vice) 3. Those located within the perimeter of or inside a military or police camp or reservation
3. Provincial superintendent of schools (member) or within a prison compound
4. Substitute members (in order):
a. Provincial auditor NOTE: Where no suitable public building is available, private school buildings may be
b. Register of Deeds used as polling places. (Omnibus Election Code, § 155)
c. Clerk of Court nominated by executive judge
d. Other available appointive provincial officer (Omnibus Election Code, § 221.) Requisites for valid transfer of venue of counting:

City 1) Imminent threat of Violence

2) To Nearest school [see comment]
1. City election supervisor or lawyer of COMELEC (chair) 3) Unanimous vote of Board of Inspectors
2. City fiscal (vice) 4) Majority of Watchers
3. City superintendent of schools (member)
4. Substitute members – same as provincial (Omnibus Election Code, § 221.) If there is actual danger, no need for the unanimous vote of the BOI and assent of majority
of poll watchers
Municipal
General Rule: Voting by proxy is not allowed.
1. Election registrar or COMELEC representative (chair)
2. Municipal treasurer (vice) Exceptions:
3. Most senior district school supervisor (member) 1. Illiterate
4. Or principal of the school, if absent 2. Handicapped
5. Substitute members:
a. Municipal administrator General Rule: No ballots other than official ballots shall be used or counted
b. Municipal assessor
c. Clerk of Court nominated by executive judge Exceptions:
d. Other available appointive municipal officers (Omnibus Election Code, § 221.) • Failure to receive the official ballots on time.
• There are no sufficient ballots for all registered voters
Board of Canvassers for President and VicePresident: • The official ballots are destroyed at such time as shall render it impossible to provide
other official ballots
Congress to determine the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass. Must
prove: 4BLUE95 NOTE: In the given abovementioned exceptions, the remedy is to use
emergency ballots to be provided by the city or municipal treasurer.
1. Each certificate of canvass was executed, signed, thumb-marked by the Chair and
transmitted to Congress; Features of Canvassing:
2. Each certificate contains the names of all candidates and votes in words and figures 1. The Board of Canvassers (BOC) is a collegial body.
3. No discrepancy in authentic copies 2. The BOC exercises ministerial duty.
3. The BOC exercises quasi-judicial functions.
4BLUE95. Board of Canvassers for Senators: COMELEC en banc, and not the provincial 4. Proceedings before BOC are summary in nature.
board. 5. The BOC convenes at 6pm.
6. Canvassing shall be in public.
DISQUALIFICATIONS: 7. Proceedings are continuous from day to day, without interruption except to adjourn.
8. No police, army or security officer allowed within 50 meters from canvassing room
1. He/his spouse is related within the fourth (4th) civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, unless called in writing by the BOC to stay outside the room.
to any member of the BEI or to any candidate to be voted for or to the latter’s spouse, in 9. After proclamation, BOC becomes functus officio.
the polling place. (COMELEC Resolution No. 9640, art. I, § 3.)
The proviso designating Smartmatic as the joint venture partner in charge of the technical
2. Engaged in any partisan political activity. (Omnibus Election Code, § 173.) aspect of the counting and canvassing wares does not translate to cedingcontrol of the
electoral process to Smartmatic. (Roque v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, Sep. 10, 2009).
POWERS
COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim winning candidates if the remaining
Duty of Board of Canvassers: uncanvassed election returns will not affect the result of the elections. (Aksyon
Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207134, Jun.
Purely ministerial; to compile and add results as appearing in the results transmitted to it. 16, 2015.)

Grounds to Challenge an Illegal Voter: The manual CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS PROCLAMATIONP is the official
COMELEC document in cases wherein the canvassing threshold is lowered. In fact, clear
1. Not registered from the language of the Resolution is that the winners, in such instances, are proclaimed
2. Using the name of another ―by manually preparing a Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning
3. Suffering from existing disqualification Candidates,‖ the format for which is appended to COMELEC Resolution No. 9700.
(Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216691, Jul. 21, 2015.)
General Rule: No voter shall be required to present his voter’s affidavit on election
day.
Casting of Votes
Exception: His identity is challenged.
• The chairman of the board of election inspectors should sign each ballot at the back.
Failure to produce voter’s affidavit shall not preclude him from voting if: (R.A. No. 7166, § 24.) The omission of such signature does not affect the validity of the
ballot (Libanan v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 129783, Dec. 22,
1. His identity be shown from the photograph, fingerprints or specimen signatures in his 1997; Punzalan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126669, Apr. 27, 1998; Pacris v. Pagalilauan,
approved application in the book of voters. G.R. No. RTJ-98-1403, Aug. 14, 2000; Malabaguio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 142507, ;
Dec. 1, 2000; De Guzman Jr. v. Sison, G.R. No. RTJ-01-1629, Mar. 26, 2001.)
2. He is identified under oath by a member of the BEI and such identification shall be • A voter who was challenged on the ground that he has been paid for his vote or made a
reflected in the minutes of the board. bet on the result of the election will be allowed to vote if he takes an oath that he did not
commit the alleged in the challenge. (Omnibus Election Code, § 200.)
Grounds to Challenge Based on Illegal Acts: • An illiterate or physically disabled voter may be assisted by a relative by affinity or
consanguinity within the fourth degree or any person of his confidence who belongs to the
1. Vote buying same household or any member of the board of election inspectors ( Omnibus Election
Code, § 196., De Guzman Jr. v. Sison, G.R. No. RTJ01-1629, Mar. 26, 2001.)
2. Vote selling
• It is unlawful to use carbon paper, paraffin paper or other means for making a copy of the
3. Vote betting contents of the ballot or to use any means to identify the ballot (Omnibus Election Code, §
195.). A ballot prepared under such circumstances should not be counted. (Gutierrez v.
2022 Note: The challenged person shall take a prescribed oath before the BEI that he has Aquino, G.R. No. L-14252, Feb. 28, 1959 ) .
not committed any of the acts alleged in the challenge, after which he will be allowed to
vote.

AFTER ELECTION (ELECTION CONTEST)
A.ELECTION PROTEST
Only real parties in interest can file and pursue election protests (e.g. candidate of the
same position).
Even if it was the 2nd placer who filed the election protest, the 3rd placer may still
possibly win. Note: The case of presidential protest cases, only two persons, the 2nd
and 3rd placers, may contest the election. (Poe vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, PET Case No.
003, Mar. 29, 2005)
2022 Note: Special rule for PET: Only the 2nd or 3rd placer may file the protest
Requisites for an Election Protest
1. Filed by candidate who has filed a COC and has been voted upon for the same
office.
2. Filed within 10 days from proclamation of results
a. Period to file EP is suspended during pendency of PPC
b. A counter-protest must also comply with the reglementary period (Omnibus
Election Code, § 254.)
3. On grounds of:
a. election fraud/terrorism, and
b. irregularities or illegal acts before, during, or after casting and counting of votes
(Espaldon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-78987, Aug. 25, 1987.)
Additional Requirements:
1. Payment of docket fee
2. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
4BLUE 95 Note: Failure to pay is ground to dismiss the case. (Banaga Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134696, Jul. 31, 2000)
1) For provincial, regional, and city elective officials.
A petition contesting the elections or returns of an elective regional, provincial, or city
official shall be filed with the Commission by any candidate who was voted for in the
same office and who received the second of third highest number of votes or, in a multi-
slot position, was among the next four candidates following the last ranked winner duly
proclaimed, as reflected in the official results of the election contained in the Statement of
Votes. The party filing the protest shall be designated as the protestant; the adverse party
shall be known as the protestee. [Sec. 1, Rule 6, COMELEC Resolution N0. 8804]
2) For municipal elective officials.
Election protest refers to an election contest involving the election and returns of
municipal elective officials, grounded on fraud or irregularities committed in the conduct
of the elections, i.e., in the casting and the counting of the ballots, in the consolidation of
votes and in the canvassing of returns, not otherwise classified as a pre-proclamation
controversy cognizable by the COMELEC. The issue is who obtained the plurality of valid
votes cast. [Sec. 3(u), Rule 1, 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the
Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, April 27, 2010]
A petition contesting the election or returns for an elective municipal office shall be filed
with the proper Regional Trial Court by an candidate who was voted for the same office
and who received the second or third-highest number of votes or, in a multi-slot position,
was among the next four candidates following the last-ranked winner duly proclaimed, as
reflected in the official results of the election contained in the Statement of Votes by
Precinct. The party filing the protest shall be designated as the protestant; the adverse party
shall be known as the protestee. [Sec. 4, Rule 1, 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election
Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC,
April 27, 2010]
3) For barangay elective officials.
Election Protest refers to an election contest relating to the election and returns of elective
officials, grounded on frauds or irregularities in the conduct of the elections, the casting
and counting of the ballots and the preparation and canvassing of returns. The issue is who
obtained the plurality of valid votes cast. [Sec. 3(d), AM. No. 07-4-15-SC]
6
JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION CONTESTS
1) For President, Vice President
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or VicePresident, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. [Sec. 4, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution]
2) For Senators and Members of the HoR
SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (SET) and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET). The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal
shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court
to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the
basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice
in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. [Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Jurisdiction Over Election
Contests
The House of Representatives has the jurisdiction to question the qualification of the
nominees of party-list organizations. Although party list organizations are voted for
in the elections, still it is not the organizations which sit and become members of the
House of Representatives but their nominees. Subsequently, Section 17, Article VI of
the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating, among others, to the qualifications of the members of the House. Thus, since
party list nominees are considered as ―elected members‖ of the House, the HRET has
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. (Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No.
189466, Feb. 11, 2010.)
3) ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE: For Provincial and City Elective Officials;
APPELLATE: For Municipal and Barangay Elective Officials
COMELEC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials,
and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
executory, and not appealable. [Sec. 2(2), Art. IXC, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 249, OEC]
4) For Municipal Elective Officials
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all election
contests involving elective municipal officials. [Sec. 1, Rule 2, AM. No. 07-4-15-SC]
5) For Barangay Elective Officials (Including SK as held in Fernandez v.
COMELEC, GR No. 176296, 30 June 2008)
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all election
contests involving elective barangay officials. [Sec. 2, Rule 2, AM. No. 07-4-15-SC]
General Rule:
Ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the
correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved. (Delos Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 170070, Feb. 28, 2007.)
Exception:
Election returns are the best evidence when the ballots are lost, destroyed, tampered or
fake.
Execution Pending Appeal:
1. Public interest is involved or will of the electorate
2. Length of time that the election contest has been pending
3. Shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office. (Pecson v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 182865, Dec. 24, 2008.)
2022 Note: A combination of 2 or more will suffice to allow execution pending appeal, but
shortness of the remaining period alone is not a ground for execution pending appeal.
(Laubati v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 128473, Aug. 26, 1997)

B. QUO WARRANTO
Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code refers to an election contest relating to
the qualifications of an elective official on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines. The issue is whether respondent possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. [Sec. 3(e), AM. No. 07-
4-15-SC]
General Rule: When proclaimed officer was disqualified by quo warranto, 2nd placer
cannot be proclaimed winner.
Exception: When the one who got the highest votes has been disqualified and the
electorate is fully aware of this fact – but they still voted for him.
Execution pending appeal is allowed but must be for urgent reasons.
Allowable Reasons for Execution Pending Appeal:
1. Public interest involved
2. Shortness of remaining term
3. Length of time that the contest is pending
Q: Distinguish briefly between Quo Warranto in elective office and Quo Warranto in
appointive office. (2012 BAR)
A: In quo warranto in elective officer, the issue is the ineligibility of the elected candidate
(Section 3(E), Rule 1, Rules Of Procedure In Election Cases). If he is ineligible, the
candidate who got the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed elected
(Sinsuat v. COMELEC, 492 Scra 264). A voter may file for quo warranto against an
elected candidate. The petition should be filed within ten days after the proclamation of the
elected candidate. In quo warranto in appointive office, the issue is the legality of the
appointment. The court will decide who between the parties has the legal title to the office
(Nachura, Outline Reviewers in Political Law, P. 567). It is the Solicitor General, a public
prosecutor, or a person claiming to be entitled to the public office who can file a petition
for quo warrato against an appointive official (Section 2 And 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court). The petition should be filed within one year after the cause of action accrued
(Section 11, Rules 66 of the Rules of Court)
7
Q: Under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881, as amended), briefly differentiate an election
protest from a quo warranto case, as to who can file the case and the respective grounds therefor.
(2001, 2006 BAR)
A: An ELECTION PROTEST maybe filed by a losing candidate for the same office for which the
winner filed his certificate of candidacy.
A QUO WARRANTO CASE may be filed by any voter who is a registered voter in the
constituency where the winning candidate sought to be disqualified ran for office. In an election
contest, the issues are: (a) who received the majority or plurality of the votes which were legally
cast and (b) whether there were irregularities in the conduct of the election which affected its
results. In a quo warranto case, the issue is whether the candidate who was proclaimed elected
should be disqualified because of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Philippines.
Q: In the municipal mayoralty elections in 1980, the candidate who obtained the highest number
of votes was subsequently declared to be disqualified as a candidate and so ineligible for the office
to which he was elected. Would this fact entitle a competing candidate who obtained the second
highest number of votes to ask and be proclaimed the winner of the elective office? Reasons.
(2003 BAR)
A: According to Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999), if the candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes is disqualified, the candidate who obtained the second highest number of
votes cannot be proclaimed the winner. Since he was not the choice of the people, he cannot claim
any right to the office. However, the alleged "second-placer," should be proclaimed if the
certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, the winner was never a candidate at all and all
votes were stray votes. Thus, the second-placer is the only qualified candidate who actually
garnered the highest number of votes (Tea v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195229 [2012]).
Q: Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections for Vice-Governor of Tawi-
Tawi. After being proclaimed Vice- Governor in the 2004 elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed an
election protest before the Commission on Election. Ruling with finality on the protest, the
COMELEC declared Khalil as the duly elected Vice- Governor though the decision was
promulgated only in 2007, when Abdul had fully served his 2004-2007 term and was in fact
already on his 2007-2010 term as Vice Governor. a. Abdul now consults you if he can still run for
Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the forthcoming May 2010 election on the premise that he could
not be considered as having served as Vice-Governor from 2004- 2007 because he was not duly
elected to the post, as he assumed office merely as a presumptive winner and that presumption was
later overturned when COMELEC decided with finality that had lost in the May 2004 elections.
What will be your advice? b. Abdul also consults you whether his political party can validly
nominate his wife as substitute candidate for Vice- Mayor of TawiTawi in May 2010 elections in
case the COMELEC disqualifies him and denies due course to or cancels his certificate of
candidacy in view of a false material representation therein. What will be your advice? (2008
BAR)
A:
a. I shall advice Abdul that he cannot run for ViceGovernor of Tawi-Tawi in the May 2010
elections. His second term should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the
threeterm limit prescribed by Section 8, Article X of the Constitution. Since the election
protest against him was decided after the term of the contested office had expire, it had no
practical and legal use and value. (Ong v. Alegre, 479 SCRA 473)
b. I shall advise Abdul that his wife cannot be nominated as substitute candidate for
ViceGovernor of Tawi-Tawi. The denial of due course and cancellation of a certificate of
candidacy is not one of the cases in which a candidate may be validly substituted. A
cancelled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy. Under Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code, a valid candidacy is an indispensable requisite in case of a
substitution of a disqualified candidate. (Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA 617)
Q: Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for
Mayor of the Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won convincingly. Eventually, the
losing candidates timely filed election protests. The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A, filed
his protest before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing mayoralty
candidate, Mr. B, filed his protest before the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC).
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A? Explain. (b) Does the MTC have
jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A:
(a) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A. COMELEC has
jurisdiction over an election contest between a losing gubernatorial candidate and a
proclaimed winner of the gubernatorial post. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]
(b) The MTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B. The RTC has
jurisdiction over an election contest between a losing municipal mayoralty candidate and a
proclaimed municipal mayor. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]
Q: Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of
Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent,
Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming that X
should be disqualified to run for said position because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the
case was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly
elected Congressman of the province. (a) Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizen
under the 1987 Constitution. (b) Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain. (c) Did X’s
proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A:
(a) Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens. [Art. IV, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.] On the other hand, naturalized citizens
are those who acquire Philippine Citizenship through either: 1) Judicial naturalization under
CA 473 or 2) Administrative Naturalization Law (R.A. 9139). A third option is Derivative
Naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands found under
section 15 of CA 473 which provides that: ―Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be
deemed a citizen of the Philippines.‖
(b) No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution prescribes that no person
shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines [Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Const]. In this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus
not qualified to run for Congress.
(c) No, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter. To divest the COMELEC of
jurisdiction over election cases of Members of the House of Representatives, the following
requisites must concur: 1. Valid Proclamation; 2. Valid oath; and 3. Assumption of office on
June 30. Thus, the mere proclamation of X does not yet transfer jurisdiction from the
COMELEC to the HRET. [Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013]
 8

ELECTION OFFENSES
Election offenses are committed only as soon as campaign period starts. Any supposed
premature campaigning cannot be prosecuted before start of campaign period.
Some Prohibited Acts:
1. Vote-buying or vote-selling
2. Wagering upon result of the election
3. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent devise, forms of coercion
4. Appointment of new employee • Except: when there is urgent need; Notice given to
COMELEC within 3 days from appointment, creation of new positions, promotion or
granting salary increase).
5. Carrying deadly weapon within radius of 100 meters from precinct
6. Transfer or detail of government official or employee without COMELEC approval. Note:
Not penalized if done to promote efficiency in government service.
4BLUE95. Any personnel action, when caused or made during the election period, can be used for
electioneering or to harass subordinates with different political persuasions. This possibility – of
being used for electioneering purposes or to harass subordinates – created by any movement of
personnel during the election period is precisely what the transfer ban seeks to prevent. (Aquino v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 211789-90, Mar. 17, 2015.)
CONDONATION:
Q: Mayor X and his City Administrator, Y, are political buddies who assumed their respective
offices in 2010. Sometime in January 2012, Y proposed to Mayor X the entry into a ₱5,000,000.00
loan agreement with ABC Foundation, a non-stock and non-profit organization in which the two
had a long-standing personal involvement. The loan agreement was duly executed in the same
year but was never authorized and approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. It was further found
that the same constituted a fraudulent scheme to defraud the City Government. Meanwhile. Mayor
X won another term during the May 2013 Elections and Y continued on as his City Administrator.
A year after, or in May 2014, administrative charges for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were filed against them before the Office of
the Ombudsman. In defense, Mayor X argued that his subsequent reelection in May 2013 absolved
him from any administrative liability for any alleged anomalous activity during his first term in
office. Y raised the same defense of condonation, having been retained by Mayor X as City
Administrator for a second term. On December 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rendered its ruling in
the case, finding both Mayor X and Y administratively liable. Citing the Supreme Court’s
Decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 217126-27), which was initially
promulgated on November 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rejected their defense of condonation. With
the motions for reconsideration of Mayor X and Y having been denied by the Ombudsman on
March 10, 2016, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
(a) Did the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by
Mayor X? explain.
(b) How about Y? Can he validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge?
Explain. (2019 BAR)

The prohibition on transfer or detail covers any movement of personnel from one station to A:
another, whether or not in the same office or agency when made or caused during the election (a) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense. Although in
period, and includes reassignment. (Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 211789-90, Mar. 17, 2015.) CarpioMorales v Court of Appeals abandoned the condonation doctrine, the
Supreme Court also pronounced that such ruling may not be applied retroactively,
If the reassignment orders are issued prior to the start of the election period, they are automatically for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
rendered beyond the coverage of the prohibition and the issuing official cannot be held liable for Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
violation of Section 261(h) of BP 881. (Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 211789-90, Mar. 17, Considering that the acts of Mayor X were committed in 2013, before the Carpio-
2015.) Morales case, Mayor X can still validly invoke the condonation doctrine. (Office of
Elements of Violation of Sec 261(h) of the Omnibus Election Code (Transfer of Officers and the Ombudsman v Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017).
Employees in the Civil Service):
(b) No, the condonation doctrine only applies to elective officials. Y, being the City
1. Fact of transfer or detail within election period; Administrator, is an appointive official and can therefore not validly invoke the
2. Transfer or detail made without prior approval of COMELEC. doctrine. (Carpio-Morales v Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November
10, 2015).
Full List of Election Offenses Under Section 68 and 261 of the Omnibus Election Code ; (same
grounds for disqualification):
1. Vote-buying
2. Acts of Terrorism
3. Spending in excess of allowable limit
4. Soliciting, receiving, or making prohibited contributions
5. Campaigning outside Period
6. Tamper with election propaganda
7. Prohibited election propaganda
8. Coercing Subordinates to aid, campaign, or vote for a candidate
9. Using Threat, intimidation, terrorism, fraudulent, devises
10. Soliciting votes or electioneering during registration day and election day within Polling place
or within 30m radius
11. Public official or employee who releases, disburses, or expends Public funds 45 days before
election or 30 days before special election
12. Political party holds political Conventions or meetings to nominate official candidates earlier
than allowed period
13. Destroying or cancelling a COC which has not been cancelled
14. Misleading BEI by submitting false or spurious COC to the detriment of a candidate
15. Receiving COC out of allowed Time and making it appear it was filed on time; or coercing the
officer to perform this act
16. Interfering with Radio or TV broadcast of lawful political program
17. Soliciting votes on election Day

Under the present law, the COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the
DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election
offenses. (Arroyo v. Department of Justice G.R. No. 199082, Sep. 18, 2012.)

Other Election Offenses Under R.A. No. 6646:

1. Causing the printing of official ballots and election returns by printing establishments not on
contract with COMELEC and printing establishments which undertakes unauthorized printing

2. Tampering, increasing or decreasing the votes received by a candidate or refusing after proper
verification and hearing to credit the correct votes or deduct the tampered votes (committed by a
member of the board of election inspectors)

3. Refusing to issue the certificate of voters to the duly accredited watchers (committed by a
member of the BEI)

4. Violating provisions against prohibited forms of election propaganda

5. Failure to give notice of meetings to other members of the board, candidate or political party
(committed by the Chairman of the board of canvassers)

6. A person who has been declared a nuisance candidate or is otherwise disqualified who
continues to misrepresent himself as a candidate and any public officer or private individual who
knowingly induces or abets such misrepresentation by commission or omission.

7. If the chairman of the BEI fails to affix his signature at the back of the official ballot, in the
presence of the voter, before delivering the ballot to the voter.

Prescription of Election Offenses:

1. Election offenses prescribe after 5 years from the date of their commission.

2. If the discovery of the offense is made in an election contest proceeding, the period of
prescription shall commence on the date which the judgment in such proceedings becomes final
and executory.

CONDONATION DOCTRINE