Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Election Law de Leon PDF Free
Election Law de Leon PDF Free
#15 AKBAYAN YOUTH v. COMELEC G.R. 1. NO. The SC ruled that, it is well-settled
No. 147066, 26 March 2001 that the law does not require that the
impossible be done. A two-day special
FACTS:
registration for new voters would give
In the case at hand, Petitioners are rise to time constraints due to additional
representing the youth sector seek to pre-election matters. Accordingly,
direct the COMELEC to conduct a COMELEC acted within the bounds and
special registration before the 14 May confines of the applicable law on the
2001 General Elections, of new voters matter. In issuing the assailed
ages 18 to 21. Resolution, respondent simply
Petitioners asserts that, around 4 performed its constitutional task to
million youth failed to register on or enforce and administer all laws and
before the December 27, 2000 deadline regulations relative to the conduct of an
set by the respondent COMELEC under election.
RA 8189. 2. In this case, the Supreme Court cannot
Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the control the exercise of discretion of a
Report on the Request for a Two-day public officer where the law imposes
Additional Registration of New Voters upon him the duty to exercise his
Only is submitted but was then denied judgment in reference to any manner in
by the COMELEC under Resolution No. which he is required to act, because it is
3584 on February 8, 2001. his judgment that is to be exercised and
However, aggrieved by the denial, not that of the court. Hence, the remedy
petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari of mandamus lies only to compel an
and Mandamus Section 8 (System of officer to perform a ministerial duty, not
Continuing Registration of Voters) of a discretionary one.
R.A. No. 8189 The Voter’s Registration
Act of 1996 provides: “The personal filing
of application of registration of voters DIANGKA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
shall be conducted daily in the office of
G.R. No. 139545. January 28, 2000
the Election Officer during regular office
hours. No registration shall, however, be
conducted during the period starting
FACTS:
120 days before a regular election and
90 days before a special election.” Ali M. Balindong, a mayoralty candidate
in the municipality of Ganassi, Lanao del
ISSUES:
Sur, filed a special action for
1. WON the COMELEC committed grave disqualification before the COMELEC
abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC against his rival, Maimona Diangka, on
Resolution dated February 8, 2001. the ground that the latter and her
2. WON the SC can compel respondent husband, then incumbent mayor of said
COMELEC, through the extraordinary municipality, committed acts of
writ of mandamus, to conduct a special terrorism in order to accord Diangka an
registration of new voters during the undue advantage at the polls in violation
period between the COMELEC’s imposed of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
December 27, 2000 deadline and the Code. First, that they loaded the ballot
May 14, 2001 general elections. boxes into an ambulance then
subsequently, through force and terrorism. The fact that Diangka was not
threats, made the watchers of Balindong at the scene when the aforesaid event
go down from the vehicle. Second, that happened does not necessarily exempt
Diangka’s husband went to the voting her. She failed to disprove that she was
areas and caused a commotion that actually a lay figure or alter ego of her
prevented voters from voting. husband and fielded by the latter to run,
In her Answer, Diangka made a general as he was no longer qualified to run for
denial and attacked the credibility of the another term as mayor pursuant to the
sworn statements attached to the Local Government Code which limits the
petition. The COMELEC en banc issued tenure of local elective officials to three
an Omnibus Order declaring a partial (3) consecutive terms.
failure of election in nine (9) out of the 2. NO. The court denied the petition and
fifty-eight (58) precincts in Ganassi, upheld the factual findings, as well as
Lanao del Sur, and, accordingly the conclusions reached by the
scheduled special elections in the nine COMELEC. The Court finds that
(9) precincts. Diangka emerged as the Diangka was not denied due process.
winner. However, the COMELEC ordered Diangka was given all the opportunity to
the Municipal Board of Canvassers to prove that the evidence on her
cease and desist from proclaiming her. disqualification based on the
Nevertheless, Diangka’s proclamation as commission of acts of terrorism was not
mayor of the municipality proceeded strong. She was able to file her Answer
since the said order was received late. In to the petition to disqualify her. She
the hearing for the disqualification, only submitted her memorandum. The
Balindong and lawyer appeared, hence COMELEC Second Division considered
COMELEC disqualified Diangka. the evidence of the parties and their
Diangka now assails the decision via a arguments and thereafter affirmed his
Petition for Certiorari. disqualification. The settled rule is that
due process does not mean prior hearing
ISSUE: but only an opportunity to be heard. The
1. Whether or not Diangka violated Sec. 68 COMELEC gave Diangka all the
of the Omnibus Election Code and opportunity to be heard. Furthermore,
hence, be disqualified. when the COMELEC en banc reviews
2. Whether or not Diangka was denied her and evaluates a party’s petition, or as in
right to due process when she was the case at bar, a party’s answer and the
disqualified to run for the position. supporting papers attached thereto, the
same is tantamount to a fair "hearing" of
RULING: his case.
1. YES. The COMELEC found evidence of
her direct participation in the first act of
terrorism. She was on board the Chavez v. Commission on Elections
ambulance used to transport the G. R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004
election paraphernalia that commenced
the act. Diangka could not feign FACTS:
ignorance as to what had transpired.
Neither could Diangka escape Petitioner Chavez, on various dates,
responsibility on the ground that there entered into formal agreements with
is no proof that she and her husband certain establishments to endorse their
conspired to commit the acts of products and pursuant to these
agreements, three billboards were set up 1. No, the Supreme Court held that the
along the Balintawak Interchange of the billboard mentioned therein should not be
North Expressway. "These last two exempted from Sec. 32 of Resolution no.
agreements were entered into on 652O.The Supreme Court held that under the
October 14, 2OO3 and November 1O, Omnibus Election Code, "election campaign" or
2OO3 respectively) On December 3O, "partisan political activity" is defined as an act
2OO3, petitioner filed his certificate of designed to promote the election or defeat of a
candidacy for the position of Senator particular candidate or candidates to a public
under Alyansa ng Pag asa. office! one of the activities included therein is
Thereafter, respondent issued a "Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges
Resolution No. 652 which contains Sec. or support for or against a candidate."
32 prohibiting all propaganda materials
2. Yes, the Supreme Court held that Sec.
showing the image or mentioning the
32 of Resolution No. 652O is a valid exercise of
name of a person, who subsequent to the
police power. The Supreme Court said that a
placement thereof becomes a candidate
close examination of the assailed provision
for public office. Petitioner was asked by
reveals that its primary objectives are to
the respondent to comply with the rule
prohibit premature campaigning and to level
but petitioner asked that he be exempted
the playing field for candidates of public office,
from said resolution considering that the
to equalize the situation between popular or
billboards mentioned therein are mere
rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser
product endorsement and cannot be
known or poorer candidates, on the other, by
construed as paraphernalia for
preventing the former from enjoying undue
premature campaigning under the rules.
advantage in exposure and publicity on
Comelec ordered petitioner to remove or
account of their resources and popularity. This
cause the removal of the billboards, or to
is within the context of police power to
cover them from public view pending the
prescribe regulations to promote the health,
approval of his request. Not agreeing
morals, peace, education, good order, or safety,
with the decision, petitioner Chavez asks
and the general welfare of the people.
the Supreme Court that the Comelec be
enjoined from enforcing the assailed
provision. Hence, the petition for
LEGARDA VS DE CASTRO
prohibition with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUES: Facts:
1. Whether or not the billboard mentioned In a Resolution dated January 18, 2005,
therein are exempted from Sec. 32 of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
Resolution no. 652O due to the reason confirmed the jurisdiction over the
that it is purely product endorsement protest of Loren B. Legarda and denied
and do not announce or solicit any the motion of protestee, Noli L. de Castro
support for petitioner’s candidacy. for its outright dismissal. The Tribunal
2. Whether or not Sec. 32 of Resolution further ordered concerned officials to
652O is a valid exercise of police power. undertake measures for the protection
and preservation of the ballot boxes and
election documents subject of the
RULING: protest.
On February 4, 2005, De Castro filed a Section 4, Article VII of the
motion for reconsideration assailing the Constitution. Included therein is the duty to
said resolution. correct manifest errors in the SOVs and COCs.
De Castro argues that where the There is no necessity, in the SC’s view, to
correctness of the number of votes is the amend the PET Rules to perform this function
issue, the best evidence are the ballots; within the ambit of its constitutional function.
that the process of correcting the
manifest errors in the certificates of
canvass or election returns is a function In the instant protest, Legarda
of the canvassing bodies; that once the enumerated all the provinces, municipalities
canvassing bodies had done their and cities where she questions all the results in
functions, no alteration or correction of all the precincts therein. The protest here is
manifest errors can be made; that since sufficient in form and substantively, serious
the authority of the Tribunal involves an enough on its face to pose a challenge to De
exercise of judicial power to determine Castro’s title to his office.
the facts based on the evidence
Considering that the protest is sufficient
presented and to apply the law based on
in form and substance, the SC again stress
the established facts, it cannot perform
that nothing as yet has been proved as to the
the ministerial function of canvassing
veracity of the allegations. The protest is only
election returns.
sufficient for the Tribunal to proceed and give
He also contends that the Tribunal
the Legarda the opportunity to prove her case
cannot correct the manifest errors on the
pursuant to Rule 61 of the PET Rules. Although
statements of votes (SOV) and
said rule only pertains to revision of ballots,
certificates of canvass (COC). But it is
nothing herein prevents the Tribunal from
not suggested by any of the parties that
allowing or including the correction of manifest
questions on the validity, authenticity
errors, pursuant to the Tribunal’s rule-making
and correctness of the SOVs and COCs
power under Section 4, Article VII of the
are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Constitution.
ISSUE: WON the Tribunal can re-canvass the
ballots and can correct the manifest errors in
the SOVs and COCs. #6 FERMIN VS. COMELEC
RULING:
RULING:
SALVADOR LACSON, JR., complainant, vs.
1. On the first issue, COMELEC did not RAMON POSADAS, Municipal Judge, of
commit grave abuse of discretion in Talisay, Negros Occidental, respondent.
ousting Jalosjos as Mayor of Dapitan City.
The COMELEC properly cancelled
Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy. A void Facts:
certificate of candidacy on the ground of
Respondent Municipal Judge Ramon
ineligibility that existed at the time of the
Posadas, of Talisay Negros Occidental, is
filing of the certificate of candidacy can
charged in a verified complaint by
never give rise to a valid candidacy, and
Salvador Lacson, Jr. with (a) ignorance
much less to valid votes. Jalosjos’
of the law, (b) partiality, and (c) violation
certificate of candidacy was cancelled
of the Election Code of 1971. The
because he was ineligible from the start to
Executive Judge, to whom this case was
run for Mayor. Jalosjos’ ineligibility existed
referred for investigation, found the
on the day he filed his certificate of
charges of ignorance of the law and
candidacy, and the cancellation of his
partiality to be without factual basis,
certificate of candidacy retroacted to the
however he found that respondent
day he filed it. The COMELEC is under a
Judge has failed to comply with the
legal duty to cancel the certificate of
requirements of Section 136 of the
candidacy of anyone suffering from the
Election Code of 1971.
accessory penalty of perpetual special
disqualification to run for public office by Any person who has been refused
virtue of a final judgment of conviction. To registration or whose name has been
stricken out from the permanent list of
allow the COMELEC to wait for a person to
file a petition to cancel the certificate of voters may at any time except sixty (60)
candidacy of one suffering from perpetual days before a regular election or twenty-
five (25) days before a special election,
special disqualification will result in the
apply to the proper court for an order
anomaly that these cases so grotesquely
exemplify. directing the election registration board
or the board of inspectors as the case
may be, to include or reinstate his name
in the permanent list of voters, attaching
2. On the second issue, the rule on
to his application for inclusion the
succession will not apply. If the certificate
certificate of the Electron registration
of candidacy is void ab initio, then legally
board or the board of inspectors
the person who filed such void certificate
regarding his case and proof of service of
of candidacy was never a candidate in the
a copy of his application and of the
elections at any time. All votes for such
notice of hearing thereof upon a member
non-candidate are stray votes and should
of the said board.
not be counted. Otherwise, a certificate of
Respondent disregarded the
requirement and none of the petitions
FACTS:
for inclusion based on lack of forms
contains the attached certificate of the Petitioner and private respondents were
Chairman or any member of the Board candidates for mayor of the Municipality
of Inspectors of the precinct concerned of Sta.Monica, Surigao del Norte in
to the effect that petitioner or petitioners during the May 2007 elections. The
applied for registration on October 9, former filed her certificate of
1971 but were refused registration for candidacy on the day before the
lack of registration forms. prescribed campaign period. When
she went to the
Issue: WON Judge Posadas should be
COMELEC Office to file her
admonished for violating Sec 136 of the 1971
certificate of candidacy she
Election Code?
was accompanied by her
Ruling: partymates.
Thereafter, they had a motorcade
Yes. In the light of the statutory purpose, which consisted of two trucks and
the seriousness of respondent's failure to
ten motorcycles running around the
comply with the requirements of Section 136 of municipality convincing the
the electoral law becomes evident. His good
residents to vote for her and her
faith or lack of malice is of no avail, considering party .Due to this, private
that in crimes which are mala prohibita the act
respondent filed a petition against
alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the her alleging premature campaigning
offense. It appears, however, that on April 8,
as provided in the Omnibus Election
1974, the President of the Philippines Code Section 80 which says: “Election or
promulgated Presidential Decree No. 433,
partisan political activity outside
which grants general amnesty under certain campaign period.--- It shall be
conditions to public school teachers, other unlawful for any person, whether or
government officials and employees, members
not a voter or candidate, or for any party,
of the armed forces of the Philippines and other
or association of persons, to engage in
persons for violation of election laws and other an election campaign or partisan
related statutes in connection with the political activity except during the
elections of 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, and the campaign period.” She argued that
election of delegates to the Constitutional
she is not guilty since she was not
Convention. There is no question that as a yet a candidate at that time and the
consequence of the general amnesty all persons campaign period has not yet started
who violated the election law on the dates and
when the motorcade was conducted.
occasions therein mentioned are relieved of
While the petition was pending in
their criminal liability. 3 In the case at bar,
the COMELEC, she was voted as
respondent is relieved of any criminal liability
mayor and took her office
for his aforecited infraction; however, in the
thereafter. The COMELEC
public interest he should be admonished.
Second Division decided in
favor of the complainant and
found her guilty of premature
Penera, Rosalinda A. vs. COMELEC and campaigning. Likewise,
Edgar T. Andanar w h e n s h e appealed to the COMELEC
G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009 En Banc, the previous decision was
affirmed. Subsequently, she filed with
the Supreme Court which decided RISOS-VIDAL V COMELEC
against her.
GR NO 206666 JANUARY 21, 2015
It was held that the conduct of the
motorcade is a form of election
campaign or partisan political FACTS:
activity, falling under Section On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan
79 (b) (2) of the Omnibus (SB) convicted former President Estrada
Election Code which says: (Private Respondent) for the crime of
“holding political caucuses, plunder. However, on October 25, 2007,
conferences, meetings, rallies, former President GMA extended executive
parades, or other similar clemency by way of pardon to which
respondent accepted. Two (2) years later,
assemblies, for the purpose of
private respondent filed a Certificate of
soliciting votes
Candidacy (COC) for Presidency which
and/or undertaking any campa
earned three oppositions but were all denied
i g n o r propaganda for or against on the ground of being moot and academic
a candidate.” Furthermore, it was held for respondent did not win said election.
that she should vacate the position. Private respondent once more filed a COC for
Now, she filed for a motion for the 2010 mayoral elections in the City of
reconsideration using the same Manila to which Atty Alicia Risos-Vidal
arguments. (Petitioner) subsequently filed a Petition for
disqualification. Petitioner contended that
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is guilty of the pardon granted to herein private
premature campaigning? respondent was conditional and was
breached when he for public office.Petitioner
RULING: further added that said pardon was
conditional for it lacked the express
No, she is not. Any act is lawful
declaration should be disqualified according
unless expressly declared unlawful by
to Sec 40 of the Local Government Code and
law. It is enough that Congress stated Sec. 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
that “any unlawful act or omission COMELEC, representing private respondent,
applicable to a candidate shall take effect dismissed said petition for lack of merit.
only upon the start of the campaign period.” So, Hence the case at bar.
it is lawful if done before the start of the
campaign period. This plain language of the law ISSUE: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of
need not be construed further. Moreover, on discretion in ruling that former President Estrada is
qualified to vote and be voted for public office as a
the day of the motorcade, she was not yet a
result of the pardon granted to him by former
candidate for. As what was decided in the
President Arroyo.
case of Lanot which says that prior to the
campaign period, even if the candidate RULING:
has filed his/her certificate of candidacy, NO, COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
he/she is not yet considered as a of in ruling that former President Estrada is
candidate for purposes other than the qualified to vote and be voted for public office as a
printing of ballots. Hence, she cannot be result of the pardon granted to him by former
guilty of premature campaigning for in the President Arroyo.
first place there is no candidate to talk about.
The court is convinced that pardon extended
What she did was an exercise of her freedom of
by PGMA was absolute and not conditional.
expression.
When such pardon worded “he (Estrada) is
hereby restored his civil and political rights’, the
Court ruled this to be an absolute and plenary Romualdez v. RTC
restoration which carried more weight than Risos- G.R. NO. 104960
Vidal’s contention that said pardon was conditional September 14, 1993
by way of its third preambular clause and a need for
express declaration of what rights to restore or to FACTS:
remit
Philip Romualdez is the nephew of Imelda
Marcos.
JUANITO C. PILAR vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTION
In 1980, he established his legal residence at
G.R. No. 115245. July 11, 1995. 245 SCRA 759 Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.