Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) CASES ON ELECTION LAWS

- Page 1 FOR PROOF-READING “There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the majority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be determined, it must be accorded respect. After all, there is no provision in our election laws which requires that a majority of registered voters must cast their votes. All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less than 25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts cast their votes, the same must still be respected.” Construction/Limitations, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. 4. BENITO VS. COMELEC (1994) “Records bear out that herein private respondents filed their appeal from the May 30, 1992 ruling only on June 4, 1992, in violation of Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7166, which provides that a party adversely affected by a ruling of the Board of Canvassers must appeal the same to the Commission within three (3) days from the said ruling. However, adherence to a technicality here would put a stamp of validity on petitioner's palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the popular will. Adjudication of cases on substantive merits and not on technicalities has been consistently observed by this Court.” 5. FERNANDEZ VS. COMELEC (1990) “While Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as “An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms,” requires the BEI chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to said BEI chairman. Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e., signing, authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the voter with disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the people. (as cited in Punzalan vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 126669. April 27, 1998])” Exception to liberal construction. 6. BAUTISTA VS. CASTRO (1992) “The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This requirement is mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.” REFERENDUM Editor: Please bear with the following lengthy digests. I am working on the premise that, because of the inherent length of these cases, not everyone has read them, nor will they be still interested in reading any of them. Requirements; Procedure; Effectivity. 1. SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC (1997) Issue: What is the nature of Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution? SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Ruling: This provision is not self-executory. xxx while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.” Issue: Is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to “provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?” Ruling: It is not. In a nutshell, the SC reasoned as follows: 1. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein (Section 2 of the law) was a delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution.

CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS/LIMITATIONS TO LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION 1. MARUHOM VS. COMELEC (2000) “The legal compass from which the COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy." xxx At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply the laws relating to elections; literal or liberal; xxx In applying elections laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.” 2. PEÑA VS. HRET (1997) “The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET that substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only within the same period for filing the election protest, which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days after proclamation of the winner. While it is conceded that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise stands, that in an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of the protest.” 3. BINCE JR. VS. COMELEC (1995) “Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.” ELECTIONS Definition; How exercised. 1. CARLOS VS. ANGELES (2000) “In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote" through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate. "An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people." Specifically, the term 'election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes." The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election. Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. xxx In case of protest, a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the second placer, can not be declared elected. "The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected." In other words, "a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office." Essence of election; basis. 2. SUNGA VS. COMELEC (1998) “Election is the process of complete ascertainment of the expression of the popular will. Its ultimate purpose is to give effect to the will of the electorate by giving them direct participation in choosing the men and women who will run their government. Thus, it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of whom have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him.” 3. MITMUG VS. COMELEC (1994)

Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. J. Valencia (2006) ©

Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) xxx initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law. SBMA VS. ANGOBUNG VS. Valencia (2006) © . 1997 Barangay Elections. a.” RECALL Editor: Please take note of RA 9244 dated February 19. where the official sought to be recalled is a mayor? Ruling: Yes." The Constitution did not provide for any mode. This is especially true where the proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated. The people are not accorded the power to “directly propose. an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of initiative. or barangay law. xxx initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law." although "two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative. COMELEC (1996) Facts: Citing Section 74 (b) of the LGC. and c. 2." 2. the process and the voting in an initiative are understandably more complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" in the ballot.Page 2 FOR PROOF-READING From the above differentiation. It cannot be seriously doubted that a PRA resolution of recall merely. nature." On the other hand. 1. 2004. which states that: “no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election” petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13. enact.2.” Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation. (c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. the official concerned remains in office but his right to continue in office is subject to question. Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives. COMELEC (1996) “The process started by private respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent Comelec made preparations for a REFERENDUM only. It may be of two classes. R. thus: (a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. while referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. GARCIA VS. . PARAS VS. The initiatory resolution merely sets the stage for the official concerned to appear before the tribunal of the people so he can justify why he should be allowed to continue in office.” “There was.A. Ruling: Subscribing to the above interpretation of the phrase “regular local election” to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the LGC on recall. any ordinance or resolution which is duly enacted or approved by such law-making authority. resolution or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. This is clear in section 72 of the Local Government Code which states that "the recall of an elective local official shall be effective only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall. let alone a single mode.1. Cruz defines initiative as the "power of the people to propose bills and laws. were to be deemed within the purview of the phrase “regular local election. On the other hand. In other words. No.  3. The people's prerogative to remove a public officer is an incident of their sovereign power and in the absence of constitutional restraint. If the SK election. Neither did it prohibit the adoption of multiple modes of initiating recall elections. COMELEC (1993) “Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of his term of office. They can only do so with respect to “laws. passed by Congress. approve. As it now stands. and every three years thereafter. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional.A. Ruling: There is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the people have the "sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding. Jr. Before the people render their sovereign judgment. It is part of the process but is not the whole process. Said referendum shall be conducted also under the control and direction of the Commission on Elections. the power is implied in all governmental operations. each such part to be voted upon separately. No. or part thereof.” Issue: It is argued that the initiation of a recall through the PRA effectively shortens and ends the term of the incumbent local officials. which is set by R. of initiating recall elections.” then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision. while initiative is entirely the work of the electorate. Along these statutory definitions. in a local referendum. as amended. Distinctions between initiative and referendum. Otherwise put. Congress differentiated one term from the other. resolution or ordinance. albeit done indirectly through their representatives. recall can be initiated only upon compliance with Sec. therefore. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law. Hence. It deleted the mode of initiating recall thru a PRA. and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative assembly. namely: a. no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. the approaching regular local election must be one where the position of the official to be recalled. in whole or in part.” Davide.2. They have embraced the view that initiation by the PRAC is not initiation by the people.3. it follows that there is need for the Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely. for approval or rejection. COMELEC (1997) Issue: Can COMELEC schedule the recall election within one (1) year from the May 12. its authority thereon extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is in the proper form and language so it may be easily understood and voted upon by the electorate.1. Initiation by the PRAC is also initiation by the people. Care must also be exercised that "(n)o petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate. city. the law-making body submits to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction. provincial. such that the constitution of a Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) in a LGU is not legally permissible. Definition. “For the time bar to apply. the Constitution” through the system of initiative. starts the process. 7808 to be held every three years from May 1996. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service. and should thus be broken down into several autonomous parts. There are three (3) systems of initiative. which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution. 2. xxx There are statutory and conceptual demarcations between a referendum and an initiative. 70 of RA 7160. resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies. or resolutions." Ruling: That is erroneous. or reject. (b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action. he explains that referendum "is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of electors become a law. 1996 recall election is now barred as the SK election was set by RA 7808 on the first Monday of May 1996. J. and a. is to be actually contested and filled by the electorate. the PRA resolution of recall is the recall itself. namely: c. Justice Isagani A. municipal. Initiative on the Constitution. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III). In enacting the "Initiative and Referendum Act. J. ordinances. ordinance. xxx Issue: It is argued that the electorate’s right to recall includes the sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceedings or not..

in violation of the statutory 25% minimum requirement as to the number of signatures supporting and petition for recall? Ruling: No. The delay was. terrorism and 5. fraud. It also provides that the Kagawad may represent the barangay in the absence of the barangay chairman. 2. Said Section 6. 1999. fraud. the majority of whom met on July 7. 13 or to the rest of the electorate of the Second Legislative District of Northern Samar. We take careful note of the phrase. must be understood in its literal sense.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) Thus." provides that the COMELEC sitting. The law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters. CLAUDIO VS. nor an election case. fraud or other analogous causes. Section 4 of Republic Act No. and that. The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly. on account of force majeure. The hearing of the case shall be summary in nature. the COMELEC has been granted precisely the power to annul elections." 2. The first involves questions of fact. 3. violence. has no original jurisdiction" over the same. The COMELEC is empowered nullify certain contested returns on the ground of statistical improbability "where the fraud is so palpable from the return itself (res ipsa loquitur . the Commission shall. 6. and second. rather. R. may validly initiate recall proceedings.Page 3 FOR PROOF-READING voting. and taking into account the fact that since the term of the office of the contested position is only three years. there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value. 7. and the COMELEC may delegate to its lawyers the power to hear the case and to receive evidence. or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting. nor a single witness had first hand knowledge of actual fraud. The voters of Parang constitute only about less than 15% of the entire Sulu electorate. “In this case. The COMELEC can call for the holding or continuation of election by reason of failure of election only when: 1. primarily caused by the legal skirmishes or maneuvers of the petitioners which muddled simple issues. the SC ruled that were mere rumors that the ballots had been filled out by private respondent's supporters. These grounds. MALONZO VS. or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed. among others. at least 25% of the registered voters. Loong v Comelec “There is really no compulsion for the calling of a special election. En Banc by a majority vote of its members may decide. 113509 is the third case Ong has brought to this Court. in turn. however. FAILURE.. in turn. the delay was not attributable to the poor voters of Precinct No. terrorism. suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held. even if there were The latter phrase. will refer the same to any of its Divisions for proper disposition.If. the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect. terrorism. It must be remembered that Capco was duly elected and proclaimed as Mayor of Pateros. a valid proclamation can still be had. In the instant case. there may begin the realm of a special action for declaration of failure of elections. We must add. is suspended or results in a failure to elect. are proper only in an election contest but not in a petition to declare a failure of election and to nullify a proclamation. on the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing. 4.” 5. Under the present state of our election laws. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a case. as stated in the opening paragraph of this ponencia. “petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%)” and point out that the law does not state that the petition must be signed by at least 25% of the registered voters. the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. or which resulted in failure to elect. but there was no evidence shown to support the claim. the COMELEC. A petition to declare a failure of election is neither a preproclamation controversy as classified under Section 5(h). 13 within the next few months may still be considered "reasonably close to the date of the election not held." 3. DECLARATION OF POSTPONEMENT. presence of flying voters. it is not. the recall was validly initiated outside the one-year prohibited period. two (2) conditions must concur: first. since the petition for recall in this case was filed on July 2. violence. however. Lucero v Comelec “In fixing the date of the special election. provides as follows: "SEC. the election is not held. Comelec “Grounds for election contest are: 1. Failure of election. terrorism. If a case raises "pre-proclamation issues. "The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991. Excluding the Parang election results. where the time bar is being invoked by petitioner mayor in view of the approaching Barangay Elections (in May 1997). but by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters. ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS 1. suspended. COMELEC (1997) *Decided before RA 9244 Facts: Malonzo argues that the initiation of the recall proceedings was invalid since it was convened by the Liga ng mga Barangays. violence or force majeure that attended the election. COMELEC (May 2000) Facts: The COMELEC maintains that the process of recall starts with the filing of the petition for recall and ends with the conduct of the recall election. 1996. after deliberation reported in the record.” 4." 4. It just so happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. that the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force majeure. or after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof. Lack of notice of the date and time of canvass. no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or. This is an important consideration for. and (2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held. and 8. 3. 6. the petition must be filed. otherwise known as.e. disenfranchisement of voters. the holding of a special election in Precinct No. Ruling: The barangays are represented in the Liga by the barangay captains as provided under Section 492 of the LGC. the COMELEC should see to it that: (1) it should be not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect. such election results in a failure to elect. which is "nobody was elected. the petition must be “of” or by. the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.” Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. Accordingly. 7166. 2. and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo.the thing speaks for itself). And there are results from seventeen out of eighteen municipalities of Sulu. there can be no application of the one-year bar. Borja v. Balindong vs Comelec Reiterates Loong. analogous causes. Rule 1 of the Revised COMELEC Rules of Procedure. call for the holding or continuation of the election not held." The COMELEC may exercise such power motu proprio or upon a verified petition. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that G. . Valencia (2006) © . and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election. in the instant case. J. where the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy ends. sitting en banc. suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect. exactly one year and a day after petitioner's assumption of office. Considering then that the petitioners themselves must share the blame for the delay. in accordance with the existing law. Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election. as correctly pointed out by the COMELEC. i. . not by one person only.” Issue: Is a COMELEC resolution approving a Petition for Recall valid although it was signed by just one person. No. in turn. violence. unqualified members of the Board of Election Inspectors. said case should be remanded to the COMELEC which. the COMELEC thus correctly denied petitioner's motion for technical examination of the Voters' Lists and Voters' Affidavits.

the public and the private respondents. the political party must claim to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors? ATTY. POWER TO REGISTER POLITICAL PARTIES / ACCREDITED CITIZENS ARMS Benito vs Comelec “There was a very low voting turn-out. Thus. Verily. The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to. thus: Step One. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation.” The prohibition was explained by a member of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: “[T]he prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. respondent COMELEC merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally-mandated powers. In a sense.through its constitution. evidently. the two percent threshold . Fourth. Second. Brute fact: No Election took place on the scheduled date of election. the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines. after summary evidentiary hearings. Valencia (2006) © . culled from the law and the Constitution. the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The hasty re-scheduled May 29 election is invalid. in effect. First.Page 4 FOR PROOF-READING The Court spelled out the formula for allocating the seats for party-list winners. articles of incorporation. Your Honor. It would be a violation of the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. The party receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party. In this light. they must show. bylaws. then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to. the three-seat limit . deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to determine. but less than six percent.” Third.” 5. Veterans Federation Party vs Comelec Editor: If I understood this case. that the initial step is to rank all the participating parties. organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. . POWER TO CALL SPECIAL ELECTIONS Akbayan vs Comelec Special Registration Case. how do we determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to? The formula is as follows: N/T += P (N) Number of votes of first party (P) Proportion of votes of first party relative to total votes for party-list system (T)Total votes for Party-list system If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) 4. The cause of such failure may arise before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election. one “qualifying” and two additional seats. therefore. Comelec “Two (2) pre-conditions must exist before a failure of election may be declared. proportional representation . based on proportional representation. platform of government and track record -. Step Two. Hassan vs.the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes. the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes. which the petitioner must prove. Now. violence or terrorism. large-scale and fraudulent substitution/ switching of ballots after election day" are questions of facts.that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. in view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong. the protestant cannot claim grave abuse of discretion if the Comelec denies his motion for further examination of election documents. in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration. the Constitution provides that “religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. We said further that "no party can claim more than what it is entitled to x x x.each qualified party. Bulaong vs.” In Ang Bagong Bayani Labor Party vs Comelec The Court. and that he. in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. inter alia. Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system. “The Philippine style party-list system is a unique paradigm which demands an equally unique formula. then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall.the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives. Comelec “Allegations of "huge.” PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION 1. majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system. as "aggrieved party. The 4 parameters of the Filipino party-list system are: (FAQ) First.” In other words. thus: (1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to force majeure. history. all I can say is this: Walang fractional round off sa ating systema. Ruling: The COMELEC. that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. including those elected under the party list. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent. deprive another party's fractional membership. organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. on the one hand. J. the twenty percent allocation . Second. v. Implied facts: many youths allegedly were not able to register on time. then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seat. it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors. Furthermore. In issuing the assailed Resolution. sector. there is failure of election. and (2) the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the election. Only these parties shall be considered in the computation of additional seats. failure of elections to the low percentage of votes cast vis-à-vis the number of registered voters in the subject election precincts are equivalents. they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives. and the result of the revision of the ballots." has a right to show: (1) that the ballots found in the ballot boxes are not the ballots cast and canvassed on election day and (2) that there was "massive. The Court has previously ruled in Guingona Jr. as well as the members of this Court. respondent COMELEC simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In other words. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests. the answer is yes. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. KAPUNAN: Yes. All I am saying is. that is. acted within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter --Section 8 of RA 8189. regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and other similarly situated political parties admitted as much during the Oral Argument. the political party. abnormal and unexplained discrepancies" between the election results reflected in the tally sheets and election returns.only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the House of Representatives. This is not a ground for declaring failure of elections and calling a special election. on the other hand. however. Gonzales that a fractional membership cannot be converted into a whole membership of one when it would. as the following quote shows: “JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. to assist the Comelec in its work. questions relating to the registration of voters. it must show -. There is no dispute among the petitioners. while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties. And when given ample opportunity to prove his allegations but did not present any evidence in support thereof. Step Three. Third. is entitled to a maximum of three seats. which is allegedly a religious group. And if the proportion is less than four percent.

a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election. is not going to represent a particular district x x x. Article VI of the Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House the authority to elect among their members those who would fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the Commission on Appointments.” A party or an organization. he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. by an industrialist. No.” Seventh. opinion. (3) It is a foreign party or organization. the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree. 9. commentaries and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: “SEC. as the very lis mota thereof. time and space. 2772. 6646. (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal. 2772-A while possibly helpful. or other sections of the newspaper or publication accounts or comments which manifest favor or oppose any candidate or political party by unduly or repeatedly referring to or including therein said candidate or political party. each chamber of Congress exercises the . as previously discussed. Analysis of Section 11 (b) shows that it purports to apply only to the purchase and sale. At all events. PPI has not claimed that it or any of its members has sustained actual or imminent injury by reason of Comelec action under Section 8. in responsible media. does not add substantially to the utility of Section 8 of Resolution No. the nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition. from (b) the reporting of news. Section 11 (b) does not purport in any way to restrict the reporting by newspapers or radio or television stations of news or newsworthy events relating to candidates. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented. who among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each chamber’s respective electoral tribunal. within constitutionally defined limits. purports Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. Valencia (2006) © . of communication or information [for the purpose of ensuring] equal opportunity. a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. To repeat. foundation. political parties and programs of government. but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772. including reasonable. and more importantly. national or regional. newsworthy and of public interest. can realistically be given operative meaning only in actual cases or controversies.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) political party. including purchase and sale disguised as a donation. therefore. a registered voter. We read Section 11 (b) as designed to cover only paid political advertisements of particular candidates. rules or regulations relating to elections. Section 11 (b) is limited in its scope of application.” In Pimentel vs HRET “The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives the prerogative. of print space and air time for campaign or other political purposes. except to the Comelec. their qualifications.whether or not Section 8 of Resolution No. – No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Section 11 (b) does not reach commentaries and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters or broadcasters or editors or commentators or columnists in respect of candidates. Section 18. POWER TO REGULATE/ SUPERVISE ENJOYMENT OR UTILIZATION OF FRANCHISE/OBJECTIVE 1. Under Section 17. . In doing so.” Note should be taken of paragraph 5. and programs and so forth. on a case-to-case basis. (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government. their qualifications. It must be independent of the government. Put a little differently. Court sustained the constitutionality of Section 11 (b) of R. 2772 appears to represent the effort of the Comelec to establish a guidelines for implementation of the above-quoted distinction and doctrine in National Press Club. foreign political party. National Press Club vs Comelec Here. 8. 2772. while lacking a well-defined political constituency. organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of Representatives. the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law. Moreover. Eighth. and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. which states that the party-list system seeks to “enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. organization or association organized for religious purposes. The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties. commentators or columnists which fall outside the scope of Section 11 (b) and which are protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press: "Secondly. (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws. within constitutionally defined limits. Article VI of the Constitution. Philippine Press Institute vs Comelec “Section 8 is now in question. Undue Reference to Candidates/Political parties in Newspaper. not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.No newspaper or publication shall allow to be printed or published in the news. to choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. broadcasters. for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free.” 2. unless the facts and circumstances clearly indicate otherwise. or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. which prohibits the sale or donation of print space and airtime for campaign or other political purposes. under Section 2 of RA 7941. That is not prohibited here.” Surely. the Court is bound to note that PPI has failed to allege any specific affirmative action on the part of Comelec designed to enforce or implement Section 8. etc.A. is not paid for by candidates for political office. Fifth. on the other hand. orderly. peaceful and credible elections is not ripe for judicial review for lack of an actual case or controversy involving. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate. able to read and write. which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations." Section 8 of Resolution No. organized by citizens and operated by citizens. the constitutionality of Section 8. the party or organization must be a group of citizens. Section 4 of the Constitution to "supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchise or permits for the operation of . PM & Butil vs. organizations and parties. the Court carefully distinguished: (a) paid political advertisements which are reached by the prohibition of Section 11 (b). 2772 constitutes a permissible exercise of the Comelec's power under Article IX. the Commission will respect the determination by the publisher and/or editors of the newspapers or publications that the accounts or views published are significant. 1. editors. features. 2. in terms of very specific sets of facts. the party or organization must not be an adjunct of. In case of a nominee of the youth sector. By the very nature of the party-list system. the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.Page 5 FOR PROOF-READING power to choose. and the right of reply. honest. organization. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term. Sixth. (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year. However. Section 2 of Resolution No. editors. so also must its nominees. an effort not blessed with evident success. The distinction between paid political advertisements on the one hand and news reports. commentaries and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters. known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. or (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. the government. broadcasters. that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified. the Court considers that the precise constitutional issue here sought to be raised . its nominees must likewise do so. a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. so long at least as such comments. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral committee proceedings that “the nominee of a party. it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party. In sum. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941. in its present form and as interpreted by Comelec in its 22 March 1995 letter directives. which needs to be quoted in full again: Sec. Comelec reiterates the landmark case of Veterans. opinions and beliefs are not in fact advertisements for particular candidates covertly paid for. which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows: “(1) It is a religious sect or denomination. whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes. We turn to Section 8 of Resolution No. neither can those of the urban poor or the working class. Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary or other coverage that. equal rates therefor.” Fourth.

That no location shall be changed within forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election or a referendum or plebiscite. Akbayan-Youth vs Comelec “Special registration outside the scheduled registration period is not allowed when not allowed by the COMELEC. Maria Jeanette Tecson vs Comelec & Companion Cases The Supreme Court did not rule on the citizenship of FPJ. the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition must be dismissed for lack of an actual. (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period. 1996. Osmena vs Comelec Reiterates NPC ruling. Is the transfer valid? No. to wit: SEC. The polling place shall be located within the territory of the precinct as centrally as possible with respect to the residence of the voters therein and whenever possible. 2. platforms or a matter of public discussion in relation to the election. Third the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies. any financial considerations behind the regulation are of marginal significance. where she was born. “SEC. Quite the contrary. Requirements for polling places. section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution. to amendment by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that "any such franchise or right granted . 1996 and approved by President Fidel V. exit polls -. Article III). the Comelec cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean.” 2. 9006 (Fair Election Act). a reference to its own constitution and election laws could solve the problem. Telecommunications & Broadcast attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA “All broadcasting. she followed her husband in Ilocos. PRECINCT AND POLLING PLACES Cawasa vs Comelec “The regular polling place was transferred to another place and military personnel were assigned in the area. and hearing: provided. – NO for three reasons: First the prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec.” REGISTRATION OF VOTERS 1. a ground floor and shall be of sufficient size to admit and comfortably accommodate forty voters at one time outside the guard rail for the board of election inspectors. In this case.1 of the law as follows: Election surveys refer to the measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards a candidate’s popularity. if any. Section 44 thereof provides: "SEC. has served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the original congressional district. RA 8189 was enacted on June 10. To the extent it pertains to Section 8 of Resolution No. De Guzman vs Comelec Petitioners’ contentions revolve on the pivotal issue. When she married Ferdinand Marcos. Ruling: Section 5. 154. 152. Reassignment of Election Officers. the leaders of LDP are divided as to who between them is authorized to sign the nomination.Page 6 FOR PROOF-READING (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression. Polling Place. except in case it is destroyed or it cannot be used. Section 26 and Article XIII. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to assign. Narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec so as to minimize or suppress the incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls. –Each polling place shall be. 5. Ramos on June 11. Adiong vs Comelec “The specific issue in this petition is whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places. such location shall be along a public road.A. public or private. Valencia (2006) © .No Election Officer shall hold office in a particular city or municipality for more than four (4) years. The SC merely said that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim. orderly and credible elections. Sections 152. 4. 153. The singling out of election officers in order to "ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment" does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. SEC.properly conducted and publicized -. There was no notice and hearing held.can be vital tools in eliminating the evils of election-fixing and fraud.” REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ENLIST CITIZENS ARMS LDP vs Comelec “If there is a political party controversy. qualifications. honest. Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec “Domicile of Imelda is in Leyte.4 of R. either at the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent thereto. – The location of polling places designated in the preceding regular election shall continue with such changes as the Commission may find necessary. Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. is not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private vehicles. after notice to registered political parties and candidates in the political unit affected. Hence. Compared to the paramount interest of the State in guaranteeing freedom of expression. 44. 4." 4. including voters’ preference for candidates or publicly discussed issues during the campaign period (hereafter referred to as “Survey”). whether Section 44 of RA 8189 is valid and constitutional. without transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people. 4. . whether by radio or by television stations.” RA 9006 FAIR ELECTIONS ACT SWS vs Comelec “Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the Commission on Elections from enforcing §5. 2772. Neither does Section 44 of RA 8189 infringe the security of tenure of petitioners nor unduly deprive them of due process of law. A statute is considered void for overbreadth when "it offends the constitutional principle that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression. The term “election surveys” is defined in §5." Ruling: Section 44 of RA 8189 enjoys the presumption of validity. mandated by Article II. and limit their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes.” 3. No designation of polling places shall be changed except upon written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of all the political parties or by resolution of the Commission upon prior notice and hearing. As such. The remaining 45 precincts will affect the results of the elections. as far as practicable. Second the questioned prohibition premised on the statute and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth. which provides: Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an election. Designation of polling places.” 3. 153 and 154 of the Omnibus Election Code shed light on this matter. and . J. No. There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant the kind of restriction involved in this case. among other things. . Any election officer who. the same being within its discretionary power under the Constitution. is licensed by the government. alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. ABS-CBN vs Comelec “The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. – A polling place is the building or place where the board of election inspectors conducts its proceedings and where the voters shall cast their votes. A franchise is thus a privilege subject.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) to require print media enterprises to "donate" free print space to Comelec. . Section 2 suffers from fatal constitutional vice and must be set aside and nullified. shall be subject to amendment. justificiable case or controversy.

Her submission of her withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy was a substantial compliance with the law. induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions. . Ruling: He lost his position ipso facto when he filed his certificate of candidacy for governor. vice-mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day. she also filed a certificate of candidancy for governorship of Leyte.” The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. “the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home. received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89. Leyte. in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan.A No. provides that: "SEC. otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code. (d) solicited. likewise. it enables the electorate to evaluate the office seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire for. RTC (226 SCRA 408) the Court explained how one acquires a new domicile by choice. COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from his reelected term of office in its second questioned Resolution on the ground that “it comes as a matter of course after his disqualification in SPA No. Nolasco vs Comelec Disqualified for vote-buying. his name in the roll of congressmen was blotted. 95-213 promulgated after the 1998 election. city. 86 and 261. 6: “No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and. a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected. VI. Sr. the office of the regional election director concerned. or province or. March 01. component cities. Domingo vs Comelec Mayor Benjamin S. a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. 881 reads: Under the Constitution. prior to the election. the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices. before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy. eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). "A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may. Sec. 73. Residence (Romualdez) and domicile in politics are the same. (c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vicemayor of independent component cities. Batas Pambansa Blg.” A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. a registered voter in the barangay.” but rather to “domicile” or legal residence.(1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality. Indeed. 85. – (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines. and (3) intention to abandon the old domicile. sangguniang panlungsod. Certificate of candidacy. (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code. Section 67. §39(a) of the Local Government Code (R. or mayor. Abalos. v. and that for governor of Leyte. Section 39. no matter where he may be found at any given time. Dimaporo vs Mitra Dimaporo was duly elected congressman of ARMM. Thus. e. municipality." 6.m. 7. (Torayno vs Comelec) 5." There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for an elective office under this Code. thus. vicegovernor. able to read and write. Under the Local Government Code. Blg.No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein. and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.Any candidate who. (e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day. Valencia (2006) © . or found by the Commission of having: Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. Disqualifications. He did not win in the governatorial race. and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. Trinidad vs Comelec “With the complaint for disqualification of private respondent rendered moot and academic by the expiration of petitioner’s term of office therein contested. (f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15) years of age but not more than twentyone (21) years of age on election day. 97 and 104. or municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day. he filed a certificate of candidacy. difficulties. withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath. or if he has been elected. Leyte. said Resolution had not yet attained finality and could not effectively be held to have removed petitioner from his office. 881. on the day of the election. Section 73. Art. as co-sponsor of the "PasyalAral" program did not violate section 68(a). is at least twenty-five years of age. Go vs Comelec “Go filed a certificate of candidancy for mayorship for Baybay. RA 7160. sub-paragraph 6. paragraphs d. that is. . in order to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs. There must concur. the district where he intends to be elected. shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate. Cases on residency requirement: Coquilla vs Comelec –US Navy Romualdez Marcos vs Comelec –Leyte Perez vs Comelec . or the office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality. namely. (d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day. he shall not be eligible for any of them.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES Qualifications and Disqualifications of candidates and term of office. (2) intention to remain there. 2001. and. Ruling: She is not disqualified for both office. If a public official is not removed before his term of office expires. and cc. She filed a withdrawal of her candidacy for mayorship at 12:28 a. (Perez) Rationale of the Constitution and the laws on residency requirement: “The Constitution and the law requires residence as a qualification for seeking and holding elective public office. The petitions were based on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for two positions. "No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election. except the party-list representatives. 96. making her ineligible for both. Upon his filing of his candidacy. where he. or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan. Qualifications. from holding the office. 68. 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 elections laws. J. he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term. aspirations. that for mayor of Baybay. potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies. in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of. 83. However. "Sec. During the governatorial race. or (e) violated any of Sections 80. or sangguniang bayan.Cagayan First. Later. removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. Article IX of B. (b) Candidates for the position of governor. the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs. k.Page 7 FOR PROOF-READING (a) given money or other material consideration to influence.P. (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy. and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office. 9. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice).” 8. 7160) provides: The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation. it can be filed directly with the main office of the COMELEC. 95. He wants to be back in office as congressman. (Coquilla) In the case of Romualdez vs..” While it is true that the first questioned Resolution was issued eight (8) days before the term of petitioner as Mayor expired. Two opponents filed for her disqualification.

one of the most perceptive members of the Constitutional speak of yet at such time. Aguinaldo vs Comelec and Reyes vs Comelec. 6. This is his third time to be petitionede for disqualification on account of noncitizenship. 7.” 8. 1988. §20 must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance.4 preceded the filing of the felony complaint in the Los Angeles Court on November 12. 1992. Rollo). despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. (d) Those with dual citizenship. DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES 1. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. Hence. Thus. No.A. . the issue passed before the SC is : Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed its jurisdiction in promulgating the assailed Resolutions. Leyte when this was not so or that the candidate was a “natural-born” Filipino when in fact he had become an Australian citizen[38] constitutes a ground for the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy. Anent the subject matter. for candidates with dual citizenship. as there was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant . §40(d) and in R. Section 40. But whether or not she is considered a citizen of another country is something completely beyond our control. Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. 5. his election thereto was null and void. 120295. 9. is Just nowhere to be found in the circumstances of Rodriguez.Page 8 FOR PROOF-READING The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one's flight from a particular jurisdiction. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided.much less conviction . (c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic. 404695 dated September 19. hence.A. No. after being charged. within two (2) years after serving sentence. it should suffice if. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it.” Consequently. It cannot be given a retroactive effect. placing reliance on the admitted facts that: a) In 1988. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment.. In dismissing the petition in G.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) "Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for President and VicePresident shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that all public officials must serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle with the mandate which they have received from their constituents. Section 78 of BP881. pointed out: “[D]ual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. Mercado vs Manzano Clearly. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. Frivaldo vs Comelec THRICE Frivaldo won as governor in Sorsogon. all of which prevented Frivaldo from assuming the governorship of Sorsogon. Re: Section 40(b) and other provisions of Republic Act 7160 took effect only on January 1.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18. And obviously. Unlike those with dual allegiance. No. persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Although the law does not specify what would be considered as a "material representation. misrepresented in his certificate of candidacy his residence for two years at Leyte. "not later than fifteen days before the elections"? In other words. in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under section 78. Coquilla vs Comelec A retired US Navy. vix. and (g) The insane or feeble-minded. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U. Salcedo II vs Comelec “As stated in the law. they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. J. it is not mandatory." Rationale of the law: this statutory provision seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging them from running for another public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy. both as a voter and as a candidate (pp. Salalima vs Guingona Jr. (allegiance) (e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad. 7854. What prosecution or punishment then was Rodriguez deliberately running away from with his departure from the US? The very essence of being a "fugitive from justice" under the MARQUEZ Decision definition. Bernas. Disqualifications. who must. as per certifications issued by the Bureau of Immigrations dated April 273 and June 26 of 1995. it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertain to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidate .S. (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 1963 up to the present.the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. considering that they were not rendered within the period referred to in Seciton 78 of the Onmibus Election Code. it has been held that a candidate’s statement in her certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of Leyte that she was a resident of Kananga. private respondent registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. Rodriguez vs Comelec Who is a fugitive from justice? A "fugitive from justice" x x x includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who. It applies only to those removed from office on or after January 1. 7160. they cannot go back to their former position. Caasi vs Comelec The Supreme Court held that Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U. private respondent vehemently denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States (p. the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. is section 78 mandatory? Ruling: No. There is no dispute that his arrival in the Philippines from the US on June 25. in including §5 in Article IV on citizenship.R." the Court has interpreted this phrase in a line of decisions applying section 78 of the Code. after due notice and hearing. Rollo). Ruling: Indeed. 1992. 1985 and of the issuance on even date of the arrest warrant by that same foreign court. the phrase “dual citizenship” in R. Aznar vs Comelec In the instant case." . 3. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. Petitioner maintains that the private respondent is an Australian citizen. It is merely directory. Valles vs Comelec Private respondent was born in 1934 in Australia of a Filipino mother and Australian father. 78.” 2.A. upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. 4. Grego vs Comelec. 107-108. therefore. As Joaquin G.S. by almost five (5) months. 1988. It was clearly impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such felony complaint and arrest warrant at the time he left the US. 81. (f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code. Rodriguez' case just cannot fit in this concept. 1985. 6646 authorizes the Comelec to try and decide disqualifications even after the elections. private respondent remains a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed. Valencia (2006) © . we hold that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion because "Section 6 of R. “SEC. not later than fifteen days before the election. flee to avoid prosecution. the Court’s conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office.

In this case. the Court or Commission (COMELEC) shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action. Clearly. 2001. Sec. used the word “before” preceding “an Thus. he is twice suspended for misconduct for a total of 1 year. (2) in the election of May 1995. This point can be made clearer by considering the following case or situation: Case No. 14. which the COMELEC en banc denied on June 11. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia.” There is no provision in R. it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office. Article X of the Constitution as “voluntary renunciation” for clearly it is not. Thereunder. he again won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until June 30. 1998 and had taken his oath of office on May 17. 2000. which shall be determined by law. 10. Only citizens of the Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen. and. J. Jr. Sec. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election. Neither can respondent’s victory in the recall election be deemed a violation of Section 8. petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration on May 22. Labo vs Comelec “There is no claim or finding that petitioner automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of his marriage to an Australian national in 1976. “RA 6646. 6646 is filed after the election against a candidate who has already been proclaimed as winner shall be dismissed as a disqualification case. she is Filipino. the need for implementing rules as embodied in Comelec Resolution No. the petition for disqualification against private respondent was decided by the First Division of the COMELEC on May 10. The following day. 6. this could not be done. he lost to Bernard G. simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. Consequently. The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the proclamation of private respondent barred further consideration of petitioner's action. a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth. 6646 authorizes the continuation of proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has not been proclaimed. No. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. He served the full term. may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. In the same vein. Again. 2050 which provide that any complaint for disqualification based on Section 6 of R. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.” the law is for the COMELEC to hear and filed after the election. On March 2. 1998. Bagatsing vs Comelec Section 6 explicitly applies only to any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified before an election. Adormeo vs Comelec Reiterates Borja and Lonzanida cases. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process. 2. or protest and. the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action.A. Frivaldo vs Comelec 174 SCRA Facts: Petitioner Juan G. In the election of 1998. where he served the full term. considering that at the time of the filing of this petition on June 16. having been naturalized in the United States. – The term of office of elective local officials. or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. If the intention of decide disqualification cases made a distinction between Section 6 would not have election. Perez vs Comelec and Aguinaldo As already stated. Private respondent Talaga. shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. As the daughter of a Filipino mother. 13. WON respondent is Filipino? Ruling: YES. the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of private respondent's ineligibility. Citizenship is a continuous requirement. If he is twice reelected after that. on the ground that the latter was elected and had served as city mayor for three (3) consecutive terms as follows: (1) in the election of May 1992. Lucena City a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and/or Disqualification of Ramon Y. private respondent was already a member of the House of Representatives. (Borja) 2. (Lonzanida) 3. sec. VI. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. he was re-elected in 19951998. The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Rulings: 1.A. can he run for one more term in the next election? Yes. Frivaldo was proclaimed governorelect and assume office in due time. Suppose B is elected mayor and. to preside over the people of Baguio as mayor of their city. inquiry or protest xxx. 2001. 1998. Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor. petitioner filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor. The section provides further that “if for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election. 8. (3) in the recall election of May 12. Pursuant to Art.” 11. Article X of the 1987 Constitution which provides: Sec. Tagarao. she applied for the issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR). In the recall election of May 12. May 11. but the complaint shall be referred for preliminary investigation to the Law Department of COMELEC. Frivaldo admitted the allegation but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that his naturalization was merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting prosecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agent abroad. 2000. this Court has no jurisdiction over the same. Based on the Election Laws Outline of Atty. was elected mayor in May 1992. To recapitulate. Jr. Talaga. as provided by the Constitution. the elections were held. where he again served the full term. 1988. Effect of Disqualification Case. 1998. inquiry. because he has served only two full terms successively. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. 6646 that treats of a situation where the complaint for disqualification is filed after the election.Ateneo de Davao University—College of Law of 9 Election Laws (MANRESA 2008) b) On even date. he had already served three consecutive terms in that office. and c) She was issued Australian Passport No. 2001 elections? This issue hinges on whether. 6 of R. Petitioner contended that Talaga’s candidacy as Mayor constituted a violation of Section 8. as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. Issue: was private respondent disqualified to run for mayor of Lucena City in the May 14. it would not have cases filed before and after the election. 1998. during his first term. Valencia (2006) © .” 12. Notwithstanding the fact that private respondent had already been proclaimed on May 16. ‘He is not a Filipino Citizen and therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of Sorsogon. H700888 on March 3. 1998. 1998. HRET has sole jurisdiction to try the election cases against its members. where he served only the unexpired term of Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in the 1998 election.Page 9 FOR PROOF-READING post and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.. This Court held that the two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: a) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government . except barangay officials.A.17 of the Constitution.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful