William Ong

vs.
Commission On Election and Isagani Rizon

Instances where Ballots not considered marked

 Ong vs. COMELEC
Facts:
• Petitioner Ong and Respondent Rizon were
candidates for the position of mayor of the
municipality of Baroy, Lanao del Norte during
the 1998 elections.
• The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed
Ong as the winner with a margin of 51 votes
• Respondent filed with the RTC an election
protest, contesting petitioner’s votes in 5
clustered precincts.
 Ong vs. COMELEC
• RTC rendered a decision annulling 45 votes for
petitioners and invalidating 2 votes for respondent.
Reducing the petitioner’s lead to 8 votes
• Respondent appealed to the COMELEC 2nd division,
which promulgated a resolution declaring the trial
court to have committed serious reversible errors in
the appreciation of the contested ballots. Invalidating
63 votes for petitioner and 8 votes for respondent,
resulting to a 4 lead votes in favor of respondent.
• COMELEC en banc affirmed the resolution of the 2nd
division but reduced by 1 vote the lead of the
respondent.
 Ong vs. COMELEC

Issue:
• Whether the 61 votes of Petitioner Ong and 7
votes of Respondent Rizon should be
invalidated?
 Ong vs. COMELEC
Ruling: Partially Yes/No
• Unless it should clearly appear that they have
been deliberately put by the voter to serve as
identification marks, comma, dots, lines, or
hyphens between the first name and surname
of a candidate, or in other parts of the ballot,
the first letters or syllables of names which the
voter does not continue, the use of two or
more kinds of writing and unintentional or
accidental flourishes, strokes or strains, shall
not invalidate the ballot
 Ong vs. COMELEC

• Invalidate a ballot
– Deliberate intentions to put an identification mark
(DLR, DOLLINS, GINA, EVA, SOSANG TORIS,
SUBANG BULAC, PACITE, PACETE, LOS, LUZ, BONG,
NORMAN, RIC, VIA, NOEL, ALONG RARO, AMEN,
NANIG, SABAS, MIMIG, etc..) – Non Candidates
• Evident intent to mark the ballot
• Irrelevant, unnecessary and impertinent words meant
to identify the voter
• Written by two persons
 Ong vs. COMELEC

• Does not Invalidate a ballot

– The use of two or more kinds of writing
– Stray votes shall not invalidate the whole ballot
• Mistaken as candidates (FPJ, RJ, Kris, APEC, X-MEN, LIM,
DAYO, etc…)
– Incorrect spelling of the candidate’s name
– Writing partly in script and in print
– Written Appellation and affection
– Name of candidate councilor in the lines for senators
– Erasures
– Wrong Spelling of candidate’s name
 Ong vs. COMELEC

• Petitioner shall be credited with 22 votes and

deducted with 2 votes, while respondent shall
be credited with 7 votes and deducted with 2
votes
• Petitioner Ong won by a margin of 12 votes