17
FACTS: Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay Elections in Si ui!or" They all filed an election #rotest $efore the res#ective %CTC&s" The winning candidates filed their answers #raying that the #etitions $e dismissed $ased on the affirmative defense that the #rotestants failed to attach to their #etitions the re uired certification on non'forum sho##ing as #rovided for in SC'AC (o" )4'94" The %CTC initially ruled to dismiss $ut deferred t o the Secretary of *ustice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that the certification on non' forum sho##ing should $e re uired in elections contests $efore the %TC&s" Thus this #etition under +ule ,-" .E/0: The re uirement of the certification of non'forum sho##ing is re uired for election contests" 1es" The Court2 citing /oyola v" Court of A##eals2 said that: 34e do not agree that SC'AC (o" )4'94 is not a##lica$le to election cases" There is nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not a##ly to election cases" 5n the contrary2 it e6#ressly #rovides that the re uirements therein2 which are in addition to those in #ertinent #rovisions of the +ules of Court and e6isting circulars2 7shall $e strictly com#lied with in the filing of com#laints2 #etitions2 a##lications or other initiatory #leadings in all courts and agencies other the Su#reme Court and the Court of A##eals"& 8$i le6 non distinguit nec nos distinguire de$emus"9 :n this case2 the #etitioners filed the re uired certification 1; days after filing their #etitions" :t cannot $e considered su$stantial com#liance with the re uirements of the Circular" <uite o$viously2 the reglementary #eriod for filing the #rotest had2 $y then2 already e6#ired" =etition dismissed" (ote: There can $e su$stantial com#liance even after a motion to dismiss has $een filed on the ground of lac> of certificate of non'forum sho##ing $ut it must $e done asa# ?the ne6t day@ otherwise the value of the SC Circular would lose its value"
FACTS: %ay 1994" Barangay Elections in Bislig2 Tanauan2 /eyte Election #rotest filed $y Arnulfo Santillano2 Egonio as #rotestee2 Beegan as intervenor A$out revision of three $allot $o6es com#leted in 5cto$er 19942 +evision Committee #resented its re#ort to the Court (ovem$er A2 1994 =ro$lem arises when the a$ovementioned $allots were reo#ened for Bero6ing #ur#oses for the #erusal of the #rotestee&s counsel 5ffice and Court Administrator viewed acts of res#ondents in effecting the reo#ening of the $allot $o6es and co#ying tantamount to misconduct in office Balano ?cler> of court@ and Bor!a $elieved in good faith that they had the authority to allow such" .E/0: =hotoco#ying of $allots is not tantamount to misconduct in office" 18 As long as no tam#ering or alteration was manifest in Bero6ingC#hotoco#ying of court records2 no lia$ility attaches to anyone" +es#ondents are e6onerated" FERMO V. COMELEC 28 SCRA !2 (VAL"E#)
FACTS: /AB:(A and FE+%5' candidates for the #osition of =unong Brgy" in <C" ?199D elections@ /AB:(A was #roclaimed winner FE+%5' filed election #rotest uestion results in 4 clustered #recincts on ground of massive fraud and serious irregularities" %TC: ruled FE+%5 won the contested #ost ?in 1999@ and granted a motion for e6ecution #ending a##eal" C5%E/EC reversed on ground that the #ossi$ility that the term of contested seat might e6#ire $y the time a##eal is decidedEnot a 3good reason9 to warrant e6ecution #ending a##eal"
.E/0: A motion for e6ecuting #ending a##eal on ground of term e6#iration is not 3good reason9 for issuance" Sec" F2 +ule A9 +ules of Court: court while it has !urisdiction and #ossession of original recordG in its discretion2 order e6ecution of !udgment or final order even $efore e6#iration of the #eriod to a##eal E6ercise of discretion re uires that it is $ased on 3good reasons ?com$ination of F or more will suffice@: 1" =8B/:C :(TE+EST :(H5/HE0 5+ 4:// 5F E/ECT5+ATE F" S.5+T(ESS of remaining #ortion of term of contested office A" /E(IT. 5F T:%E that election contest has $een =E(0:(I Shortness of remaining term' not good reason for e6ecution of !udgment #ending a##ealE+A ;-F4: e6tended term of office of Brgy" officials to years ?negates claim of FE+%5 8#on nullification of writ of e6ecution #ending a##eal2 decision of FE+%5&s #roclamation as winner was stayedEstatus uo ?last actual #eaceful uncontested situation #receding the controversy@ restored /AB:(A: entitled to discharge functions 19 SA$UILA%AN V. COMELEC 416 SCRA 6!8 ("INO) ,"
of action2 on the $asis of =ena v" .+ET" J Pena v. HRET held that the $are allegations of massive fraud2 wides#read intimidation and terrorism2 without s#ecification and su$stantiation of where and how these occurrences too> #lace2 render the #rotest fatally defective" 8#on reconsideration sought $y *A+52 the C5%E/EC En Banc2 SA<8:/A1A(&s %otion to 0ismiss was again dismissed2 and the Election =rotest Case was ordered to #roceed" The #resent case is similar to %iguel v" C5%E/EC2 which the C5%E/EC En Banc used as $asis in ordering the Election =rotest Case to #roceed" :( $oth cases2 the #rotestants uestioned all the #recincts in their res#ective munici#alities" As %iguel v" C5%E/EC is more recent than =ena v" .+ET ?as used $y the C5%E/EC 0ivision@2 then the former should #revail in case of a conflict" Furthermore2 election contests involve #u$lic interest" Technicalities and #rocedural $arriers should not $e allowed to stand if they constituted an o$stacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate" /aws governing election contests must $e li$erally construed to the end that the will of the #eo#le in the choice of #u$lic officials may not $e defeated $y mere technical o$!ections" Allowing the election #rotest to #roceed would $e the $est way of removing any dou$t as to who was the real candidate chosen $y the electorate" 0ecision of C5%E/EC En Banc affirmed" SANTOS V. COMELEC 99 SCRA 611 ('A"LAN)
FACTS: 1" SA<8:/A1A( and *A+5 were candidates for the 5ffice of %unici#al %ayor of :mus2 Cavite" F" SA<8:/A1A( was #roclaimed winner" A" *A+5 instituted an Election =rotest Case $efore the +TC2 contesting the results of all 4-A election #recincts" .e alleges the ff: a" Hotes in favor of *A+5 were considered stray $" Ballots and votes were misa##reciated ?considered null and void2 or counted in favor of SA<8:/A1A(@ c" Hotes that were void ?containing stic>ers or mar>ings@ were counted in favor of SA<8:/A1A(2 etc"" 4" SA<8:/A1A( filed a %otion to 0ismiss2 which was denied $y the +TC" -" <uestioning the denial of his %otion to 0ismiss2 the C5%E/EC ?0ivision@ ruled in favor of SA<8:/A1A( and ordered the dismissal of the election #rotest" :t ruled that *A+5&s allegations failed to state a cause
FACTS:
+TC found that SA(T5S o$tained D, votes more than =A(8/A1A" +TC
declared SA(T5S as winner" +TC voided %BC&s #roclamation in favor of =A(8/A1A"
SA(T5S filed a %5T:5( F5+ EBEC8T:5( =E(0:(I A==EA/ with the +TC"
reasons to $e stated in a s#ecial order"L The rationale why such e6ecution is allowed in election cases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial !udge&s decision as that which is initially ascri$ed $y the law to the #roclamation $y the $oard of canvassers" 4hy should the #roclamation $y the $oard of canvassers suffice as $asis of the right to assume office2 su$!ect to future contingencies attendant to a #rotest2 and not the decision of a court of !usticeM :ndeed2 when it is considered that the $oard of canvassers is com#osed of #ersons who are less technically #re#ared to ma>e an accurate a##reciation of the $allots2 a#art from their $eing more a#t to yield to e6traneous considerations2 and that the $oard must act summarily2 #ractically racing against time2 while2 on the other hand2 the !udge has $enefit of all the evidence the #arties can offer and of admittedly $etter technical #re#aration and $ac>ground2 a#art from his $eing allowed am#le time for conscientious study and mature deli$eration $efore rendering !udgment2 one cannot $ut #erceive the wisdom of allowing the immediate e6ecution of decisions in election cases adverse to the #rotestees2 notwithstanding the #erfection and #endency of a##eals therefrom2 as long as there are2 in the sound discretion of the court2 good reasons therefor" To de#rive trial courts of their discretion to grant e6ecution #ending a##eal would $ring $ac> the ghost of the Lgra$'the'#roclamation'#rolong the #rotestL techni ues so often resorted to $y devious #oliticians in the #ast in their efforts to #er#etuate their hold to an elective office" This would2 as a conse uence2 lay to waste the will of the electorate" ELECTION OF 'RESI"ENT AN" VICE5'RESI"ENT 21 "EFENSOR5SANTIAGO V. RAMOS 2! SCRA !!9 (CONCE'CION)
C5%E/EC issued :(*8(CT:5( against +TC to refrain from acting on motion for e6ecution #ending a##eal"
+TC A==+5HE0 motion for e6ecution #ending a##eal" SA(T5S too> 5AT. of office and ASS8%E0 duties and functions of his
office"
=A(8/A1A filed with C5%E/EC a =ET:T:5( F5+ STAT8S <85 A(TE" C5%E/EC :SS8E0 5+0E+ directing #arties to %A:(TA:( STAT8S <85 A(TE2 at the same time E(*5:(:(I SA(T5S from assuming functions of mayor" .E/0: %ere filing of a notice of a##eal does not divest the trial court of its !urisdiction over the case and to resolve #ending incidents such as motions for e6ecution #ending a##eal" The following constitute good reasons and ( )*+,-.(/-*. *0 /1* *2 +*23 *0 /43+ will suffice to grant e6ecution #ending a##eal: ?1@ #u$lic interest involved or will of the electorateK ?F@ the shortness of the remaining #ortion of the term of the contested officeK and ?A@ the length of time that the election contest has $een #ending" The trial in the +TC too> more than a year2 while the three'year term of the 5ffice of the %ayor continued to run" The will of the electorate2 as determined $y the trial court in the election #rotest2 had to $e res#ected and given meaning" Between the determination $y the trial court of who of the candidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to #roclaim2 it is the court&s decision that should #revail" All that was re uired for a valid e6ercise of the discretion to allow e6ecution #ending a##eal was that the immediate e6ecution should $e $ased Lu#on good
FACTS: This is an original action filed $efore the SC acting as a =residential Electoral Tri$unal" %iriam 0efensor'Santiago ?0S@ ran for #residency in the 199F (ational Elections" She lost2 $ut filed this #resent #rotest against the winner2 =res" FH +amos" Su$se uently however2 she ran for Senator in the 199- Senatorial elections" She won and assumed office as Senator in 199-" Considering this factual milieu2 the issues revolve on whether this #resent electoral #rotest would still $e valid2 even after the
#rotestant has already assumed office as Senator2 noting that should she win this #rotest2 her term as #resident would coincide with her term as senator2 which she is now in" (ow2 in 199,2 the SC as =ET decides the case" .E/0: There was a$andonment of #rotest" 1es" 0S filed her certificate of candidacy to run for senator without ualification or reservation" :n doing so2 she entered into a #olitical contract with the electorate2 that2 if elected2 she would assume the office as senator" This is in accord with the constitutional doctrine that a #u$lic office is a #u$lic trust" :n assuming the office of Senator2 she has effectively a$andoned her determination to #ursue this #resent #rotest" Such a$andonment o#erates to render this #rotest moot" Also2 the =ET issued a resolution ordering the #rotestant to inform the =ET within 1) days if after the com#letion of the revision of the $allots from her #ilot areas2 she still wishes to #resent evidence" Since 0S has not informed the Tri$unal of any such intention2 such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so" ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, LOCAL OFFICIALS, AN" MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBL% OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS6 THE 'ART%5LIST S%STEM 22 VETERANS FE"ERATION 'ART% V. COMELEC 42 SCRA 244 (AGUINAL"O)
#arties #artici#ating in the system to o$tain at least FN of the total votes cast for the #arty list system to $e entitled to a #arty'list seat" Congress wanted to ensure that only those #arties having a sufficient num$er of constituents deserving of re#resentation are actually re#resented in Congress" JJ(5TES: determination of total num$er of #arty'list re#resentativesP
# d i s t r i c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . 2 0 . 8 0
# ofvotesoffirstparty # ofvotesofpartylistsystem
# v o t e s o f c o n c e r n e d p a r t y a d d i t i o n a l s e a t s f o r c o n c e r n e d p a r t y # v o t e s o f f i r s t p a r t y
FACTS: +es#ondent #roclaimed 14 #arty'list re#resentatives from 1A #arties which o$tained at least FN of the total num$er of votes cast for the #arty'list system as mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives" 8#on #etition for res#ondents2 who were #arty'list organiOations2 it #roclaimed A; additional #arty'list re#resentatives although they o$tained less than FN of the total num$er of votes cast for the #arty'list system on the ground that under the Constitution2 it is mandatory that at least F)N of the mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives come from the #arty'list re#resentatives" .E/0: :t is not mandatory" :t merely #rovides a ceiling for the #arty'list seats in the .ouse of +e#resentatives" The Constitution vested Congress with the $road #ower to define and #rescri$e the mechanics of the #arty'list system of re#resentatives" :n the e6ercise of its constitutional #rerogative2 Congress deemed it necessary to re uire
FACTS: The 5mni$us +esolution (o" AD;- issued $y the C5%E/EC is challenged insofar as it a##roves the #artici#ation of 1-4 organiOations and #arties in the F))1 #arty'list elections" =etitioners see> the dis ualification of #rivate res#ondents as the #arty'list system was intended to $enefit the marginaliOed and underre#resented and not the mainstream #olitical #arties" The C5%E/EC received several #etitions for registration filed $y sectoral #arties2 etc" for the F))1 elections" The C5%E/EC allege that verifications for the ualifications of these #arties ta>e a long #rocess and as a result the F divisions #romulgated a se#arate 5mni$us +esolution and individual resolution on #olitical #arties only on Fe$ruary 1)2 F))1" Before the Fe$ruary 1F2 F))1 deadline2 the registered #arties and organiOations filed their %anifestations2 stating their intention to #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections" The C5%E/EC a##roved the %anifestations of 1-4 #arties and organiOations $ut denied those of several others" ACA= filed $efore the C5%E/EC a #etition #raying that the names of some res#ondents $e deleted from the Certified /ist of =olitical =artiesG=artici#ating in the =arty /ist System for the %ay 142 F))1 Elections" :t also #rayed that the votes
cast for the said res#ondents $e not counted or canvassed and that the latter&s nominees not $e #roclaimed" Bayan %una and Bayan %una'1outh also filed a similar #etition against some of the res#ondents" :SS8E 1: 45( #olitical #arties may #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections The SC held that under the Constitution and +A D9412 #rivate res#ondents cannot $e dis ualified from the #arty'list elections2 merely on the ground that they are #olitical #arties" Sec" D and ;2 Article :B'C #rovides that #olitical #arties may $e registered under the #artylist system" :n the ConCom deli$erations2 Com" %onsod stated that the #ur#ose of the #arty'list #rovision was to o#en u# the system2 in order to give a chance to #arties that consistently #lace Ard or 4th in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress" Sec" A of +A D941 #rovides that a 3#arty9 is 3either a #olitical #arty or a sectoral #arty or a collation of #arties9" Sec" 11 of the same Act leaves no dou$t as to the #artici#ation of #olitical #arties in the #arty'list system" :ndu$ita$le2 #olitical #arties Q even the ma!or ones'may #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections" :SS8E F: 45( the #arty'list system is e6clusive to marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors and organiOations For #olitical #arties to #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections their re uisite character must $e consistent with the #ur#ose of the #arty'list system in the Constitution and +A D941" The #ur#ose of the #arty'list system is to give 3genuine #ower to our #eo#le9 in Congress" .owever2 the constitutional #rovision is not self'e6ecutory2 hence +A D941 was enacted" =ro#ortional re#resentation does not refer to the num$er of #eo#le in a #articular district2 $ecause the #arty'list election is national in sco#e" :t refers to the re#resentation of the marginaliOed and underre#resented as e6em#lified in Section of the Act" The #arty'list organiOation must factually and truly re#resent the marginaliOed and underre#resented constituencies" The #ersons nominated to the #arty'list system must also $elong to the underre#resented and marginaliOed sectors2 organiOations and #arties" /ac> of well'defined constituency refers to the a$sence of a traditionally identifia$le electoral grou#" :t #oints to those with dis#arate interests defined with the marginaliOed and underre#resented" :n the end2 the C5%E/EC&s role is to see to it that only those Fili#inos who are marginaliOed and underre#resented $ecome mem$ers of Congress under the #arty'list system" (ot all sectors can $e re#resented under the #arty'list system" The law crafted to address the #eculiar disadvantages of
=ayatas hovel dwellers cannot $e a##ro#riated $y the mansion owners of For$es =ar>" 4hile the mega'rich are numerically s#ea>ing2 a minority2 they are neither marginaliOed nor underre#resented" :t is illogical to o#en the system to those who have long $een within it Q those #rivileged sectors that have long dominated the congressional district elections" The SC held that it cannot allow the #arty'list system to $e sullied and #rostituted $y those who are neither marginaliOed nor underre#resented" Mendoza, dissenting: The text of Art. V , !ec. "#$%#&% 'rovides for a 'arty(list syste) of registered, regional and sectoral 'arties or organizations, and not for sectoral re'resentation. t 'rovides for no *asis for 'etitioner+s contention that ,hether it is sectoral re'resentation or 'arty(list syste) the '-r'ose is to 'rovide excl-sive re'resentation for )arginalized sectors. The Record of the .on.o) s'ea/s clearly against the 'etitioner+s assertion. T,o 'ro'osals for additional re'resentation in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives ,ere s-*)itted na)ely, sectoral re'resentation and 'arty(list syste). These t,o are not the sa)e. n the end, the .on.o) chose the 'arty(list syste). n choosing this syste), the .on.o) did not intend to reserve the 'arty(list syste) to the )arginalized or -nderre'resented. n fact, the 'arty(list syste) )andates the o''osite. 0-rther)ore, 1-stice Mendoza holds that the )a2ority )isa''rehended the )eaning of !ection & of RA 3o. 456$. The 'rovision states that the '-r'ose of the 'arty(list syste) is to 'ro)ote 'ro)otional re'resentation in the election of re'resentatives in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives. To this end, a f-ll, free and o'en 'arty syste) is g-aranteed to o*tain the *roadest 'ossi*le re'resentation of a 'arty, sectoral or gro-' interests in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives. 7hile the re'resentation of the )arginalized and -nderre'resented sectors is a *asic '-r'ose of the la,, it is not its only '-r'ose. :SS8E A: 45( the C5%E/EC committed grave a$use of discretion in #romulgating 5mni$us +esolution (o" AD;The SC held that it is #ro#er to remand the case to the C5%E/ECT to determine whether the 1-4 #arties and organiOations allowed to #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections com#ly with the re uirements of the law" :n light of this2 the SC #rovides for guidelines to assist the C5%E/EC in its wor>" ?1@ The #olitical #artyGmust re#resent the marginaliOed and underre#resented grou#s identified in Section - of +A D9412 ?F@ Even if ma!or #olitical #arties are allowed to #artici#ate in the #arty' list system2 they must com#ly with the declared statutory #olicy of ena$ling Fili#ino citiOens $elonging to marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors to $e elected to the
.ouse of +e#resentatives2 ?A@ a #arty or an organiOation must not $e dis ualified under Section , of the Act which enumerates the grounds for dis ualification2 ?4@ the #arty or organiOation must not $e an ad!unct of2 or a #ro!ect organiOed or an entity funded or assisted $y the government2 ?-@ #arty must not com#ly with the re uirements of the law2 ?,@ not only the candidate #arty or organiOation must re#resent marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors2 so also must its nominees2 ?D@ the nominee must li>ewise $e a$le to contri$ute to the formulation and enactment of a##ro#riate legislation that will $enefit the nation as a whole" 24 ANG BAGONG BA%ANI V. COMELEC GR 147!89, JANUAR% 29, 2&&2 (ENRI$UE#)
#articularly interested in the youth and #rofessional sectors" T+5 #artially lifted with regard to A=EC and C:BAC" 2! ANG BAGONG BA%ANI V. COMELEC GR 147!89, A'RIL 1&, 2&&2 (ENRI$UE#7ang bagong bayani ng 2D!)
FACTS: The C5%E/EC issued a T+5 against the #roclamation of A=EC2 C:BAC and A%:( $ecause they failed to meet the ;'#oint guidelines set forth $y this Court" The C5%E/EC found that A=EC was merely an arm of the =hili##ine +ural Electric Coo#erative2 :nc" ?=.:/+ECA@ and that it did not truly re#resent the marginaliOed sectors of society2 C:BAC was re#orted to $e merely an e6tension of the 1es-s s 8ord ?*:/@ religious movement and did not re#resent the interest of the marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors of society and that Ana> %indanao ?A%:(@ was listed as having o$tained only 1",;,-N of the total votes cast for the #arty'list system2 not sufficient to meet the FN re uired no" of votes" :SS8E: 45( A=EC2 C:BAC and A%:( should $e #roclaimed winners aside from those already validly #roclaimed $y the earlier +esolutions of the SC" +8/:(I: A%:( did not get more than two #ercent of the votes cast" A=EC and C:BAC have sufficiently met the ;'#oint guidelines of his Court and have sufficient votes to entitle them to seats in Congress" :ssues are factual in character2 Commission&s findings are ado#ted2 a$sent any #atent ar$itrariness or a$use or negligence in its action" (o su$stantial #roof that C:BAC is merely an arm of *:/2 or that A=EC is an e6tension of =.:/+ECA" The 5SI e6#lained the these are se#arate entities with se#arate mem$ershi#s" Although A=EC&s nominees are all #rofessionals2 its mem$ershi# is com#osed not only of #rofessionals $ut also of #easants2 elderly2 youth and women" A=EC addresses the issues of !o$ creation2 #overty alleviation and lac> of electricity" C:BAC is com#osed of he underre#resented and marginaliOed and is concerned with their welfare" C:BAC is
The C5%E/EC determined that the following #arty'list #artici#ants2 des#ite their having o$tained at least FN of the total votes cast2 have failed to meet the ;'#oint guidelines set forth in our 0ecision: %amamayan Ayaw sa 0roga ?%A0@2 Association of =hili##ine Electric Coo#eratives ?A=EC@2 Heterans Federation =arty ?HF=@2 A$ag =romdi ?=+5%0:@2 (ationalist =eo#le&s Coalition ?(=C@2 /a>as (8C0'8%0=2 and CitiOen&s Battle Against Corru#tion ?C:BAC@" The 5SI2 acting on $ehalf of the Comelec2 in its Consolidated +e#ly dated 5cto$er 1-2 F))1 and in a %anifestation dated 0ecem$er -2 F))12 modified its #osition and recommended that A=EC and C:BAC $e declared as having com#lied with the ;' #oint guidelines ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS 26 OCCE8A V. COMELEC 127 SCRA 4&4 (#U8IGA)
FACTS: Samuel 5ccena filed a #etition for #rohi$ition to declare as unconstitutional the #rovisions in the Barangay Election Act of 19;F ?B= FFF@ which #rohi$ited: o any candidate in the 19;F $arangay election from re#resenting himself as a mem$er of a #olitical #artyK o the intervention of #olitical #arties in a candidateRs nomination and filing of his certificate of candidacyK and o the giving of aid or su##ort of #olitical #arties for or against a candidateRs cam#aign 5ccena #rayed that the 19;F elections $e declared null and void2 and new $arangay elections held without the $an on the involvement of #olitical #arties
:n 19;F the court considered the Comments of the Solicitor Ieneral as an Answer (ote that the decision in the case was delayed $ecause all the *ustices resigned on %ay 19;F ?JSC trivia: over allegations that the $ar e6am results of *ustice ErictaRs son were changed in his favor ' there was #re' decoding of his grades $efore official decoding and #u$lication@
through mediation or ar$itration" The case of :m$ong v" C5%E/EC also involved the restriction as that #rescri$ed in Sec" 4 of B= FFF" :n u#holding the constitutionality of what was then Sec" ;?a@ of +e#u$lic Act (o" ,1AF2 the court said that L4hile it may $e true that a #artyRs su##ort of a candidate is not wrong #er se2 it is e ually true that Congress in the e6ercise of its $road law'ma>ing authority can declare certain acts as mala #rohi$ita when !ustified $y the e6igencies of the times"L The #rimary #ur#ose of the #rohi$ition was to avoid the denial of the e ual #rotection of the laws" The s#onsors of the #rovision em#hasiOed that under this #rovision2 the #oor candidate has an even chance as against the rich candidate" E uality of chances may $e $etter attained $y $anning all organiOation su##ort" The $an was to assure e ual chances to a candidate with talent and im$ued with #atriotism as well as no$ility of #ur#ose2 so that the country can utiliOe their services if elected" 0ernando9s .onc-rring :'inion: Test of the #ermissi$le limitation on freedom of association: .ow should the limitation Rfor #ur#oses not contrary to lawR $e inter#retedM :t is su$mitted that it is another way of e6#ressing the clear and #resent danger rule for unless an association or society could $e shown to create an imminent danger to #u$lic safety2 there is no !ustification for a$ridging the right to form associations or societies"L Teehan/ee9s ;issenting :'inion: The restriction denies Lnon'#oliticalL candidates the very freedoms of effectively a##ealing to the electorate through the #u$lic media and of $eing su##orted $y organiOed grou#s that would give them at least a fighting chance to win against candidates of the #olitical >ing#ins" The #olitical $igwigs are meanwhile left to give their LindividualL $lessings to their favored candidates2 which in actuality is ta>en $y all as the #artyRs $lessings" 27 KAN"UM V. COMELEC GR 1 6969, JANUAR% 18, 2&&& (CHOTRANI)
.E/0: The $an on the intervention of #olitical #arties in the election of $arangay officials is (5T violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associations and societies for #ur#oses not contrary to law" 8nder the Barangay Election Act of 19;F2 the right to organiOe is intact" =olitical #arties may freely $e formed although there is a restriction on their activities2 i"e"2 their intervention in the election of $arangay officials on %ay 1D2 19;F is #rescri$ed" But the $an is narrow2 not total" :t o#erates only on concerted or grou# action of #olitical #arties" The $an against the #artici#ation of #olitical #arties in the $arangay election is an a##ro#riate legislative res#onse to the unwholesome effects of #artisan $ias in the im#artial discharge of the duties im#osed on the $arangay and its officials as the $asic unit of our #olitical and social structure" :t would definitely enhance the o$!ective and im#artial discharge of their duties for $arangay officials to $e shielded form #olitical #arty loyalty" Some reasons for the restriction: ' Lthe $arangay is the $asic unit not only of our social structure $ut also of our #olitical structure" :t would $e a more #rudent #olicy to insulate the $arangays from the influence of #artisan #olitics" The $arangays2 although it is true they are already considered regular units of our government2 are non'#artisanK they constitute the $ase of the #yramid of our social and #olitical structure2 and in order that $ase will not $e su$!ect to insta$ility $ecause of the influence of #olitical forces2 it is $etter that we elect the officials thereof through a non'#artisan system"L ?0eli$erations on =arliamentary Bill F1F- which later $ecame B= Blg" FFF@ ' The Barangay Ca#tain and the Barangay Council2 a#art from their legislative and consultative #owers2 also act as an agency for neutral community action such as the distri$ution of $asic foodstuff and as an instrument in conducting #le$iscites and referenda" ' The Barangay Ca#tain2 together with the mem$ers of the /u#on Taga#aya#a a##ointed $y him2 e6ercises administrative su#ervision over the $arangay conciliation #anels in the latterRs wor> of settling local dis#utes" The Barangay Ca#tain himself settles or hel#s settle local controversies within the $arangay either
FACTS: =etitioner Amilham!a Sandum and res#ondent .ad!i Ia#ur Ballaho were candidates for =unong Barangay in Barangay /oo> Bisaya2 Ti#o'Ti#o2 Basilan in the 199D $arangay elections" =etitioner garnered ,1 votes over res#ondentRs -9 votes" 4hen #etitioner was #roclaimed the winner $y the BBC2 res#ondent filed an election #rotest in the %CTC and secured a favora$le decision"
=etitioner a##ealed the decision to the +TC" But when the +TC dismissed the a##eal for lac> of !urisdiction2 #etitioner filed a notice of a##eal to the C5%E/EC through the %CTC " The C5%E/EC issued a resolution dismissing the a##eal for having $een filed out of time" ?A##eal was filed AD days after #etitioner received co#y of the decision of the %CTC@ .E/0: +TC doesnRt have !urisdiction over election #rotests involving $arangay officials decided $y trial courts of limited !urisdiction" E6clusive a##ellate !urisdiction over all contests involving elective $arangay officials decided $y courts of limited !urisdiction ?the %etro#olitan Trial Courts2 %unici#al Trial Courts and %unici#al Circuit Trial Courts@ lies with the C5%E/EC2 not the +TC" 8nder #aragra#h ?F@2 Section F2 su$division C2 Article :B of the Constitution2 Sec" F" The Commission on Elections shall e6ercise the following #owers and functions: 666 ?F@ E6ercise e6clusive " " " a##ellate !urisdiction over all contests involving elective munici#al officials decided $y trial courts of general !urisdiction2 or involving elective $arangay officials decided $y trial courts of limited !urisdiction" 28 BUHISAN V. COMELEC GR 127 28, JANUAR% &, 2&&1 ('E8AFLORI"A)
the duly elected SS Chairman" %CTC nullified BuhisanRs #roclamation and declared Ioros#e as the SS Chairman" Buhisan a##ealed with the C5%E/EC" Electoral Contests Ad!udication 0e#artment of C5%E/EC returned the a##eal" A motion for reconsideration was filed" Also2 Buhisan re'filed with the C5%E/EC her a##ellantRs $rief insisting that #u$lic res#ondent ta>e cogniOance of her a##eal" C5%E/EC dismissed the a##eal and informed Buhisan that the %CTC decision in the election #rotest may only $e elevated to the Commission en $anc via a #etition for review and not $y ordinary a##eal" .E/0: The C5%E/EC didnRt commit any grave a$use of discretion with dismissing the a##eal due a mere technicality" Section 49 of C5%E/EC +esolution (o" F;F4 dated Fe$ruary ,2 199,2 governing the conduct of Sangguniang Sa$ataan elections #rovides: Sec"49" Finality of =roclamation"'The #roclamation of the winning candidate shall $e final" .owever2 the %etro#olitan Trial CourtsC%unici#al Trial CourtsC%unici#al Circuit Trial Courts shall have original !urisdiction over all election #rotest cases2 whose decision shall $e final" The Commission en $anc in meritorious cases may entertain a #etition for review of the decision of the %eTCC%TCC%CTC in accordance with the C5%E/EC +ules of =rocedure" An a##eal $ond of =F2)))")) shall $e re uired2 which shall $e refunda$le if the a##eal is found meritorious" Also2 the C5%E/EC may entertain such #etitions only on meritorious gronds" By #rescri$ing a s#ecific mode to $e ado#ted in assailing the %CTCRs decision2 C5%E/EC is afforted o##ortunity to e6amine the allegations on the face !of the #etition if there is a #rima facie showing that the %CTC committed an error of fact or law or gravely a$used its discretion to warrant reversal or modification of the decision" :n other words2 this manner of a##eal is discretionary on the #art of the election tri$unal" :t is essential that a #rior determination $e made regarding the e6istence of meritorious reasons for the #etition" 8nli>e in ordinary a##eals2 acce#tance of the #etition is not a matter of course" .ere an a##eal is o$viously not the #ro#er remedy allowed $y the C5%E/EC +ules Accordingly2 #u$lic res#ondent cannot $e faulted for grave a$use of discretion in dismissing #etitioner&s a##eal 29 MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC 82 SCRA 2
FACTS: =etitioner *ane Buhisan and #rivate res#ondent Iordon Ioros#e were candidates for the #osition of Sangguniang Sa$ataan ?SS@ Chairman of Barangay =o$lacion2 San *uan2 Si ui!or during the %ay ,2 199, elections" Buhisan garnered A- votes against Ioros#eRs A4 votes" Buhisan was #roclaimed $y the Board of Election Tellers as the duly elected SS Chairman" 5n %ay 1A Ioros#e filed $efore the %CTC of /aOi2 Si ui!or an election #rotest which see>s the annulment of the #roclamation of Buhisan and to declare the former
(VAL"E#) FACTS: %5(TESC/A+5S ?#etitioners@2 all F) y"o" claims $eing in danger of dis ualification to vote and $e voted for in the SS elections should it $e #ost#oned from original date ?%A1 )F@ to (5H )F += =res" Signed the $ill into law #ost#oning the elections 0uring #endency of #etition Congress enacted +A 91,4' synchroniOation of $rgy" and SS elections on *8/ )FK #rovides that voters and candidates for SS elections must $e at least 1- $ut less than 1; on the day of election .E/0: The su$!ect law doesnRt disfranchise the #etitioners" :t also doesnRt de#rive them of any #ro#erty right" SS: youth organiOation originally esta$lished $y =0 ,;4 as SABATAA(I BA+A(IA1 ?SB@Ecom#osed of all $rgy" residents less than 1; y"o" o /IC renamed SB to SS and limited mem$ershi# to youths at least 1- $ut not more than F1 yo o SS tas>ed to enhance social2 #olitical2 economic2 cultural2G dev&t" of youth (o vested right to the #ermanence of age re uirement under /ICK every law #assed is always su$!ect of amendment or re#eal o Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or re#ealing lawK #ower to ma>e laws includes #ower to change lawsK Court cannot direct C5%E/EC to allow over'aged voters to vote or $e voted in an election limited under +A 91,4 o Congress has #ower to #rescri$e ualifications =ET:T:5(E+S: no #ersonal and su$stantial interest in the SS electionsE see>ing to enforce right which has $een already limited with the #assage of +A 91,4Eceased to $e mem$ers of SS and no longer ualified to #artici#ate o 5nly those who ualify can contest2 $ased on a statutory authority2 any act dis ualifying themEmem$ershi# in the SS is mere statutory right conferred $y law
(o one has vested right to any #u$lic office2 much less vested right to an e6#ectancy of holding #u$lic office MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC GR 1!229!, AUGUST 1 , 2&&2
ELIGIBILIT% OF CAN"I"ATES AN" CERTIFICATE OF CAN"I"AC% 1 RECABO V. COMELEC &8 SCRA 79 (1999) (FLORES)
FACTS: This is a #etition for Certiorari see>ing to annul the Comelec&s resolution cancelling Saiser +eca$o&s certificate of candidacy for Hice'%ayor in Surigao 0el (orte Saiser +eca$o claimed to $e /ASAS (8C0'8%0=&s official candidate to the aforementioned #osition2 su$stituting his mother Candelaria +eca$o Saiser +eca$o&s certificate of candidacy was only signed $y Iovernor %atugas2 and not !ointly with +o$ert Bar$ers ?s#ace left $lan>@ as intended $y the certificate of nomination 5n the other hand +es#ondent +eyes& certificate of nomination for Hice' mayor was signed $y no other than Fidel H" +amos ?(ational Chairman /ASAS@ and *ose 0e Henecia ?Secretary Ieneral /ASAS@ .E/0: The certificate of candidacy of #etitioner and that of his mother who he su$stituted as candidate for Hice %ayor 0:0 (5T su$stantially com#lied with the re uirements of $eing official candidates of the /ASAS #arty" To allow +eca$o to run would #ut the election #rocess in moc>ery for we would in effect $e allowing an anomalous situation where a single #olitical #arty may field in multi#le candidate for a singe election #osition /a>as designated F #arty officers to issue certificates of nomination2
10
#etitoner&s nomination was signed only $y one2 while res#ondents signed $y +amos and *0H Comelec declared #etitioner&s mother as and inde#endent candidate on account of the invalidity of her nomination2 thus there can $e no valid su$stitution $y #etitioner for an invalid nomination Besides2 #etitioner filed his candidacy out of time for an inde#endent candidate ?although wCn #rescri#tive #eriod of a su$stituted candidate2 useless $ecause already ad!udged as an invalid nomination and su$stitution@ 4ell'settled certificate filed $eyond deadline not valid But +eyes& motion to $e declared winner2 garnering the second highest num$er of votes to +eca$o can not $e granted2 wound $e tantamount to su$stitution of !udgment for the mind of the voter BAUTISTA V. COMELEC 414 SCRA 299 (A$UINO, T.)
.agedorn claiming that he is dis ualified from running for a 4th termK #etition was dismissed .E/0: .agedorn is ualified to run in the recall election Art" B Sec" ; of 19;D Constitution: the term of office of elective local officials2 e6ce#t $arangay officials2 which shall $e determined $y law2 shall $e A years and no such official shall serve for more than A consecutive terms" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected" Sec" 4A ?$@ +A D1,): Term of office Q no local official shall serve for more than A consecutive terms in the same #osition" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was elected These constitutional and statutory #rovisions have F #arts The first #art #rovides that an elective local official cannot serve ore than A consecutive terms The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the A' term limit rule The second #art states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does not interru#t the continuity of service The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time interru#ts continuity of service and #revents the service $efore and after the interru#tion from $eing !oined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms After A consecutive terms2 an elective local official cannot see> immediate reelection for a fourth term The #rohi$ited election refers to the ne6t regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term Any su$se uent election2 li>e a recall election2 is no longer covered $y the #rohi$ition for two reasons First2 a su$se uent election li>e a recall election is no longer an immediate
AF
FACTS: .E/0: "IS$UALIFICATIONS SOCRATES V. COMELEC 91 SCRA 4!7 (NE'OMUCENO) FACTS: =etitioner is mayor of =uerto =rincesa2 who was removed from office thru a recall #roceeding initiated $y the ma!ority of the incum$ent $arangay officials of the city =etitioner filed a motion to nullify the recall resolution $ut was dismissed $y the Comelec for lac> of merit Comelec set date for conducting the recall electionK former A term mayor Edward .agedorn files his certificate of candidacy =etitioner Adovo and Iilo files #etition $efore Comelec to dis ualify
11
reelection after three consecutive terms Second2 the intervening #eriod constitutes an involuntary interru#tion in the continuity of service Clearly2 the constitution #rohi$its immediate reelection for a fourth term following three consecutive terms The constitution2 however2 does not #rohi$it a su$se uent reelection for a fourth term as long as the reelection is not immediately after the end of the third consecutive term A recall election midway in the term following the third consecutive term is a su$se uent election $ut not an immediate reelection after the third term (either does the constitution #rohi$it one $arred from see>ing immediate reelection to run in any other su$se uent election involving the same term of office 4hat the constitution #rohi$its is a consecutive fourth term The #rohi$ited election referred to $y the framers of the constitution is the immediate reelection after the third term2 not any other su$se uent election The framers e6#ressly ac>nowledged that the #rohi$ited election refers only to the immediate reelection2 and not to any su$se uent election2 during the , year #eriod following the two term limit The framers of the constitution did not intend 3the #eriod of rest9 of an elective official who has reached his term limit to $e the full e6tent of the succeeding term A"ORMEO V. COMELEC 76 SCRA 9& (HOSAKA)
the ground that the latter was elected and had served as city mayor for A consecutive terms as follows: 1@ election of %ay 199F where he served the full termK F@ election of %ay 199-2 again he served a full termK and A@ in the recall election of %ay 1F2 F))) where he served only the une6#ired term of Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in the 199; election" Adormeo contended that Talaga&s candidacy as %ayor was a violation of Sec ; Art B of the Constitution''' Sec" ;" The term of office of elective local officials2 e6ce#t $arangay officials2 which shall $e determined $y law2 shall $e A years and no such official shall serve for more than A consecutive terms" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected" Talaga claims that he only served for F consecutive terms and that his service from %ay F))) was not a full term $ecause he only served Tagarao&s une6#ired term $y virtue of the recall election" .e cites the case of /onOanida giving F conditions for the dis ualification 1@ that the official has $een elected for A consecutive terms in the same local govt #ostK and F@ that he has fully served A consecutive terms" Comelec division ruled in favor of Adormeo" Comelec en $anc reversed2 hence this #etition" .E/0: Talaga is ualified to run for mayor" Talaga was not elected for A consecutive terms having lost his Ard $id in the %ay 112 199; elections2 said defeat is an interru#tion in the continuity of his service as city mayor of /ucena" The term limit for elective local officials must $e ta>en to refer to the right to $e elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective #osition" Talaga was not elected for A consecutive terms and for nearly F years he was a #rivate citiOen" The continuity of his mayorshi# was disru#ted $y his defeat in the 199; elections" :t was only $y virtue of the recall that he served Tagarao&s une6#ired term" This did not amount to a third full term" Fr" Bernas& comment that 3if one is elected re#resentative to serve the une6#ired term of another2 that une6#ired term2 no matter how short2 will $e considered one
FACTS: =et +aymundo Adormeo and #rivate res# +amon Talaga were the only candidates who filed the certificates of candidacy for mayor of /ucena City in the %ay 142 F))1 elections" Talaga was then the incum$ent mayor" Adormeo filed a with the =rovincial Election Su#ervisor a =etition To 0eny 0ue Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and or 0is ualification of Talaga on
12
term for the #ur#ose of com#uting the num$er of successive terms allowed9 only #ertains to the mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives and not to local govt officials" (either can Talaga&s victory in the recall election $e deemed as 3voluntary renunciation9 under the Constitution" ! "IANGKA V. COMELEC 2 SCRA 887 (RE%ES)
her hus$ands acts and hence guilty also" F" C5%E/EC determined that it was actually 0iang>a&s hus$and who caused the commotion which #revented the voters from voting" 4hile it was not actually 0iang>a who committed the acts2 she did not #rove that her running was not a mere alter ego of her hus$and who is in his A term as mayor" This together with her #resence in the am$ulance ma>es her guilty of the acts of terrorism in violation of the 5mni$us Election Code" (ote: Irounds for 0is ualification ?Section ,; of 5mni$us Election Code@: a@ Iiving money or other material consideration to influence2 induce or corru#t the voters or #u$lic officials #erforming electoral functionsK $@ Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacyK c@ S#ent in his election cam#aign an amount in e6cess of that allowed d@ Solicited2 received or made any contri$ution which are #rohi$ited 6 SOON5RUI# V. COMELEC GR 144 2 , SE'TEMBER !, 2&&& (TAN, E.)
FACTS: =etitioner %aimona 0iang>a filed a #etition for certiorari uestioning the decision of C5%E/EC in dis ualifying her as candidate for %ayor of Ianassi2 /anao del Sur" =etitioner was the wife of the incum$ent %ayor" Ali Balindong2 the other mayoralty candidate2 filed a s#ecial action for dis ualification against 0iang>a and her hus$and alleging that they committed F acts of terrorism: J First2 that they loaded the $allot $o6es into an am$ulance then su$se uently2 through force and threats2 made the watchers of Balindong go down from the vehicle" J Second2 that 0iang>a&s hus$and went to the voting areas and caused a commotion that #revented voters from voting" :n the results of the elections2 0iang>a emerged the winner" C5%E/EC ordered the $oard of canvassers to cease and desist from declaring 0iang>a as mayor2 $ut that order came in late and still 0iang>a was declared mayor" :n the hearing for the dis ualification2 only Balindong and lawyer a##eared2 hence C5%E/EC dis ualified 0iang>a" 0iang>a now assails the decision via certiorari2 meanwhile vice'mayor elect %aca#odi assumed the mayor #osition" .E/0: 0iang>a can $e held lia$le for the two acts of terrorism of her hus$and thus2 she could $e dis ualified $y the C5%E/EC" 1" C5%E/EC determined that 0iang>a was at the front seat $eside the driver in the am$ulance when the watchers of Balindong were made to go down via threats" .er e6cuse that she did not >now nor was she in collusion with her hus$and can not hold water" First2 she admitted that she re uested that the driver2 after they threatened the watchers2 dro# her off at the school" Such shows she had control over the driver" Second2 her mere #resence in the am$ulance shows that she ac uiesced to
FACTS: =etitioner ?S5//E+@ and res#ondent ?SA8/5(I@ were $oth candidates for mayor of Bansud2 5riental %indoro" %unici#al $oard of canvassers #roclaimed S5//E+ duly elected mayor" SA8/5(I filed two actions: a" $" C5%E/EC: 3#etition for annulment of the #roclamationCe6clusion of election return9 +TC: election #rotest against SA8/5(I
S5//E+ filed motion to dismissEC5%E/EC granted2 +TC denied The denial $y +TC of S5//E+&s motion to dismiss was uestioned via #etition for certiorari with C5%E/EC" This certiorari was dismissed $y the C5%E/EC en $anc" .E/0: 1" 4C( C5%E/EC gravely a$used its discretion amounting to lac> of !urisdiction
13
in not ordering the dismissal of SA8/5(I&s election #rotest" 1ES" The decision of the C5%E/EC en $anc is null and void" The authority to resolve #etition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election #rotest falls within the division of the C5%E/EC and not on the C5%E/EC en $anc" The C5%E/EC en $anc does not have the re uisite authority to hear and decide election cases including #re'#roclamation controversies in the first instance" Any decision $y it in the first instance is null and void" :f the #rinci#al case2 once decided on the merits2 is cogniOa$le on a##eal $y a division of the C5%E/EC2 then2 there is no reason why #etitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election #rotest should not $e referred first to a division of the C5%E/EC for resolution" F" 4C( +TC committed grave a$use of discretion in failing to dismiss res#ondent&s election #rotest" 1es" Close scrutiny of the recei#ts show that res#ondent failed to #ay the filing fee of =A))" Thus2 the trial court did not ac uire !urisdiction over res#ondent&s election #rotest" C5%E/EC erred in not ordering the dismissal of res#ondent&s #rotest case" Errors in the #ayment of filing fees in election cases is no longer e6cusa$le" The #rotest should have also $een dismissed for lac> of #ro#er verification ?tantamount to filing an unsigned #leading@2 and for failure to com#ly with the re uired certification against forum sho##ing" This re uirement is mandatory2 and cannot $e e6cused $y the fact that a #arty has not actually resorted to forum sho##ing" Iood faith is not an e6cuse" %oreover2 res#ondent&s #etition was a #re'#roclamation case2 which may no longer $e entertained $y the C5%E/EC after the winning candidates have $een #roclaimed" By resorting to the wrong remedy2 res#ondent may $e claimed to have a$andoned the #re'#roclamation case that he filed" =ET:T:5( I+A(TE0" 7 'A'AN"A%AN, JR. V. COMELEC 81 SCRA 1 (BAUTISTA)
dis ualified $ased on affidavits su$mitted $y res#ondent as evidenceK ordered #etitioner&s name to $e stric>en off the list of candidates and all votes cast in his favor not to $e counted $ut considered as stray votes" 5n election day2 #etitioner was voted $y the electorate as munici#al mayor" The following day2 he received a telegram from the C5%E/EC notifying him that the C5%E/EC en $anc denied his %+" =etitioner filed a #etition with the C5%E/EC 1st 0ivision see>ing the issuance of an order directing the Board of Election :ns#ectors to count and tally the $allots cast in his favor during the elections #ursuant to C5%E/EC +esolution 411," +esolution #rovides that if the dis ualification case has not $ecome final and e6ecutory on the day of the election2 BE: shall tally and count the votes of the candidate declared dis ualified" +es#ondent filed #re'#roclamation caseK C5%E/EC issued an order sus#ending the #roclamation of #etitioner $ut des#ite said order2 %unici#al Board of Canvassers still #roclaimed #etitioner as winner" 8#on motion of res#ondent2 C5%E/EC 1st 0ivision set aside #etitioner&s #roclamationK C5%E/EC en $anc sustained annulment of #roclamation of #etitioner
.E/0: =etitioner shouldnRt $e dis ualified" T At the time the elections were held in %ay 142 F))12 the assailed resolution2 had not $ecome final and e6ecutory" .ence2 the Board of Election :ns#ectors ?BE:@ was duty $ound to tally and count the votes cast in favor of #etitioner" T C5%E/EC +esolution 411, #ertains to the finality of decisions or resolutions of the Commission en $anc or division2 #articularly on S#ecial Actions ?0is ualification cases@ T Sec" 1A2 #aragra#hs ?$@ and ?c@ of said resolution #rovide: ?$@ :n S#ecial Actions and S#ecial cases2 a decision or resolution of the Commission en $anc shall $ecome final and e6ecutory after five ?-@ days from its #romulgation unless restrained $y the Su#reme Court" ?c@ 8nless a motion for reconsideration is seasona$ly filed2 a decision or resolution of a
FACTS: =etitioner =a#andayan and res#ondent Balt were contending candidates for mayor of Tu$aran2 /anao del Sur in the %ay 142 F))1 elections" C5%E/EC Fnd 0ivision issued a resolution declaring #etitioner to $e
14
0ivision shall $ecome final and e6ecutory after the la#se of five ?-@ days in S#ecial Actions and S#ecial cases and after fifteen ?1-@ days in all other actions or #roceedings2 following its #romulgation"9 T C5%E/EC +esolution 411, further #rovides that: A" where the ground for the dis ualification case is $y reason of non'residence2 citiOenshi#2 violation of election laws and other analogous cases and on the day of the election the resolution has not $ecome final and e6ecutory2 the BE: shall tally and count the votes of such dis ualified candidate" T +es#ondent2 therefore2 is in error in assuming that the issuance of a tem#orary restraining order $y this Court within five ?-@ days after the date of the #romulgation of the assailed resolution is the o#erative act that #revents it from attaining finality" T 4ith due regard for the e6#ertise of the C5%E/EC2 we find the evidence to $e insufficient to sustain its resolution" =etitioner has duly #roven that2 although he was formerly a resident of the %unici#ality of Bayang2 he later transferred residence to Tangcal in the %unici#ality of Tu$aran as shown $y his actual and #hysical #resence therein for 1) years #rior to the %ay 142 F))1 elections" T The #rinci#le of animus revertendi has $een used to determine whether a candidate has an 3intention to return9 to the #lace where he see>s to $e elected" Corollary to this is a determination whether there has $een an 3a$andonment9 of his former residence which signifies an intention to de#art therefrom" T Caasi v" Court of A##eals: res#ondent&s immigration to the 8nited States in 19;4 constituted an a$andonment of his domicile and residence in the =hili##ines" Being a green card holder was #roof that he was a #ermanent resident or immigrant of the 8nited States" T Co v" Electoral Tri$unal of the .ouse of +e#resentatives: this Court2 citing Fay#on v" <uirino2 a##lied the conce#t of animus revertendi or 3intent to return29 The fact that res#ondent made #eriodical !ourneys to his home #rovince in /aoang revealed that he always had animus revertendi" T +omualdeO v" +TC2 Br" D2 Taclo$an City: The term 3residence29 as used in the election law2 im#orts not only an intention to reside in a fi6ed #lace $ut also #ersonal #resence in that #lace2 cou#led with conduct indicative of such intention" 30omicile9 denotes a fi6ed #ermanent residence to
which when a$sent for $usiness or #leasure2 or for li>e reasons2 one intends to return" T The Court e6#lained that in order to ac uire a new domicile $y choice2 there must concur ?1@ residence or $odily #resence in the new locality2 ?F@ an intention to remain there2 and ?A@ an intention to a$andon the old domicile" There must $e animus manendi cou#led with animus non revertendi" The #ur#ose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must $e for an indefinite #eriod of timeK the change of residence must $e voluntaryK and the residence at the #lace chosen for the new domicile must $e actual" T The record shows that when #etitioner and his wife +aida Iuina 0ima#oro got married in 199)2 they resided in Tangcal2 Tu$aran" From then on2 there was manifest intention on the #art of #etitioner to reside in Tu$aran2 which he deemed to $e the #lace of his con!ugal a$ode with his wife" The fact that he and his wife transferred residence from Bayang to Tu$aran shows that #etitioner was relin uishing his former #lace of residence in Bayang and that he intended Tu$aran to $e his #lace of domicile" Although #etitioner wor>ed as a #rivate secretary of the mayor of Bayang2 he went home to Tu$aran everyday after wor>" This is #roof of animus manendi" T :t is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the Constitution&s residency ualification re uirement" T 4hen the evidence of the alleged lac> of residence ualification of a candidate for an elective #osition is wea> or inconclusive and it clearly a##ears that the #ur#ose of the law would not $e thwarted $y u#holding the victor&s right to the office2 the will of the electorate should $e res#ected" MAGNO V. COMELEC 9& SCRA 49! (GO)
FACTS: =etitioner (estor %agno ran for %A15+ of San :sidro2 (ueva Eci!a in F))1"
15
=rivate +es#ondent filed a #etition for dis ualification of %agno $ecause he was convicted $y the Sandigan$ayan of 4 counts of 0irect Bri$ery and sentenced" %agno a##lied for #ro$ation and was discharged on %arch of 199;" C5%E/EC dis ualified #etitioner $ased on a #rovision of B= ;;1 ?5mni$us Election Code@ dis ualifying a candidate convicted of a crime involving moral tur#itude until after the la#se of - years from the service of sentence" %agno claims Sec 4) ?a@ +AD1,) ?/ocal Iovernment Code@ should a##ly instead of B= ;;1: A #erson convicted of a crime involving moral tur#itude may run after the la#se of F years after the service of sentence" Sonia :sidro was declared %ayor while the case was #ending"
.E/0: First2 0irect $ri$ery is a crime involving moral tur#itude" (ot every criminal act involves moral tur#itude" Blac>&s /aw 0ictionary defines it as 7an act of $aseness2 vileness or de#ravity in the #rivate duties which a man owes his fellow men or society in generalG& 0irect $ri$ery contem#lates ta>ing advantage of his #osition and is a $etrayal of the trust re#osed to him $y the #u$lic" Second2 he is not ualified" +A D1,) should a##ly" First2 +A D1,) is the more recent law" :t im#liedly re#eals B= ;;1 should there $e any inconsistencies" Second2 +A D1,) is a s#ecial law a##lying s#ecifically to local government units" B= ;;1 a##lies for the election of any #u$lic office" S#ecial law #revails" Since he was discharged on %arch 199;2 %agno&s dis ualification ceased on %arch F)))" JCourt declared that it could not rule on %agno&s #rayer for his #roclamation as winner of the mayoralty race2 it $eing outside its !urisdiction" 9 CO"ILLA, SR. V. "E VENECIA 9 SCRA 6 9 (AGUINAL"O)
who was then a mayor2 violated Section ,; of the 5mni$us Election Code $y distri$uting gravel and sand to voters to induce them to vote for him" The C5%E/EC delegated the hearing to the +egional 0irector" 5n election day2 no hearing has $een done yet" =etitioner won" +es#ondent intervened in the dis ualification case and #rayed for the sus#ension of the #roclamation of #etitioner" =etitioner was not furnished a co#y of the motion" C5%E/EC sus#ended the #roclamation $ecause of the seriousness of the allegations against #etitioner" =etitioner has not $een served any summons" =etitioner filed his answer" .e alleged that the re#air of the roads was underta>en without his authority" After a hearing on the motion to sus#end the #roclamation of #etitioner2 the C5%E/EC issued a resolution dis ualifying #etitioner and declaring the immediate #roclamation of the candidate who received the highest num$er of votes" The votes of #etitioner were declared stray" +es#ondent was #roclaimed elected and she assumed office" =etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration" The C5%E/EC en $anc nullified the #roclamation of res#ondent and ordered the #roclamation of #etitioner" +es#ondent didn&t a##eal from the decision" She argued that since she assumed office2 the C5%E/EC doesn&t have !urisdiction to annul her #roclamation" .E/0: =etitioner was not notified of the #etition for his dis ualification through the service of summons nor of the %otions to sus#end his #roclamation" The records of the case do not show that summons was served on the #etitioner" They do not contain a co#y of the summons allegedly served on the #etitioner and its corres#onding #roof of service" Furthermore2 #rivate res#ondent never re$utted #etitionerRs re#eated assertion that he was not #ro#erly notified of the #etition for his dis ualification $ecause he never received summons"D1 =etitioner claims that #rior to receiving a telegra#hed 5rder from the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision on %ay FF2 F))12 directing the 0istrict Board of Canvassers to sus#end his #roclamation2 he was never summoned nor furnished a co#y of the #etition for his dis ualification" .e was a$le to o$tain a co#y of the #etition and the %ay FF 5rder of the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision $y #ersonally going to the C5%E/EC +egional 5ffice on %ay FA2 F))1" Thus2 he was a$le to file his Answer to the dis ualification case only on %ay F42 F))1" %ore2 the #roclamation of the #etitioner was sus#ended in gross violation of section DF of the 5mni$us Election Code which #rovides: LSec" DF" Effects of dis ualification cases and #riority"' The Commission and the courts shall give #riority to cases of dis ualification $y reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall $e rendered not later than seven days $efore
FACTS: =etitioner and res#ondent were o##osing candidates for re#resentative" A voter filed with the C5%E/EC a #etition to dis ualify #etitioner on the ground that #etitioner2
16
the election in which the dis ualification is sought" Any candidate who has $een declared $y final !udgment to $e dis ualified shall not $e voted for2 and the votes cast for him shall not $e counted" (evertheless2 if for any reason2 a candidate is not declared $y final !udgment $efore an election to $e dis ualified and he is voted for and receives the winning num$er of votes in such election2 his violation of the #rovisions of the #receding sections shall not #revent his #roclamation and assum#tion to office"L ?em#hases su##lied@ :n the instant case2 #etitioner has not $een dis ualified $y final !udgment when the elections were conducted on %ay 142 F))1" The +egional Election 0irector has yet to conduct hearing on the #etition for his dis ualification" After the elections2 #etitioner was voted in office $y a wide margin of 1D29)A" 5n %ay 1,2 F))12 however2 res#ondent /ocsin filed a %ost 8rgent %otion for the sus#ension of #etitionerRs #roclamation" The %ost 8rgent %otion contained a statement to the effect that a co#y was served to the #etitioner through registered mail" The records reveal that no registry recei#t was attached to #rove such service"DF This violates C5%E/EC +ules of =rocedure re uiring notice and service of the motion to all #arties" +es#ondentRs %ost 8rgent %otion does not fall under the e6ce#tions to notice and service of motions" First2 the sus#ension of #roclamation of a winning candidate is not a matter which the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision can dis#ose of motu #ro#rio" Second2 the right of an adverse #arty2 in this case2 the #etitioner2 is clearly affected" Iiven the lac> of service of the %ost 8rgent %otion to the #etitioner2 said %otion is a mere scra# of #a#er" 8nder section , of +"A" (o" ,,4,2 the C5%E/EC can sus#end #roclamation only when evidence of the winning candidateRs guilt is strong" :n the case at $ar2 the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision did not ma>e any s#ecific finding that evidence of #etitionerRs guilt is strong" :ts only $asis in sus#ending the #roclamation of the #etitioner is the Lseriousness of the allegationsL in the #etition for dis ualification" A$sent any finding of evidence that the guilt is strong2 then clearly2 there was grave a$use of discretion on the #art of C5%E/EC" REGISTRATION OF VOTERS6 'RECINCTS AN" 'OLLING 'LACES6 BOAR" OF ELECTION INS'ECTORS6 9ATCHERS6 OFFICIAL BALLOTS AN" ELECTION RETURNS6 CASTING AN" COUNTING OF VOTES 4& BAUTISTA V. COMELEC
298 SCRA 48& (SINGSON) FACTS: =etitioner Ci#riano 3Efren9 Bautista and #rivate res#ondent were duly registered candidates for the #osition of %ayor of (avotas in the 199; Elections" Aside from them2 a certain Edwin 3Efren9 Bautista ?Edwin Bautista@ also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same #osition" =etitioner filed a #etition #raying that Edwin Bautista $e declared a nuisance candidate" C5%E/EC declared Edwin Bautista as nuisance candidate and conse uently ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for the #osition of %ayor" %+ was filed $y Edwin BautistaK su$se uently denied" Before final determination of Edwin Bautista&s %+2 u#on re uest of #etitioner&s counsel2 the +egional Election 0irector of (C+ gave instructions to the BE: to tally se#arately either in some #ortion of the same election return not intended for votes for mayoralty candidates or in a se#arate #a#er the votes 3Efren Bautista92 3Efren92 3E" Bautista9 and 3Bautista92 considered as stray votes" 4hen the canvass of the election returns was commenced2 the %unici#al Board of Canvassers of (avotas refused to canvass as #art of the valid votes of #etitioner the se#arate tallies of votes on which were written 3Efren Bautista92 3Efren92 3E" Bautista9 and 3Bautista9" =etitioner filed with C5%E/EC a =etition to 0eclare :llegal the =roceedings of the %unici#al Board of CanvassersK dismissed for lac> of merit" .E/0: There was grave a$use of discretion in denying the inclusion as #art of #etitioner&s valid votes the Bautista stray votes that were se#arately tallied $y the BE: and Board of Canvassers" T :t must $e em#hasiOed that the case at $ar involves a ground for dis ualification which clearly affects the voter&s will and causes confusion that frustrates the same"
17
T Election /aws give effect to2 rather than frustrate2 the will of the voter" Thus2 e6treme caution should $e o$served $efore any $allot is invalidated" T :n the a##reciation of $allots2 dou$ts are resolved in favor of their validity" T %atters tend to get com#licated when technical rules are strictly a##lied Q technicalities should not $e #ermitted to defeat the intention of the voter2 es#ecially so if that intention is discovera$le from the $allot itself2 as in this case" T Sec" ,9 of the 5mni$us Election Code Q the C5%E/EC may motu #ro#rio or u#on a verified #etition of an interested #arty2 refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy 1@ if it is shown that said certificate has $een filed to #ut the election #rocess in moc>ery or disre#ute2 F@ or to cause confusion among voters $y the similarity of the names of registered candidatesK A@ or $y other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that a candidate has no $ona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has $een filed and thus #revent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate" T Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the 3Bautista9 and 3Efren9 votes which were mista>enly deemed as stray votes refer only to one candidate2 herein #etitioner" Such votes2 which re#resent the voice of a##ro6" F12))) electors could not have $een intended for Edwin Bautista2 allegedly >nown in (avotas as a tricycle driver and worse a drug addict2 not >nown as 3Efren9 as stated in his certificate of candidacy2 $ut Bo$oy9 or 3Bo$oy Tarugo9 as his >nown a##ellation or nic>name2 and satisfactorily and finally shown as a candidate with no #olitical line u#2 no #ersonal funds that could have su##orted his cam#aign2 and no accom#lishments which may $e noted $and considered $y the #u$lic2 as against a >nown former #u$lic officer who had served the #eo#le of (avotas as Brgy" 5fficial2 councilor and vice mayor" T To rule otherwise will definitely result in the disenfranchisement of the will of the electorate2 which is2 as we mentioned2 the situation that our election laws are enacted to #revent" 'UN#ALAN V. COMELEC 289 SCRA 7&2 (FERNAN"E#)
FACTS: %analastas2 %eneses and =unOalan were among of the 4 candidates for mayor of the munici#ality of %e6ico =am#anga %unici#al Board of Canvassers ?%BC@ #roclaimed %eneses as the duly elected mayor %analastas and =unOalan se#arately siled election #rotests challenging the results of the electionsK %eneses filed his answer to $oth with counter #rotests: ordered consolidated and !ointly tried $y the court Election contests sought the nullification of the election of %eneses allegedly due to massive fraud2 irregularities and other illegal electoral #ractices during the registration and voting as well as during the counting of votes Because of irregularities ?massive fraud2 illegal electoral #ractices and serious anomaliesK $allots2 election returns and tally sheets disa##eared under mysterious circumstances and filled u# $allots with undetached lower stu$s and grou#s of $allot with stu$s cut out with scissors were found inside $allot $o6es@ found after hearing the #rotests2 the trial court was constrained to e6amine the contested $allots and the handwritings a##earing thereon and came u# with the declaration that =unOalan was the winner in the elections various notices of a##eal2 motions for e6ecution2 #etitions for certiorari2 #rohi$ition with #rayer for issuance of tem#orary restraining order andCor #reliminary in!unction Comelec #romulgated a resolution affirming the #roclamation of %eneses .E/0: 5n the first issueG 4hile +A D1,, ?An Act =roviding for SynchroniOed (ational and /ocal Elections and For Electoral +eforms@ re uires the BE: chairman to affi6 his signature at the $ac> of the $allot2 the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense im#uta$le to said BE: Failure of the BE: chairman or any of the mem$ers of the $oard to com#ly with their mandated administrative res#onsi$ility should not #enaliOe the voter with disenfranchisement
41
18
A $allot without BE: chairmanRs signature at the $ac> is valid and not s#urious For as long as the $allot $ears any one of the following authenticating mar>s2 it is considered valid: o The Comelec watermar> o Signature or initials or thum$#rint of the Chairman of the BE: o 4here the watermar>s are $lurred or not readily a##arent to the na>ed eye2 the #resence of red or $lue fi$ers in the $allots Every $allot shall $e #resumed to $e valid unless there is a clear and good reason to !ustify its re!ection
ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AN" E:'EN"ITURES 42 'ILAR V. COMELEC 24! SCRA 7!9 (OBERIO)
5n the second issueG The a##reciation of the contested $allots and election documents involves a uestion of fact $est left to the determination of the Comelec The Comelec need not conduct an adversarial #roceeding or a hearing to determine the authenticity of $allots or the handwriting found thereonK neither does it need to solicit the hel# of the handwriting e6#erts in e6amining or com#aring the handwritingK even evidence aliunde is not necessary to ena$le the Commission to determine the authenticity of the $allots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the $allots as an e6amination of the $allots themselves is already sufficient %inor and insignificant variations in handwriting must $e #erceived as indicia of genuineness rather than of falcity Carelessness2 s#ontaneity2 un#remeditation and s#eed in signing are evidence of genuineness 05CT+:(E: the laws and statues governing election contests es#ecially a##reciation of $allots must $e li$erally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of #u$lic officials may not $e defeated $y technical infirmities an election #rotests is im$ued with #u$lic interest so much so that the need to dis#el uncertainties which $ecloud the real choice of the #eo#le is im#erative
FACTS: =etitioner =ilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the #osition of mem$er of the Sangguniang =anlalawigan of the =rovince of :sa$ela" A days later2 he withdrew his certificate of candidacy" C5%E/ECim#osed u#on #etitioner a fine of =1)2))) for failure to file his statement of contri$utions and e6#enditures" =etitioner filed motion for reconsideration which was denied $y C5%E/EC" =etitioner went to C5%E/EC en $anc which denied the #etition in its +esolution" .ence2 this #etition for certiorari" .E/0: =etitioner should $e held lia$le for failure to file his statement of contri$utions and e6#enditures" =etitioner argues that he cannot $e held lia$le for failure to file a statement of contri$ution and e6#enditures $ecause he was a Lnon'candidate2L having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy A days after its filing" =etitioner #osits that Lit is 666 clear from the law that the candidate must have entered the #olitical contest2 and should have either won or lostL" =etitonerRs argument is without merit" Section 14 of +A (o" D1,, states that Levery candidateL has the o$ligation to file his statement of contri$utions and e6#enditures" 4here the law does not distinguish2 courts should not distinguish" The term Levery candidateL must $e deemed to refer not only to a candidate who #ursued his cam#aign2 $ut also to one who withdrew his candidacy" Section 1A of +esolution (o" FA4; of the C5%E/EC2 in im#lementation of the #rovisions of +A D1,,2 categorically refers to Lall candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy"L Furthermore2 Section 14 of the law uses the word LshallL" Such im#lies that the statute is mandatory2 #articularly if #u$lic interest is involvedE state has an interest in seeing that the electoral #rocess is clean and e6#ressive of the true will of the electorate" 5ne way to attain such o$!ective is to #ass a legislation regulating contri$utions and e6#enditures2
19
and com#elling the #u$lication of the same" :t is not im#ro$a$le that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has acce#ted contri$utions and incurred e6#enditures2 even in the short s#an of his cam#aign" The evil sought to $e #revented $y the law is not all too remote" +esolution (o" FA4; also contem#lates the situation where a candidate may not have received any contri$ution or made any e6#enditure" Such candidate is not e6cused from filing a statement" B= Blg" ;;1 or the 5mni$us Election Code #rovides that Lthe filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil2 criminal or administrative lia$ilities which a candidate may have incurred"L =etitionerRs withdrawal of his candidacy did not e6tinguish his lia$ility for the administrative fine" ELECTION OFFENSES
!urisdiction and lac> of authority on the #art of 0irector Bal$uena to file the information" Court denied" =etitioner then filed a #etition for certiorari $efore the Court of A##eals" The Court of A##eals u#held the trial court and ruled that the #ro#er #rocedure was followed $y the C5%E/EC $ut directed the trial court to remand the case to the C5%E/EC for rece#tion of #etitionerRs motion for reconsideration of the C5%E/EC resolution dated *anuary F-2 199,2 which a##roved the filing of a criminal com#laint against #etitioner"
.E/0: $. t ,as error for the .o-rt of A''eals to hold there ,as no fla, in the 'roced-re follo,ed *y the .:ME8E. in the cond-ct of the 'reli)inary investigation. '(o" There are two ways through which a com#laint for election offenses may $e initiated" :t may $e filed $y the C5%E/EC motu #ro#rio2 or it may $e filed via written com#laint $y any citiOen of the =hili##ines2 candidate2 registered #olitical #arty2 coalition of #olitical #arties or organiOations under the #artylist system or any accredited citiOens arms of the Commission ' %otu #ro#rio com#laints may $e signed $y the Chairman of the C5%E/EC and need not $e verified" 5n the other hand2 com#laints filed $y #arties other than the C5%E/EC must $e verified and su##orted $y affidavits and other evidence" ' The com#laint in uestion in this case is one filed $y =ardo in his #ersonal ca#acity and not as chairman of the C5%E/EC" ' There is nothing in the rules that re uire that only the C5%E/EC en $anc may refer a com#laint to the /aw 0e#artment for investigation" ' There is no rule against the C5%E/EC chairman directing the conduct of a #reliminary investigation2 even if he himself were the com#lainant in his #rivate ca#acity" &. The .o-rt of A''eals erred in holding that 'etitioner9s 'rotestations on .:ME8E.9s having acted as co)'lainant, investigator, 'rosec-tor, 2-dge and exec-tioner in the cond-ct of the 'reli)inary investigation ring hollo,.
FACTS: .on" Bernardo =" =ardo sent a verified letter'com#laint to *ose =" Bal$uena charging .erman Tiu /aurel with LFalsification of =u$lic 0ocumentsL and violation of USection D4V of the 5mni$us Election Code" :t alleged that $oth his father and mother were Chinese citiOens $ut when #etitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for the #osition of Senator he stated that his a natural'$orn Fili#ino citiOen An investigation was conducted $y the C5%E/EC /aw 0e#artment and a +e#ort was made recommending the filing of :nformation" 0uring en $anc2 C5%E/EC resolved to file the necessary information against res#ondent and to file a criminal com#laint against res#ondent for falsification 0irector Bal$uena filed an information for Hiolation of Section D42 in relation to Section F,F of the 5mni$us Election Code =laintiff filed a %otion for :nhi$ition2 see>ing the inhi$ition of the entire C5%E/EC $ecause of its $ias in rendering a resolution" =laintiff filed on )D %ay 199, a %otion to <uash alleging lac> of
20
order or decision e6ce#t in election offense casesG '(o" the records show that there is $asis to at least find #ro$a$le cause to indict the #etitioner for violation of the 5mni$us Election Code and it a##ears from the records that Chairman =ardo had no other #artici#ation in the #roceedings which led to the filing of the :nformation" 'The entire C5%E/EC cannot #ossi$ly $e restrained from investigating the com#laint filed against #etitioner2 as the latter would li>e the courts to do" The C5%E/EC is mandated $y no less than the Constitution to investigate and #rosecute2 when necessary2 violations of election laws" This #ower is lodged e6clusively with the C5%E/EC" For the entire Commission to inhi$it itself from investigating the com#laint against #etitioner would $e nothing short of an a$andonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the 5mni$us Election Code" 44 FAELNAR V. 'EO'LE 1 SCRA 429 (CRU#) :t was also held that the Comelec en $anc is the one that determines the e6istence of #ro$a$le cause in an election offense" But it may also $e delegated to the State =rosecutor or to the =rovincial or City Fiscal $ut may still $e reviewed $y the Comelec" 4! COMELEC V. TAGLE 97 SCRA 618 (LIM)
FACTS: Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the #osition of $arangay chairman during the 199D $arangay elections in Ce$u" 5ne day after filing such certificate ?a#ril 9@2 a $as>et$all tournament was held in the s#orts com#le6 du$$ed as2 3Fnd *ing'*ing Faelnar&s Cu#9 which lasted until A#ril A)2 199D" This gave rise to a com#laint for electioneering against #etitioner and Iillamac filed $y Antonio /uy" :t was alleged that it was actually a form of cam#aign done outside the official cam#aign #eriod which should start on %ay 12 199D" 1" that there was a streamer $earing the name of #etitioner #laced at the faWade of the venue" F" #etitioners name was re#eatedly mentioned over the micro#hone" A" it was widely #u$lished in the local news #a#er" 4" a raffle s#onsored $y Iillamac was held with home a##liances as #riOe" :t constituted an election offense" :nitially2 Comelec en $anc in a +esolution resolved to dismiss the filing of the case in the +TC" Antonio /uy moved for reconsideration #rom#ting the Comelec to #roceed with the filing of the case against #etitioner" =etitioner moved to uash on the $asis that the #revious dismissal of the Comelec en $anc2 was immediately final and e6ecutory" And that /uy&s motion for reconsideration was a #rohi$ited #leading under Commission&s rules of #rocedure" .E/0: A %otion for +econsideration is allowed in election offense cases" Section 12 +ule 1A of Comelec&s +ules of =rocedure states2 3the following #leadings are not allowed2 G?d@ motion for reconsideration of an en $anc ruling2 resolution2
FACTS: Florentino Bautista ran for the position of Mayor in Kawit Ca ite !e file" a #o$plaint a%ainst the in#u$&ent Mayor 'o&lete an" others supporte" &y affi"a its of 44 witnesses attestin% to ote( &uyin% a#ti ities) *he #ase was han"le" &y a prose#utor of the C+M,-,C.s law "epart$ent) / separate #o$plaint was file" &y 0o"elas an" Ma#apa%al with the pro in#ial prose#utor a%ainst the witnesses 1 ote( sellin%2 C+M,-,C en &an# "e#lare" the resolution of the pro in#ial prose#utor to institute #ri$inal a#tions a%ainst the witnesses as null an" oi") C+M,-,C #ite" 0/ 6646 otherwise 3nown as 4*he ,le#toral 0efor$s law of 19875 whi#h %rants i$$unity fro$ #ri$inal prose#ution persons who oluntarily %i e infor$ation an" willin%ly testify a%ainst those lia&le for ote(&uyin% or ote(sellin%) -aw "epart$ent of C+M,-,C file" a $otion to "is$iss the #ase a%ainst the witnesses) *his was "enie" &y respon"ent 6u"%e */7-,) /##or"in% to *a%le8 for the witnesses to &e e9e$pt to shoul" ha e #o$$itte" the o ert a#t of "i ul%in% infor$ation re%ar"in% the ote &uyin%
21
.E/0: 4itnesses are e6em#t from criminal #rosecution" A free2 orderly2 honest 2 #eaceful2 and credi$le election is indis#ensa$le in a democratic society2 as without it democracy would not flourish and would $e a sham" 5ne of the effective ways of #reventing the commission of vote'$uying and of #rosecuting those committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal lia$ility in favor of the #arty whose vote was $ought" The C5%E/EC has the e6clusive #ower to conduct #reliminary investigation of all election offenses #unisha$le under the election laws and to #rosecute the same2 as may $e otherwise #rovided $y law 4hen the C5%E/EC nullifies a resolution of the =rovincial =rosecutor which is the $asis of the information for vote selling2 it in effect2 withdraws the de#utation granted to the #rosecutor" 4here certain voters have already e6ecuted sworn statements attesting to the corru#t #ractice of vote'$uying in a #ending case2 it cannot $e denied that they had already given information in the vote' $uying case" FAILURE OF ELECTION 46 LOONG V. COMELEC 2!7 SCRA 1 (LAURENTE)
ran for Hice'Iovernor J =rovincial Board of Canvassers ?=BC@ recommended to the C5%E/EC a re' canvass of the election returns of =arang and Tali#ao" J C5%E/EC2 accordingly2 relieved all the regular mem$ers of the %unici#al Board of Canvassers ?%BC@ and ordered such recanvass $y senior lawyers from the C5%E/EC office in %anila" 0uring the re'canvass2 #rivate res#ondents o$!ected to the inclusion in the canvass of the election returns of =arang" J The reconstituted %BC2 however2 merely noted said o$!ections and forwarded the same to res#ondent =BC for resolution" J =BC denied the o$!ections of #rivate res#ondents and still included the election returns of =arang munici#ality" The canvass of res#ondent =BC showed #etitioners to have overwhelmingly won in the munici#ality of =arang" ' The #rivate res#ondents filed #etitions with the C5%E/EC regarding the inclusion of the uestioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure of election in said munici#ality due to massive fraud =etitioners2 li>ewise filed for failure of elections in - other munici#alities C5%E/EC ruled annulling the results of the elections in =arang as well as holding in a$eyance the #roclamation of the winning candidates for Iovernor and Hice' Iovernor until further orders from the Commission $ut dismissed other #etitions for other munici#alities where it was alleged that there were also $adges of fraud .E/0: C5%E/EC was incorrect in annulling elections of =arang2 Sulu $ut not ordering for s#ecial elections in the same munici#ality" :t was also incorrect in dismissing other #etitions for failure of elections in other munici#alities where there were also $adges of fraud" 4e hold that2 $efore the C5%E/EC can act on a verified #etition see>ing to declare a failure of election2 two ?F@ conditions must concur: first2 no voting has ta>en #lace in the #recincts concerned on the date fi6ed $y law or2 even if there were voting2 the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to electK and2 second2 the votes not cast would affect the result of the election" 4e must add2 however2 that the cause of such failure of election should have $een any of the following: force ma!eure2 violence2 terrorism2 fraud or other analogous causes" This is an im#ortant consideration for2 where the #ro#riety of a #re'#roclamation controversy ends2 there may $egin the realm of a s#ecial action for declaration of failure of elections"
8nder the #resent state of our election laws2 the C5%E/EC has $een granted #recisely the #ower to annul elections" Section 4 of +e#u$lic Act (o" D1,,2 otherwise >nown as2 LThe SynchroniOed Elections /aw of 19912L #rovides that the C5%E/EC sitting En Banc $y a ma!ority vote of its mem$ers may decide2 among others2 the declaration of failure of election and the calling of s#ecial elections as #rovided in Section , of the 5mni$us Election Code" The C5%E/EC may e6ercise such #ower motu #ro#rio or u#on a verified #etition" The hearing of the case shall $e summary in nature2 and the C5%E/EC may delegate to its lawyers the #ower to hear the case and to receive evidence" FACTS: ' This case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where /55(I and #rivate res#ondent Tan ran for the #osition of Iovernor while #et" Tulawie and #"r" Estino
22
4hile the C5%E/EC is restricted2 in #re'#roclamation cases2 to an e6amination of the election returns on their face and is without !urisdiction to go $eyond or $ehind them and investigate election irregularities2 the C5%E/EC is duty $ound to investigate allegations of fraud2 terrorism2 violence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections2 as the 5mni$us Election Code denominates the same" Thus2 the C5%E/EC2 in the case of actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections2 may conduct technical e6amination of election documents and com#are and analyOe votersR signatures and finger#rints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed $een free2 honest and clean" (eedless to say2 a #re'#roclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections The C5%E/EC is .E+EB1 5+0E+E0 T5 C5(08CT S=EC:A/ E/ECT:5(S :( T.E %8(:C:=A/:T1 5F =A+A(I2 S8/82 and is 0:+ECTE0 T5 S8=E+H:SE T.E C58(T:(I 5F T.E H5TES A(0 T.E CA(HASS:(I 5F T.E +ES8/TS T5 T.E E(0 T.AT T.E 4:((:(I CA(0:0ATES F5+ I5HE+(5+ A(0 H:CE'I5HE+(5+ F5+ T.E =+5H:(CE 5F S8/8 BE =+5C/A:%E0 AS S55( AS =5SS:B/E" The C5%E/EC is .E+EB1 5+0E+E0 T5 +E:(STATE S=A 9-'F;9 A(0 T5 C5(08CT T.E (ECESSA+1 TEC.(:CA/ EBA%:(AT:5(2 :F A(12 5F =E+T:(E(T E/ECT:5( 05C8%E(TS T.E+E:( A(0 T5 .5/0 S=EC:A/ E/ECT:5(S :( T.E %8(:C:=A/:T:ES 0:S=8TE0 :( S=A 9-'F;9 :( T.E EHE(T the C5%E/EC A((8/S T.E E/ECT:5( +ES8/TS T.E+E:( 5+ 0EC/A+ES T.E+EAT FA:/8+E 5F E/ECT:5(S" 47 HASSAN V. COMELEC 264 SCRA 12! (LABAGUIS 'OGI)
their res#ective #olling #laces The C5%E/EC team2 headed $y Iarcillano2 recommended the holding of s#ecial elections in said #recincts and scheduled it The mem$ers of the BE: again failed to re#ort The C5%E/EC team rescheduled the elections in /iangan Elementary School2 which was 1- >ilometers away from the designated #olling #laces The mem$ers of the BE: once more did not re#ort for duty" This constrained the C5%E/EC team to a##oint #oliceCmilitary #ersonnel to su$stitute for the BE: The result of the s#ecial election was in favor of the =rivate +es#ondent: =etitioner P ;D92 +es#ondent P 12)9; =etitioner filed a #etition with the C5%E/EC assailing the validity of the re'scheduled s#ecial election C5%E/EC en $anc denied the #etition for a declaration of failure of the elections and ordered the Board of Canvassers to #roclaim =rivate +es#ondent as the winning vice'mayoralty candidate Thus2 the #etition for certiorari
.E/0: There was failure of elections" The concurrence of the following #reconditions is necessary for declaring a failure of election: ?1@ that no voting has $een held in any #recinct or #recincts $ecause of force ma!eure2 violence or terrorism2 and ?F@ that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections" The C5%E/EC can not turn a $lind eye to the fact that terrorism was so #revalent in the area" Elections had to $e set for the third time $ecause no mem$ers of the BE: re#orted for duty due to im#ending threats of violence in the area" This in fact #rom#ted C5%E/EC to de#loy military men to act as su$stitute mem$ers !ust so elections could $e heldK and to thwart these threats of violence2 the C5%E/EC team2 moreover2 decided to transfer the #olling #laces to /iangan Elementary School which was 1- >ilometers away from the #olling #lace" The #eculiar situation of this case cannot $e overstated" The notice given
FACTS: =etitioner2 .ad!i (or Basher /" .assan2 and =rivate +es#ondent2 %angondaya =" .assan Buatan2 were candidates for Hice'%ayor in /anao del Sur .owever2 due to threats of violence and terrorism in the area2 there was a failure of elections in si6 ?,@ out of twenty'four ?F4@ #recincts" :n one of the #recincts2 the $allot $o6es were $urned2 while in the other - #recincts2 the mem$ers of the Board of Election :ns#ectors ?BE:@ failed to re#ort to
23
on the afternoon of the day $efore the scheduled s#ecial elections and transferring the venue of the elections 1- >ilometers away from the farthest $arangayCschool was too short resulting to the disenfranchisement of voters" 5ut of the 12-4, registered voters in the five ?-@ #recincts2 only AF; actually voted" :t was uite swee#ing and illogical for the C5%E/EC to state that the votes uncast would not have in any way affected the results of the elections" 4hile the difference $etween the two candidates is only F19 out of the votes actually cast2 the C5%E/EC totally ignored the fact that there were more than a thousand registered voters who failed to vote" 'ASAN"ALAN V. COMELEC 84 SCRA 69! (MACASAET)
.E/0: C5%E/EC didnRt commit grave a$use of discretion in annulling electionm" The irregularities alleged should have $een raised as an election #rotest and not in a #etition to declare the nullity of an election" :nstances to declare a failure of election does not e6ist ?1@ the election in a #olling #lace has not $een held on the date fi6ed on account of force ma!eure2 terrorism2 violence or fraud2 ?F@ the election was sus#ended on the same grounds in the 1 st and ?A@ there was failure to elect still on the same grounds" The election was held in the #recincts #rotested as scheduled2 neither was it sus#ended ?as #roved $y the testimony of one of the election officers@ nor was there failure to elect" The alleged terrorism was not of that scale to !ustify declaration of failure of elections" Credi$ility of the affidavits uestioned: ?1@ it was #re'ty#ed2 all that the #oll watchers have to do is to fill it u# and sign it" ?F@ identical statements' human #erce#tion is different for each" =ersons when as>ed a$out a same incident2 although #resent in the incident2 mat have different o$servations" AM'ATUAN V. COMELEC 7! SCRA !& (MARTINE#)
48
FACTS: =etitioner =asandalan and res#ondent Bai salamona /" Asum were candidates for mayor in the munici#ality of /um$ayanague2 /anao del sur' %ay 142 F))1 elections 5n %ay FA2 =asandalan filed for nullification of election results in certain $arangays ?0eromoyod2 /agin2 Bualan etc@ on the ground that2 ?1@ while the election was ongoing2 some Cafgu&s stationed near the schools indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to #anic and leave the voting centers without casting their votes2 ?F@ failure to sign of BE:s to sign their initials on certain $allots and ?A@ ta>ing advantage of the fist fights2 the su##orters of Asum too> the $allots and filled them u# with the name of Asum" Comelec&s ruling: (o credence given to the allegations of =asandalan" The A instances wherein a failure of election could $e declared is not #resent ?1@ The election is not held Q ?election was still held@2 ?F@ the election is sus#ended' ?it was not@2 and ?A@ the election results in the failure to elect ?Asum was elected through the #lurality of votes@" The evidence #resented $y =asandalan were only affidavits made $y his own #ollwatchers' thus considered as self serving and insufficient to annul the results" .ence the #etition in this court
49
FACTS: =etitioner Am#atuan and +es#ondent Candao were candidates for the #osition of Iovernor of %aguindanao during the F))1 elections %ay F))1: res#ondents filed a #etition with the comelec for the annulment of election results andCor declaration of failure of elections in several munici#alities" They claimed that the elections were 3com#letely sham and farcical9" The $allots were filled'u# en masse $y a few #ersons the night $efore the election day2 and in some #recincts2 the $allot $o6es2 official $allots and other election #ara#hernalia were not delivered at all" Comelec sus#ended #roclamation of winning candidates =etitioners filed a motion to lift sus#ension of #roclamation" Comelec granted and #roclaimed the #etitioners s winners" *une F))1: +es#ondents filed with SC a #etition to set aside Comelec order and #relim in!unction to sus#end effects of the #roclamation of #etitioners"
24
*uly F))1: Comelec ordered the consolidation of the res#ondents& #etition for declaration of failure of elections" Se#t F))1: =etitioners filed the #resent #etition and claimed that $y virtue of the #roclamation2 the #ro#er remedy availa$le to the res#ondents was not #etition for declaration of failure of elections $ut an election #rotest" The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a full'$lown trial" 5ct F))1: Comelec ordered the sus#ension of the F assailed orders ?with regard to res#ondents& #etition fro failure of elections and directing the continuation of hearing and dis#osition of the consolidated S=As on the failure of elections and other incidents related thereto@ (ov F))1: Comelec lifts the sus#ension order SC issues T+5 en!oining Comelec from lifting sus#ension
the election in any #olling #lace has not $een declared F@ election in any #olling #lace had not $een sus#ended A@ after voting and during transmission of E+2 such election results in a failure to elect on the ground of force ma!eure2 violence2 terrorism2 fraud or other analogous cause 8nder the circumstances of the #resent case and $ased on a##lica$le law2 an election #rotest is the a##ro#riate remedy" Com#le6 matters which necessarily entail the #resentation of conflicting testimony should not $e resolved in random2 technical and summary #roceedings BASHER V. COMELEC & SCRA 7 6 (GON#ALES)
!&
:SS8E: 4C( The Comelec was divested of its !urisdiction to hear and decide res#ondents& #etition for declaration for failure of elections after #etitioners had $een #roclaimed .E/0: (o" =etition dismissed The fact that a candidate #roclaimed has assumed office does not de#rive comelec of its authority to annul any canvas and illegal #roclamation" Halidity of the #roclamation may $e challenged even after the irregularly #roclaimed candidate has assumed office" :n the case at $ar2 the Comelec is duty'$ound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of res#ondents& allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the %ay F))1 election" :t is well to stress that the Comelec has started conducting the technical e6amination on (ov F))1" .owever2 $y an urgent motion for a T+5 filed $y the #etitioners2 in virtue of which we issued a T+52 the technical e6amination was held in a$eyance until the #resent" :n order not to frustrate the ends of !ustice2 we lift the T+5 and allow technical e6amination to #roceed with deli$erate dis#atch" ;issent: 1-stice Melo :ssue: is the declaration of failure of elections $y the Comelec an e6ecutive'administrative function or a !udicial functionM .eld The authority given to Comelec to declare a failure of elections and to call for the holding and continuation of the failed election falls under its admin f6n" There are only A instances where a failure of elections may $e declared: 1@
FACTS: Failure of elections in Barangay %aidan2 /anao del Sur was held twice ?%ay and *une 199D@2 and a s#ecial elections was scheduled for August A)" 0uring the said election2 voting started only around 9:)) #m $ecause of the #revailing tension in the said locality" Election 5fficer 0iana 0atu':mam claimed that the town mayor was too hysterical2 yelled and threatened her to declare failure of election in %aidan as the armed followers #ointed their guns at her and her military escorts res#onded in the same manner" 4ith the arrival of additional troo#s2 the election officer #roceeded to %aidan to conduct the election starting at 9:)) #m until the early morning of the following day at the residence of the former mayor" The tally sheet showed that res#ondent Am#atua got F-) votesK #etitioner Basher got 1- votes and +aOul got 1) votes" +es#ondent was #roclaimed winner" =etitioner now assails the validity of the C5%E/EC +esolution dismissing the =etition to 0eclare Failure o Election and to Call S#ecial Election in =recinct (o" 1F Baranggay %aidan" .E/0: There was a failure of election" This notwithstanding2 there was an invalid #ost#onement of election" First2 the #lace where the voting was conducted was illegal" 5mni$us Election Code #rovides that election tellers shall designate the #u$lic school or ay #u$lic $uilding within the Barangay to $e used as #olling #lace2 election was held in the residence of the former mayor which is located in Barangay =andarianao" Second2 the law #rovides that the casting of votes start at D am and end at A #m e6ce#t when there are voters #resent within A) meters in front of the #olling #lace
25
who have nor yet cast their votes" Election was held after 9:)) #m until the wee hours the following day2 certainly such was not in accordance with the law" Third2 Election 0ay was invalid $ecause sus#ension of #ost#onement of election is governed $y law and it #rovides that when for any serious cause such as re$ellion2 insurrection2 violence2 terrorism2 loss or destruction of election #ara#hernalia and any analogous causes such nature that the free2 orderly and honest election should $ecome im#ossi$le the C5%E/EC moto #ro#rio or u#on written #etition $y 1) registered voter after summary #roceedings shall sus#end or #ost#one the #roceedings" The election officer is without authority to declare a failure of election for it is only the C5%E/EC itself has legal authority to e6ercise such awesome #ower" Election 5fficer did not follow the #rocedure for he #ost#onement or sus#ension or declaration of failure of election" She did not conduct any #roceeding summary or otherwise to find out any legal grounds for the sus#ension or #ost#onement or declaration of failure of election" Finally2 the electorate was not given am#le notice of the e6act schedule and venue of the election2 mere announcement over the mos ue is insufficient"