ELECTIONS |Page 1 of 19

c. Did the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in

QUESTIONNAIRE proceeding with the hearing of the petition
notwithstanding that the winners have already been
I. Sometime in May 1999, a plebiscite for the ratification of the proclaimed?
conversion of San Jose from a municipality into a city was
held. The Board of Canvassers declared the NO votes to d. Can failure of elections be declared under the
have won and that the constituents rejected the foregoing facts?
conversion without all the canvass having been completed.
A petition to annul the results of the plebiscite was filed
st
with the Comelec 1 Division with a prayer for the revision
and recount of the ballots cast therein. The division III. Briefly discuss the significance of the enactment of R.A. No.
dismissed the petition on the ground that it has no 9224 in the matter of recall?
jurisdiction over the said case as it involved an exercise of
quasi-judicial powers not contemplated under Section 2(2)
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
IV. a. Are the decisions of the Comelec appealable, if so, where
should it be filed? Lakas Atenista

The Comelec en banc upheld the ruling of the division and held that it b. Discuss the procedural aspects in the filing of
cannot use its power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the elections offenses cases? Lakas Atenista
plebiscite as this power is purely administrative or executive and not
quasi-judicial in nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the
petition to annul the plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC
conformably with Section 19 (6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC V. What are the limitations in the appointment of the members of
shall have original jurisdiction in cases not within the exclusive the Comelec? Lakas Atenista
jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
function. The Comelec resolution dismissing the petition was raised
before the Supreme Court on certiorari. Rule on whether the Comelec
resolution issued in the exercise of its administrative function can be
VI. What particular actions or proceedings can be filed with the
reviewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari. If in the affirmative,
Comelec conformably with its Comelec Rules of
determine, citing your legal basis whether the Comelec gravely abused its
Procedure?
discretion in dismissing the petition.

VII. a. When is referendum or initiative validly initiated?

II. ZGY and JWA were candidates for Mayor in the municipality of
San Quintin during the May 11, 1995 elections. ZGY filed a
petition with the Comelec to declare failure of elections
due to the massive fraud and irregularities alleging that
the a.) name of registered voters did not appear in the list
of voters in their precincts; b.) only 40% of the legitimate
registered voters actually cast their votes; c.) he was
credited with less votes than he actually received and d.)
there was extreme delay in the delivery of the election
paraphernalia. During the pendency of the petition, JWA
was proclaimed having garnered the majority of votes.
In acting on the petition, the Comelec en banc found convincing proof of
massive fraud and irregularities and on the basis thereof, issued an order
outlining the procedure for a technical examination to determine
whether or not ZGY was actually credited with less votes. JWA filed with
the Supreme Court a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court praying for the reversal of the said Comelec en banc order.
Rule on the following issues:
a. Was the recourse to the Supreme Court via Rule 65
under the prevailing circumstances the proper
remedy?
b. Did the Comelec en banc grave abused its discretion
in taking cognizance of the petition to declare failure
of elections in the first instance?
b. Discuss the procedural aspects in the filing of election offense cases.
VIII. Cite at least 5 Constitutional provisions governing elections.
PRELIMS (2002-2003)
By mandate if the 1987 constitution, the Comelec is vested with the
power to enforce and implement all laws relative to the conduct of
elections, referendum, initiative, plebiscite, and recall. In the exercise of
such functions, discuss the nature or extent of the powers of Comelec.
I. Briefly discuss the underlying philosophy and objective of
elections and what vital role the Comelec plays in the
preservation of our democratic process.
II. Rival cousins Gah Gogh and Boo Gogh were candidates for
mayor of Balibago, Pampanga in the elections of 1995. Gah
was elected and proclaimed mayor on May 25, 1995 and
thereafter assumed office on August 20, 1995. Boo filed
with the Local Election Registrar a petition for the recall of
Gah in July 1996 which was approved by the Comelec
notwithstanding the preparations being undertaken for
the special elections to fill the vacancy for member of the
House of Representatives on March 1997. Was the
petition for recall validly initiated? Explain, citing your legal
basis for the same.

III. A month before a forthcoming elections, A, one of the
incumbent commissioners of the Comelec dies while in
office and, B, another commissioner suffered a severe
stroke. In view of the proximity of the elections and to
avoid paralysation in the Comelec, the president who was
not running for any elective office, appointed
Commissioner C of the Commission on Audit, who was not
a lawyer but a certified public accountant by profession, as
interim commissioner, to succeed Commissioner A and
designated, by way of a temporary measure, associate
justice D of the Court of Appeals as acting associate
commissioner during the absence of Commissioner B, was
the appointment proper? Explain with reasons.
IV. A. Who may exercise the power of initiative and referendum?
B. When is referendum or initiative validly initiated?
C. When shall the proposition on initiative validly initiated become
effective?
V. What are the Filipino parameters in the election of party-list
representatives as set forth by the Supreme Court in
Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec.
VI. What is an exit poll? What guidelines were set forth under RA
9006 in the conduct thereof?
PRELIMS (2005-2006)
I.
Yes, the Comelec Resolution can be reviewed by the Supreme Court on
certiorari.
Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer laid down the general rule that only final
decisions, orders, and rulings of the Comelec en banc in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial or adjudicatory powers can be taken in cognizance of by the
Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
However, the Supreme Court made an exception on the above ruling of
Macabago v. Comelec. The Supreme Court held in that case that while an
order of the Comelec in the exercise of its administrative function cannot
be brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari, the Supreme Court
nevertheless can take cognizance of such decision if the Comelec
committed a grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its
administrative functions.
In the instant case, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
when it dismissed the petition. Consequently, pursuant to the Courts
ruling in Macabago v. Comelec, the Comelec resolution is reviewable by
the Supreme Court on certiorari. LAKAS ATENISTA
II.
B. No, the Comelec en banc did not gravely abuse its discretion in taking
cognizance of the petition.
ELECTIONS |Page 2 of 19
As a general rule, Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that
election cases involving pre-proclamation controversies must be filed
with a Comelec division. The Comelec en banc will only acquire
jurisdiction over the case upon filing of a motion for reconsideration of
the decision, order or ruling of a division within 5 days from the
promulgation thereof. However under the Comelec Rules of Procedure
the Comelec en banc may take cognizance in the first instance, a petition
to declare failure of elections.
Hence the Comelec en banc did not gravely abuse its discretion in
proceeding with the hearing despite the proclamation of winners.In
Ampatuan v. Comelec, in resolving the issue on whether or not the
Comelec may proceed with the hearing of the case despite the
proclamation of the winners, the Supreme Court said that the fact that
there was a proclamation does not divest the Comelec of its powers to
proceed with the hearing of the petition.Based on the foregoing, Comelec
therefore did not gravely abuse its discretion in proceeding with the
hearing despite the proclamation of winners. LAKAS ATENISTA
C. Three instances for declaration of failure of elections
Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during
the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and
in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the
result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but
not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect. LAKAS
ATENISTA
IV.
Yes, the decisions of the Comelec are appealable.
Under the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the decisions, ruling or order of
Comelec division may be brought to the Comelec en banc through a
motion for reconsideration to be filed within 5 days from the date of the
promulgation thereof.
The rules further provide that a motion for reconsideration of an en banc
decision, order or ruling is a prohibited pleading except in election
offense case. In that case, where the motion for reconsideration is a
prohibited pleading, the movants recourse is to file before the Supreme
Court a petition for certiorari within 30 days from the receipt of the copy
of the en banc decision, order or ruling. This is pursuant to Section 7,
Article IX-A of the Constitution.
Therefore Comelec decisions are appealable. A Comelec divisions order
is appealable via motion for reconsideration before the Comelec en banc.
In turn, the Comelec en bancs decision is appealable to the Supreme
Court via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

V.
Section 1 (1), Article IX-A provided for the qualifications of members of
the Comelec. Thus:
1. They are natural-born citizens of the Philippines
2. and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years
of age,
3. holders of a college degree,
4. Must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections.
5. A majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members
of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five
years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity. LAKAS ATENISTA
VI
These actions may be filed with the Comelec according to the Comelec
Rules of Procedure:
1. Motion for reconsideration of a decision of a Comelec division
2. Declaration of failure, postponement or annulment of elections
3. Motion for reconsideration of an en banc decision, ruling, or
order for those involving election offenses cases
4. Those where the Comelec division is not authorized to act, the
pleading may be filed with Comelec en banc
5. When there is a unanimous vote of the members of a division
on an interlocutory order or issue before it, it may be taken
cognizance of by the Comelec en banc in the first instance.
LAKAS ATENISTA
VII
a. Initiative and referendum are validly initiated as follows:
1. For initiative on the amendment of the Constitution,
through a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters, each legislative district represented by
at least 3% of the registered voters therein
2. For initiative and referendum of a national stature, or
laws, resolutions, and ordinances of autonomous regions,
ELECTIONS |Page 3 of 19
province, and cities, through a petitions of at least 10% of
the total numbers of the registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein
3. For the initiative and referendum of municipal ordinance
or resolution, by petition of at least 10% of the total
number of registered voters in the municipality with each
barangay represented by at least 3% of the registered
voters therein
4. For barangay resolutions or ordinances, by a petition of at
least 10% of the total number of registered voters therein
LAKAS ATENISTA
b. Proposition for initiative become effective as follows:
1. For amendment to the Constitution, it becomes effective
upon ratification of the majority of the registered voters in
a plebiscite called for the purpose
2. In initiative on national and local laws, resolutions and
ordinances, upon 15 days following the completion of their
publication in the official gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation
3. If the majority vote is not obtained for the amendment of
a national or local law, resolution or ordinance, then the
old law, resolution or ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect. LAKAS ATENISTA
VIII.
Cite at least 5 laws governing elections. (Constitutional provisions) LAKAS
ATENISTA
a. ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
PRINCIPLES. Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
b. ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION. A. COMMON
PROVISIONS. Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission
or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof.
c. ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION. C. THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Section 2. The Commission on
Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.

d. ARTICLE X. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Section 10. No province, city,
municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in
accordance with the criteria established in the local
government code and subject to approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
e. ARTICLE XVII. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS. Section
2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right.
PRELIMS (2007-2008)
III.
The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation
controversies. It may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after
due notice and hearing, order the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual partially or totally any
proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in
accordance with the succeeding sections.
All pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the
Commission after due notice and hearing, and its decisions shall be
executory after the lapse of five days from receipt by the losing party of
the decision of the Commission, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
Notwithstanding the pendency of any pre-proclamation controversy, the
Commission may, motu proprio or upon the filing of a verified petition
and after due notice and hearing, order the proclamation of other
winning candidates whose election will not be affected by the outcome
of the controversy.
The filing with the Commission of a petition to annual or to suspend the
proclamation of any candidate shall suspend the running of the period
within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.
LAKAS ATENISTA
V.
In the case of Coquilla vs. Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that the
following motions for reconsideration are pro-forma
(1) it was a second motion for reconsideration,
ELECTIONS |Page 4 of 19
(2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the
findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported
by the evidence,
(3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors,
(4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law(
(5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof.
The 16-page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the
COMELEC en banc suffers from none of the foregoing defects, and it was
error for the COMELEC en banc to rule that petitioners motion for
reconsideration was pro forma because the allegations raised therein are
a mere rehash of his earlier pleadings or did not raise new matters.
Hence, the filing of the motion suspended the running of the 30-day
period to file the petition in this case, which, as earlier shown, was done
within the reglementary period provided by law. LAKAS ATENISTA
VI.
Rule 13 - Prohibited Pleadings
Section 1. What Pleadings are not Allowed. - The following pleadings are
not allowed:
(a) motion to dismiss;
(b) motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) motion for extension of time to file memorandum or brief;
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or
decision except in election offense cases;
(e) motion for re-opening or re-hearing of a case;
(f) reply in special actions and in special cases; and
(g) supplemental pleadings in special actions and in special cases. LAKAS
ATENISTA
VII.
Santiago et.al vs. Comelec. (discuss three out of five issues)
1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System
of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor,
was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to
the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded,
adequately covers such initiative.
R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, UNFORTUNATELY,
INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM.
R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution. As to initiative on amendments to the Constitution, R.A.
No. 6735, in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, the
word "Constitution" in Section 2; (b) defines "initiative on the
Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration of the three systems of
initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which

the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or
rejected by the people; (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as
to the number of voters who should sign the petition; and (e) provides
for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition. The foregoing
brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate,
or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this
substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by "empowering" the
COMELEC "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of [the] Act. LAKAS ATENISTA
2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules
and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution,
and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) regarding the
conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid,
considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct
of such initiative.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND
REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and
regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on
the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein
are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C
of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is
authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient
standard" tests. LAKAS ATENISTA
3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials,
as proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution,"
would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.
Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance
with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate
constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the
COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every
legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required
number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain
assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Without the required
signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. LAKAS
ATENISTA
ELECTIONS |Page 5 of 19
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after
its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its
filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only
participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such
63
petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue
through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total
64
number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist,
through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature
65
stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures
on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits, and voters'
66
identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given
cognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have
known that the petition does not fall under any of the actions or
proceedings under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution
No. 2300, for which reason it did not assign to the petition a docket
number. Hence, the said petition was merely entered as UND,
meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap
of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6
December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order
directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda or
oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and
resources. LAKAS ATENISTA
4. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over,
a petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates
for signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist
Delfin's movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and
(c) directing or causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned
proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the
petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.
THE INSTANT PETITION IS VIABLE DESPITE THE PENDENCY IN THE
COMELEC OF THE DELFIN PETITION.
The COMELEC's failure to act on Roco's motion to dismiss and its
insistence to hold on to the petition rendered ripe and viable the instant
petition under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. Where the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or
ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
specified therein.
The instant case may likewise be treated as a special civil action
for certiorari under Section I of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In any
event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his Memorandum,

this Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in cases of
transcendental importance.
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it
may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance
of issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court
brushed aside this technicality because the transcendental importance to
the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and
definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure. LAKAS
ATENISTA
VII.
No. It will not prosper.
ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION Section 1. The Constitutional
Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in
the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of
any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his
office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
To ensure the independence of these Commissions, it is also a
constitutional guarantee that their Commissioners are removable only
through impeachment and no other way.
If a Commissioner is charged before the Sandiganbayan for an offense
with the end in view of removing him from office, such Commissioner will
be removed from the Commission in a way or means other than the
impeachment. Thus, the Constitutional guarantee of independence and
removal from office only through impeachment are circumvented and
hence, rendered nugatory and useless.
Therefore, a Commissioner of any Constitutional Commission cannot be
charged with the Sandiganbayan for an offense with an end in view of
removing from office. LAKAS ATENISTA
VIII
Republic Act No. 9244 SECTION 1. Section 70, Chapter 5, Title One,
Book I of Republic Acts No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. -
a. The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official
shall be commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the local
government unit concerned and supported by the registered voters in
the local government unit concerned during the election in which the
local official sought to be recalled was selected subject to the following
percentage requirements:
ELECTIONS |Page 6 of 19
1. At least twenty-five percent (25%) in the case of local government
units with a voting population of not more than twenty thousand
(20,000);
2. At least twenty percent (20%) in the case of local government units
with a voting population of at least twenty thousand (20,000) but not
more than seventy-five thousand (75,000): Provided, That in no case shall
the required petitioners be less than five thousand (5,000);
3. At least fifteen percent (15%) in the case of local government nits with
a voting population of at least seventy-five thousand (75,000) but not
more than three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That
in no case shall the required number of petitioners be less than fifteen
thousand (15,000); and
4. At least ten percent (10%) in the case of local government units with a
voting population of over three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided,
however, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than forty-
five thousand (45,000). LAKAS ATENISTA
PRELIMS 2008-2009
I. (-2.5)
For applying statutory construction in Election laws, it is necessary that
the elections laws be divided into three to wit:
1. Those provisions that election officials are bound to observe
and comply with.
It would be important to first determine when will these provisions will
be applied. If it is before the elections, then it is mandatory. However, if it
is deemed to be applied after the elections, it is held to be directory only,
that is if possible, especially if mandatory application will frustrate the
right of the electorate. In the case of Punzalan v. COMELEC, the Supreme
Court held that the failure of the BEI Chairman to affix his signature in the
ballot will not render it fatal to result in the disenfranchisement of the of
the electorate.
2. Those provisions that candidates for elective positions that
candidates for elective positions should comply.
These provisions are generally construed strictly and failure of the
candidate to observe or comply with these will render it fatal to him. This
includes qualifications of a candidate, deadline for the certificate of
candidacy, etc.
3. Those provisions governing the settlement of election contests.
These provisions are liberally construed to the end that the true will of
the electorate shall be determined. Mere technicalities should give way if
it will defeat the right of the electorate. However, in the case of Pena v.
HRET, the Supreme Court held that although the technicalities are
liberally construed, the rule also stands that the protestant in a election
protest must stand and fall upon his cause of action raised in his
pleadings, amended or in its original, filed within the statutory period.
LAKAS ATENISTA
II. (-0)
In the case of Faelnar vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled in the
following manner:

1. In cases where the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Fiscal
exercise the power of preliminary investigations, their
investigation officer shall submit his recommendations on the
existence of probable cause to prosecute, these officials
already resolved the issue of probable cause. The appeal to
such resolution with the COMELEC en banc lies. In its exercise
of its review powers, the COMELEC now is considered to have
conducted a second look on the issue of probable cause and
hence, its resolution or decision to such appeal is immediately
final and executory.
2. In case where the preliminary investigation is conducted by the
COMELEC itself, the investigation officer submits its report
upon which the recommendation of the COMELEC Law
Department on the issue of probable cause is based, shall be
forwarded to the COMELEC en banc and it is the one who will
determine the existence of probable cause, if such case appeal
is unavailing.
3. However, under the Rules of Procedure of COMELEC, the
aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration with the
COMELEC en banc. Hence, the COMELEC en banc may conduct
a review on its resolution the same way as it motu proprio or
upon appeal, review the resolution of the state prosecutor,
provincial or city fiscal. LAKAS ATENISTA
III. (- 5)
1. Under Section B, Article IX-C of 1987 Constitution, the
COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions.
All cases generally filed with the COMELEC are heard before the
COMELEC division and the COMELEC en banc cannot exercise the
jurisdiction over such case in the first instance.
However, under the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC, COMELEC en
banc may hear cases in the first instance in the following instances:
a. All other cases unauthorized to be heard in division
b. Declaring postponement, suspension or failure of elections
c. When upon unanimous vote of the members of a division,
interlocutory matters relative to any action or proceedings
before it is forwarded to COMELEC en banc.
2. Yes. Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides that motion to reconsider the resolution, decision or
ELECTIONS |Page 7 of 19
ruling of a division with the COMELEC en banc is allowed to
provided it shall be filed within five days upon promulgation
thereof.
Likewise, Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution provides that
rulings, decisions or resolution of the Constitutional Commissions are
subject to review by certiorari with the Supreme Court. In the case of
Loong v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms rulings,
decision or resolution are made to refer to those rulings, decision or
resolution passed by the COMELEC in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial power. Petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court
should be filed within 30 days upon the receipt of notice of hearing
thereof. LAKAS ATENISTA
IV.
In the case at bar, what are the issues that should be ruled upon by the
Supreme Court.
V. (-0)
In the case of Coquilla v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that the
following motions for reconsiderations are pro-forma:
1. If it is a second motion for reconsideration
2. It did not comply with the rule that motions should
specify the alleged resolutions or decisions which are
contrary to law and not supported by evidence
3. It merely alleged that the decision is contrary to law
and law failed to substantiate such allegations
4. It fails to give the other parties duties thereof LAKAS
ATENISTA
VI. (-0)
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, particularly Section 1, Rule 13,
the following pleadings are not allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss
2. Motion to bill of particulars
3. Motion for reconsideration of an en banc decision except
relating to election offenses
4. Motion for expansion of time to file pleadings
5. Sending of reply or answers to pleadings LAKAS ATENISTA

VII. (-0)
Three of the five legal issues raised in the cases of Santiago et. al v.
COMELEC are as follows:
1. Whether or not RA 6735 intended to include initiative on
amendment to the Constitution, if so is it sufficient
The Supreme Court ruled that RA 6735 intended to include initiative on
amendments to the Constitution but unfortunately it is not sufficient.
Unlike in initiatives on statutes and initiatives on local laws, RA 6735 does
not provide for a subtitle to initiative on the Constitution that shall
provide what will be the contents of the petition. Moreover, although the
Constitution recognizes the power of the people to initiative on
amendment to the Constitution, the people cannot exercise such power
if Congress will not enact the implementing law. Hence, Section 2, Article
XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executory.
2. Whether or not the COMELEC Resolution 2300 is valid
According to the Supreme Court, COMELEC Resolution 2300 which is
issued to implement initiative on the Constitution is invalid. The
COMELEC argued that RA 6735 is sufficient in form to allow them to
facilitate and regulate the conduct of an initiative on the Constitution.
Hence, it delegated them the power to issue the assailed resolution.
However, the Court ruled that RA 6735 cannot validly delegate such
power to COMELEC since the said law does not comply with the
completeness and sufficiency tests for the delegation to be held valid.
3. Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the Delfin petition
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the Delfin petition. Under Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution, a petition for initiative to amend the Constitution is validly
initiated upon the signing of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters therein. But the Delfin petition does not
comply with such percentage requirement. In fact, Delfin even asked the
COMELEC to help him gather such requirement. Thus, COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in taking cognizance of such petition. LAKAS
ATENISTA
VIII. (-0)
No, it will not prosper.
Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution guarantees that every
Constitutional Commission shall be independent. To ensure the
independence of these Commissions, it is also a constitutional guarantee
that their Commissions are removal only through impeachment and no
other way.
ELECTIONS |Page 8 of 19
If a Commissioner is charged before the Sandiganbayan for an offense
with the end in view of removing him from office, such Commissioner will
be removed from the Commission in a way or means other than
impeachment. Thus, the constitutional guarantee of independence and
removal from office only through impeachment is circumvented and
hence, rendered nugatory and useless.
Therefore, a Commissioner of any Constitutional Commission cannot be
charged before the Sandiganbayan for an offence with an end in view of
removing him from office. LAKAS ATENISTA
IX. (-0)
Section 70 of RA 7160 has been amended by RA 9244 wherein it
abolished the Preliminary Recall Assembly and therefore there is only one
mode of initiating recall.
Because of RA 9244, the prevailing mode of initiating recall is that it shall
be commenced upon the petition by a registered voter of a political
subdivision where the elective official subject of recall belongs and
should be supported by the registered voters of the political subdivision
concerned. The petition calling for recall of an elective official is subject
to the following percentage requirement:
1. At least 25% of the total number of registered voters with a
voting capacity of not more than 20,000
2. At least 20% of the registered voters if with a voting population
if with a voting population of more than 20,000 but less than
75,000 provided the petitioners are not less than 5,000
3. At least 15% of the voting population of more than 75,000 but
less than 300,000 provided the petitioners are not less than
15,000
4. At least 10% of the voting population of more than 300,000
provided the petitioners are not less than 45,000. LAKAS
ATENISTA
PRELIMS
V.
In Paras v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that the evident intent of
Section 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall election once
during his term of office. Paragraph (b) construed together with
paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local
official may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year
of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's interpretation of
the phrase regular local election to include the SK election will unduly
circumscribe the novel provision of the Local Government Code on recall,
a mode of removal of public officers by initiation of the people before the
end of his term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be
held every three years from May 1996 were to be deemed within the
purview of the phrase "regular local election", as erroneously insisted by
petitioner, then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the
recall provision of the Local Government Code. LAKAS ATENISTA
In Angobung v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that initiatory petition
for recall need not be signed by all of the petitioners when filed before
the election registrar. What is necessary is that petition contains the
names of all the petitioners in whose behalf one petitioner may sign the

petition. Besides the election registrar would still schedule a petition-
signing.
In Malonzo v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that the Liga ng mga
Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the Preparatory Recall
Assembly. It just so happens that the personalities representing the
barangays in the Liga are the very members of the Preparatory Recall
Assembly, the majority of whom met on July 7, 1996, and voted in favor
of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo, after
deliberation reported in the record, in accordance with the existing law.
Thus, the Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members
convened and voted as members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of
the City of Caloocan, and not as members of the Liga ng mga Barangay.
The recall proceedings, therefore, cannot be denied merit on this ground.
LAKAS ATENISTA
In Claudio v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held the term "recall" in
paragraph (b) refers to the recall election and not to the preliminary
proceedings to initiate recall
1. Because 74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which, according to 69,
is a power which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local
government unit. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in an
election, it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not
prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph (b);
2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to
provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective local official, and
final judging is not done until the day of the election; and
3. Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as including the
initiation of recall proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of speech
and of assembly guaranteed in the Constitution.
In Afiado v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that a Vice mayor who has
become a mayor by principle of succession cannot be recalled based on
the grounds of use of confidence when she was still the vice-mayor for
such grounds where in connection with her functions as a vice-mayor.
LAKAS ATENISTA
VI. (-2)
Discuss the administrative, executive, quasi-legislative and judicial
powers of the Comelec.
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating
to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory,
and not appealable.
ELECTIONS |Page 9 of 19
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to
political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to
elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted,
shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration
with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be
prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions
in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and,
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize
election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices,
and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience
to, its directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive
report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall. LAKAS ATENISTA
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies.
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided
that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
PRELIMS
IV. (-3)
1.Plebiscite as defined is the vote of the entire people or the aggregate of
the enfranchised individuals composing a state or nation expressing their
choice for a proposed measure. Plebiscite is generally associated in the
process of initiative and referendum.

A plebiscite is the process used when the people have validly initiated
their power on initiative or referendum, wherein in the case of a
proposition of an initiative in the Constitution, as approved by the
majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite.
2.The power of initiative or referendum is validly initiated by at least 10%
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein, shall sign a
petition for the purpose and register the same with the Comelec.
A petition of an initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least
12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative
district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
However, an initiative on the Constitution is only allowed after five years
following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and once every 5 years
thereafter. LAKAS ATENISTA
Subject: ELECTIONS
Professor: Atty. VALENCIA
Exam No.
Prepared by: kjpa
1. Problem:
Yes, the contention of Joyful is tenable. It is already a settled rule that
filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the
reglementary period. However, where it is specifically provided under the
law that a motion for reconsideration is not allowed, its filing would not
interrupt the running of the prescriptive period.
In the case at bar, Compassionate filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the RTC, involving election contest, which under the law is
not allowed. Hence, it becomes a pro-forma motion and it does not
interrupt the running of the reglementary period which is only five days
from the receipt of the decision.
2. What is/are the power/s of Comelec over the BOC?
The power of the Comelec over the BOC is that it has the power to order
a new canvass of returns even after the proclamation had already been
made where an election return has been amended by court order or the
election returns from a certain precinct has been wrongfully excluded by
the board of canvasser.
The Comelec can also order the BOC to reconvene and make another
proclamation where an election return has been declared authentic and
amended or where the board of canvasser wrongfully excluded election
returns from polling places.
When does the BOC become functus de oficio?
- when its specific functions have been perfomed. The BOCs
function is to canvass the results of the election based on the
election returns and proclaim the winning candidate. After the
proclamation and after it adjoined sine die, the BOC become
functus de oficio.
- As a general rule, a BOC becomes functus oficio after it
proclaims the winning candidates. An exception is in the case of
ELECTIONS |Page 10 of 19
Javier v. Comelec, when the canvass and the proclamation were
made in violation of lawful order of the Comelec.
3. As a general rule, no pre-proclamation controversy shall be allowed for
the president, vice-president, senators and members of the house of
representative. An exception to this is when the matters and issues
involve material defects as to the election returns or certificates of
canvass. Any of them can raise be raised as a pre-proclamation
controversy. When it involves issue regarding manifest errors found in
the election return and/or on the face of the certificate of canvass a pre-
proclamation controversy may be allowed
4. What is the effect of the filing of an election contest if there is a
pending pre-proclamation controversy?
As a general rule, after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the
contested seat, the pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable, the
more appropriate remedy being a regular election protest or a petition
for quo warranto.
An exception where a pre-proclamation controversy is still viable after
proclamation is when the BOC was improperly constituted; the quo
warranto was not the proper remedy; what was filed actually a petition
to annul the proclamation; the filing of the quo warranto was made ad
cautelam; or the proclamation was null and void.
5. distinguish election protests from quo warranto
1. as to who may file: In an election protest, any candidate who
has filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the
same office. In a quo warranto, any registered voters in the
constituency of the public elective officer.
2. as to the grounds: in an election protest, the grounds are fraud,
terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts committed before or after
the casting of votes. In a quo warranto, the grounds are either
ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
3. as to the effect of the filing or when petition is granted: in an
election protest the prostee may be ousted and the protestant
may seat in the office vacated. In a quo warranto, the
respondent may be unseated bit the petitioner will not be
seated in the vacated office.
4. as to the period of filing: in a election protest: both the election
protest and the quo warranto proceeding must be filed within
10 days from the proclamation of the winning candidate.
5. as to the jurisdiction: both the election protest and the quo
warranto proceeding may be filed before the presidential
electoral tribunal for the president and the vice-president,
senate electoral tribunal for senators, house of representative
elective tribunal for house representatives, the Comelec for
regional, provincial and city elective officials, the regional trial
courts for municipality elective officials and the MTCs for
barangay officials.

6.
No, damages may not be awarded in an election protest case. Although
the OEC provides that actual or compensatory damages may be awarded
in accordance with the law in an election protest case, it is not sufficient
basis for the award of such damages because the phrase in accordance
with law refers to the Civil Code and the latter does not provide for such
relief.
Under the Civil Code, provision on damages may be awarded in breaches
of obligations in a contract, quasi-contract, crimes or quas-delicts. There
is no such breach of obligation in an election protest case neither is there
a crime. Unless and until a party can point a specific provision of law
granting such relief , actual or compensatory damages cannot be
awarded. At most, in an election case, it can only be considered as one
with a damage but without an injury.
The ousted losing party however, who had assumed the duties of the
office is entitled to emoluments to his occupation to the office in good
faith as held in the case of Malaluan v. Comelec. As the emoluments
rightfully belongs to such officer as he is considered a de jure officer
under the law.
7. The docket fees must be paid together with the filing of the election
protest or within 10 days after the proclamation. In the case of Soller v.
Comelec, the Supreme Court held that a court acquires jurisdiction over
any case only upon payment of prescribed docket fees. This requirement
is mandatory and failure to comply is fatal.
PRELIMS
1.
A. Discuss the statutory interpretation of election laws. (7.5)
Answer: Sec. 3, Rule 1 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure provide
that the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the
effective and efficient implementation of the objectives ensuring the
holding of an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections
and to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination
and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the
Comelec.
In applying the rules of statutory construction however, the
provisions of election laws are divided into 3 parts namely:
Those which refer to the conduct of elections required to be
observed by election officials. These are construed mandatory
before the elections and directory after the elections. The rules
and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory
before the elections, but when it is sought to enforce them
after the elections they are held to be directory only, most
particularly if innocent voters will be disenfranchised by the
ELECTIONS |Page 11 of 19
negligence or omission of the election officers. In the case of
Fernandez v. Comelec it was held
Those provisions which candidates for public elective office are
required to do and comply with. These are construed
mandatory.
Those provisions which cover procedural rules designed to
ascertain, in case of dispute, the actual winner in the elections.
There are liberally construed.
2. Adrian and Venicio were mayoralty candidates in the local elections
held on May 11, 1998. Venecio was declared winner. Venicio and Jason,
who was elected vice-mayor, were proclaimed on May 14, 1998. On May
23, 1998, Adrian filed a petition in the Comelec entitled Petition to
Declare Failure of Election and/or annul the election results in the said
municipality, docketed as SPA No. 38-98 in the RTC. On July 6, 1998,
Adrian moved to withdraw SPA 98-356 in the Comelec in order to
prosecute election protest no. 38-98 in the RTC. The Comelec granted
Adrians motion in its order dated February 4, 1999.
Meanwhile, Venicio filed his answer in election protest no. 38-98 in which
he sought the dismissal of the protest on the ground that it was filed
more than 10 days from the date of proclamation on May 14, 1998.
Venicio reiterated his motion to dismiss in a subsequent pleading and in
addition, asked that it be resolved before Adrians motion for technical
examination of some documents. Adrian, on the other hand contends
that as long as there is a prayer for the annulment of a proclamation, the
filing of such petition effectively suspends the running of the period for
filing an election protest. In an order dated August 18, 1998, the trial
court denied the motion to dismiss.
On June 19, 1999, the Comelec En Banc dismissed SPR No, 38-98 for lack
of merit. It held that while SPA No. 98-356 filed by Venicio was
denominated as petition to declare a failure of election and/or annul the
election results, the case was actually a petition for annulment of
proclamation which under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code,
suspended the running period for filing of an election protest.
Consequently, the filing of election protest no. 38-98 in the RTC on June
19, 1998 was timely as SPA no. 98-356 filed one day before the lapse of
the period for filing an election protest prevented the expiration the
expiration of said period.
Venicio then filed a petition for certiorari (SPR no. 37-98) in the Comelec,
assailing the order of the RTC denying his motion to dismiss. While the
case was pending Venicio, died, and his spouse moved to be substituted
in his place in the pending cases before the Comelec and the RTC. Rule
on the contention of the parties and on whether or not Comelec gravely
abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing SPR
37-98? W/N the substitution should be allowed.
Answer:
a. The contention of Venicio that the election protest should be
dismissed on the ground that it was filed out of time is proper.
Under the election code, an election protest has to be filed
within 10 days after proclamation.

On the other hand, the contention of Adrian that as long as there is
a prayer for the annulment of a proclamation, the filing of such
petition effectively suspended the running of the period for filing an
election protest is not meritorious. The election code is clear on the
prescriptive period within which to file an election protest, and that
is within 10 days after the proclamation.
The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed
the SPR 37-98 because a petition for annulment of proclamation
may still continue in certain instances even if there was already a
protest case if the evidence presented warrants the continuance of
the hearing. It was held that a proclamation declared void is no
proclamation at all and the party declared winner who has assumed
office may be removed as his assumption is questioned and will
have to depend on the outcome of the petition.
b. The motion for substitution is not proper since the spouse is
not a party in interest who would be benefited or injured by the
judgment and entitled to a suit. Public office is personal to the
protestee and not a property transmissible to his heirs.
3. What pleadings are not allowed in actions or proceedings before the
Comelec?
Rule 13, Section 1 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure enumerates the
following prohibited pleadings:
(a) motion to dismiss;
(b) motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) motion for extension of time to file memorandum or brief;
(d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution,
order or decision except in election offense cases;
(e) motion for re-opening or re-hearing of a case;
(f) reply in special actions and in special cases; and
(g) supplemental pleadings in special actions and in special
cases.
FINALS 2003
1. What are the procedural aspects in the filing of election offense cases?
Ans: The following are the procedural aspects in the filing of election
offense case:
ELECTIONS |Page 12 of 19
a. a complaint filed for election offenses is within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. The Comelecs tasks is merely to conduct
preliminary investigation by referring the case to heComelec
Law Department or by designation a special prosecutor to
conduct the preliminary investigation/
b. an appeal on the decision of the Provincial Prosecutor
designated by the Comelec to conduct preliminary investigation
is cognizable by the Comelec. When the preliminary
investigation is conducted by the Comelec Law Department,
appeals on the decision may be brought to the Comelecs
division.
c. A motion for reconsideration of an en banc decision is allowed
in election offense cases as provided in the Comelec Rules of
procedure.
d. For proceedings in the RTC, the provisions in the Rules of Court
will apply; for proceedings in the Comelec, the Comelec Rules
of procedure will apply.
e. The court may ask the Comelec to conduct reinvestigation it
warranted and such will not be tantamount to an
encroachment on the Comelecs independence.
f. A motion for reconsideration on an en banc decision must be
filed within 5 days from the date of the promulgation of the
decision. Failure to file in the said period will make the decision
final and executory.
2. When is a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a Comelec
division considered pro-forma? Effects?
Ans: motion for reconsideration of a decision of a Comelec division
considered pro-forma:
a. when it is a second a motion for reconsideration
b. when it does not allege new or substantial gorund
c. when it merely states the decision is contrary to law
d. when it affords no notice to the parties
e. when it is merely a rehash (repetition) of the first motion for
reconsideration
The filing of a pro-forma motion for reconsideration will not toll the
period within which the decision should be appealed. If the motion is pro-
forma, the decision of the Comelec division may become final and
executory.
3. What are the circumstances under which the 3 term limit for elective
local officials can be applied? What are the exceptions?
Ans: The following are the circumstances under which the three term
limit for elective local officials can be applied:

a. that the official was duly elected to the same position for the
three consecutive terms
b. that the official has duly served the term in full
The following are the situations not considered as service of
term:
1. in the case of Adormeo v. Comelec, a person who has
rd
served his 3 term by virtue of a recall election in
which he has emerged as the candidate with the
highest number of votes, the service of such term is
not considered in the counting of the three-term limit
for purposes of disqualification. The Supreme court
held that the official must have been duly elected to
the position by virtue of an election and not a recall
election.
2. in Lonzanida v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that
a candidate who ran for a third term but was
unseated thereof because of an election protest filed
againt him is not considered to have been elected to
such position and to have fully served such term for
the purpose of the 3-term limit as a basis for
disqualification of said candidate. The court held that
when the official was unseated by virtue of an
election protest case, it is considered no
proclamation was held at all. Involuntary renunciation
of the position shall not be considered as an
interruption in the service of the term
3. in Borja v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that
when an official enters into the same of the third
time by virtue of legal succession after having fully
served the term in the same position already his
service in the third term by virtue of legal succession
cannot be considered as on term for purposes of the
three term limit for disqualification. The court held
that the official must have been elected to the
position and has fully served the term for purposes of
the three term limit.
4. What are the effects of disqualification?
Ans: The following are the effects of a disqualification case:
1. if the candidate was disqualified before the start of the
election, he is deemed not to be a candidate. Thus, he should
not be voted for in the election. All votes cast in his favor are
considered stray votes but will not invalidate the whole ballot.
2. if the candidate was disqualified before the date of the
election, the Comelec shall proceed with the trial and hearing
of the case. The Comelec will not be divested of its jurisdiction
over the case. However the opposing party may be move to
suspend the proclamation of the candidate when the petition is
ELECTIONS |Page 13 of 19
meritorious or when the evidence of guilt is strong as shown by
the evidence introduced by the opposing party.
5. When is a candidate eligible to rum for public office?
Ans: A candidate is eligible to run for public office, if he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided under the 1987
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and the Local Government Code
as the case may be.
Most importantly in the OEC, a person is eligible to run for public office, if
he has filed his sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by
law.
6. When is the elective official deemed resigned under RA 8436 and RA
9006?
Ans: an elective official who filed his certificate of candidacy under Sec 11
of RA 8436 for a position other than his incumbent position, except for
President and Vice-President, shall be deemed to be resigned not after
the filing of the certificate of candidacy but during the start of the
campaign period.
However, in view of the provisions of RA 9006, Sec. 14 of RA 8436 is
deemed expressly repealed. An elective official who filed a certificate of
candidacy shall not be deemed resigned.
7. What are the effects of filing a certificate of candidacy?
Under Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, an appointive official is
considered resigned upon his filing of certificate of candidacy. He is
deemed automatically resigned upon his filing of certificate of candidacy
for another office and need not resign for jis position.
Under Sec. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate for an elective
office whether national or local, running for an office other than the one
he is holding in a permanent capacity is considered ipso facto resigned
from office upon his filing of certificate of candidacy, except if he is
running for the office of President and Vice-President.
However, RA 9006 repealed Sec. 67 of the OEC that the candidate is
deemed resigned until the end of the period of filing of certificate of
candidacy.
8. Substitution??
Under the OEC, am member of a political party who filed a certificate of
candidacy but subsequently dies, withdraws, or is disqualified during or
on the last hour of the last filing day may be substituted under the
following
1. that the substitute is also a member of the political party to
which the person who dies, withdraws or disqualified belongs
to

2. that the substitute must be nominated by the party to which
the person who died, withdraw or disqualified
3. that the substitute must file his sworn application of certificate
of candidacy attaching therein the certificate of nomination by
the political party.
4. that the substitute must file his sworn certificate of candidacy
anytime after the last day of filing up to midday of the election
day.
Substitution will only be effected in the candidacy of the political
member who died, withdraw or is disqualified on the last hour of the last
day of filing in a member of a political party. Under the OEC, substitution
is a privilege granted only to political parties registered under the
Comelec. The substitute may be voted for in the election and all votes
cast for him shall be counted in his favor.
9. What are the salient features of RA 9006?
RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act brought about a change in the general
rule on election campaign, which are as follows:
1. Print, radio, television advertisement as campaign propaganda
are now allowed. From print advertisement, size shall not
exceed oage in broadsheet or page in tabloid, for three
times a week in a newspaper of general circulation. For radio
advertisements, the allowed maximum for national candidates
is 180 minutes and for local candidates is 120 minutes. For tv
ads, the allowed maximum for national candidates is 90
minutes and for local candidates is 60 minutes. In print, radio or
tv ads, the word political advertisement paid for should
always be indicated followed by the name and addresses of
those who paid for the ads and for whose benefit the ads were
paid for.
2. theComelec shall allocate Comelec Space in print or in a
newspaper after payment of just compensation to the latter.
The allocation to the candidates shall be equal and shall be
given free of charge.
3. theComelec shall also provide Comelec Time and may ask the
broadcasters to allocate a time slot for the presentation of
candidates or for their debates. The allocation to the
candidates shall be equal and shall be given free of charge.
4. theComelec shall designate not more than 10 public places
such as parks, barangay centers and other places as common
poster areas. For political parties it shall not exceed 12x16 feet
and for independent candidates 4x8 feet,
5. the conduct of exit polls and electoral surveys are also allowed
under the law provided the guidelines under RA 9006.
10. Distinguish exit polls from electoral survey
Exit polls and electoral surveys are distinguished as follows:
ELECTIONS |Page 14 of 19
1. as to purpose: an exit poll is a species of electoral survey
conducted and designated to elicit from voters the people they
voted for in the election to predict the probable result of the
election. Electoral survey is a method of knowing and
measuring perception of voters with regard to the
qualifications of the candidates, platforms or other issues
related to their choice as voters.
2. as to guidelines: under section 5.5 of RA 9006 and as discussed
in the case of ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the following are the
guidelines to be followed in the conduct of exit polls:
the survey must be done outside 50 meter
radius from the polling place
the pollster shall wear distinctive clothing
the voter should be informed that the may
refuse to answer the exit poll
that the result of the exit poll shall be
announced after the closing of the polls and
must indicate that the same is unofficial and
does not represent a trend
in electoral surveys, the following are the guidelines to be
followed as provided for under RA 9006
that the names and addresses of the person who
commissioned the survey must be indicated
that the name of the firm who conducted the
survey must be indicated
the selection of the respondent should be in
random and the methodology used must be
disclosed
margin of error must be indicated
3. as to when it is conducted: exit polls are usually conducted on
the day of the election itself, asking in random some voters as
respondents after they have voted in their respective polling
places. An election survey is usually conducted before the
election day.
11. What are the actions/s to be taken to disqualify a candidate before
elections
1. under section 12 of the OEC: Any person who has been
declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has
been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection,
rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to
a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a
candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty.This disqualifications to be
 ELECTIONS |Page 15 of 19

a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon
the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a
period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within
the same period he again becomes disqualified.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which the elective official concerned was
elected.

2. under sec. 68 of the OEC: Any candidate who, in an action or

protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a 12. PROBLEM
competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of
having (a) given money or other material consideration to
influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials
performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism Yes, the Governor is correct. As ruled in the case of Aguinaldo v.
to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an COmelec, a public official cannot be removed from office for an
amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, administrative offense committed in the previous term. Since his re-
received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections election operates as a condonation of a previous misconduct to the
89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, extent of cutting all the right to remove him thereof. The two terms are
85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, separate and distinct from each other.
shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a In the case at bar, as the governor was re-elected, his previous
permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country administrative case was rendered moot and academic. Therefore, the
shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this governor will be qualified to assume office.
Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with
the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
13. give at least 5 election paraphernalia:
3. under art. 40 of the LGC The following persons are disqualified
from running for any elective local position:
election returns
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude or for an offense certificate of votes
punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment,
within two (2) years after serving sentence; (b) Those book of voters
removed from office as a result of an administrative
case; tally board

(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating ballot

the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical
cases here or abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those
who have acquired the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right after the
effectivity of this Code; and
14. appreciation of ballot
Appreciation of ballot as contemplated under the OEC, provides for rules
in its appreciation. It is always presumed that the ballot is valid. As the
vote is indicative of the will of the voters, it is not required that it is nicely
and eligibly written or that the name of the candidate is correctly spelled.
In reading of and appreciating the ballot, every vote is presumed to be
valid unless there is a clear and good reason to justify such rejection.

(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

4. under sec. 69 of the OEC: The Commission may motuproprio or The purpose of election is to give effect to the will and not frustrate the
upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give will of the voters. Therefore, extreme caution must be observed before a
due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown ballot could be invalidated and in the appreciation thereof, doubt should
that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in be resolved in favor of its validity.
mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters
by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or
by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that
the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office FINALS
for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the
1.
electorate.
a. What is recount? Is it a matter of right?
5. under sec. 43(b) of the LGC: No local elective official shall serve
for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.

It is a statutory right. Hence, recount is a mere privilege.
There are certain requirements provided by law that must
be complied before court may order a recount of ballots.
b. Who may file a petition for recount? What are the
requirements?
A petition for recount may be filed the Board of
Canvassers or the candidate affected.
The following are the requirements that must be met in
order to justify a recount based on material discrepancies
in the election returns:
1. The election returns containing material
discrepancies shall affect the result of the election or
the standing of aggrieved parties.
2. There are material discrepancies in words and the
figures in the same election returns or in other
certified copies
3. There are no other means available to resolve the
discrepancies
4. The integrity and identity of the ballot box and the
ballot has been duly preserved
5. A petition filed by members of the Board of
Canvassers or any candidate affected
6. Where the allegations of the commission, the interest
of justice so require.
c. Nature of recount proceeding.
A recount proceeding is summary in character and
constitutes mere mathematical computation of votes upon
the ballots. It does not require the appreciation of ballots
or the determination of the validity of ballots as required
in an election protest.
A recount shall be conducted by the Board of Election
Inspectors upon authority or order by the Commission.
2. What is conspiracy to bribe voters under Sec. 261 OEC?
Conspiracy to bribe voters under Section 261 is committed by
two or more persons, whether candidates or not, who come to
an agreement to give, offer or promise money or anything of
value, give or promise any office or employment, franchise or
grant, public or private, or make or offer to make an
expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to
be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or
community in order to induce anyone or the public in general
to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the
election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the
nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar
selection process of a political party.
Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 provides for the prosecution
for violations of paragraphs (a) or (b) of Section 261 of BP 881.
The presentation of a complaint for violations of paragraph (a)
or (b) of Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881 supported by
affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or
promise by or of the voter's acceptance of money or other
consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of a
candidate, shall be sufficient basis for an investigation to be
ELECTIONS |Page 16 of 19
immediately conducted by the Commission, directly or through
its duly authorized legal officers, under Section 68 or Section
265 of said Batas PambansaBlg. 881.
Proof that at least one voter in different precincts representing
at least twenty percent (20%) of the total precincts in any
municipality, city or province has been offered, promised or
given money, valuable consideration or other expenditure by a
candidate's relatives, leaders and/or sympathizers for the
purpose of promoting the election of such candidate, shall
constitute a disputable presumption of a conspiracy under
paragraph (b) of Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881.
Where such proof affect at least twenty percent (20%) of the
precincts of the municipality, city or province to which the
public office aspired by the favored candidate relates, the same
shall constitute a disputable presumption of the involvement of
such candidate and of his principal campaign managers in each
of the municipalities concerned, in the conspiracy.
The giver, offerer, and promisor as well as the solicitor,
acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881 shall be
liable as principals: Provided, That any persons, otherwise guilty
under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and
willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official
investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution
and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his
information and testimony were given: Provided, further, That
nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal
prosecution for perjury or false testimony.
3. What is a certificate of canvass?
A certificate of canvass issued on the basis of the election
returns is required to proclaim the elected candidate.
A certificate of canvass dulyprepared by the respective board of
canvassers, signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of
the right hand of each member. It is supported by a statement
of the votes received by each candidate in each polling place.
The BOC shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained
the highest number of votes cast in the province, city,
municipality or barangay on the basis of the certificate of
canvass.
4.
a. Cases brought directly to the Comelec?
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction in pre-proclamation
controversies arising from national, regional or local elections.
A pre-proclamation controversy may be raised by any candidate
or by any registered political party, organization, or coalition of
political parties before the BOC, or directly with the
Commission.
Issues affecting the composition or proceedings of the Boards
may be initiated by filing a verified petition before the Board or
directly with the Commission.

If the petition is filed directly with the Board, its decision may be
appealed to the Commission within three (3) days from issuance thereof.
However, if commenced directly with the Commission, the verified
petition shall be filed immediately when the board begins to act illegally,
or at the time of the appointment of the member of the board whose
capacity to sit as such is objected to.
b. Authority of the Comelec over the Board of canvassers
Section 227 of BP 881 provides that the COMELEC shall have
direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers.
Any member of the board of canvassers may, at any time, be
relieved for cause and substituted motuproprio by the
Commission.
The Comelec has to see to it that the members perform their
functions properly and in accordance with the law and not to
allow any commission of fraud or irregularity on the
proceedings especially when it is the board vested with the
power to proclaim the winners.
c. When does the BOC become functus officio?
The BOC becomes functus officio after it had canvassed the
votes and proclaimed the winning candidate, as it was
constituted only for the functions of canvassing the election
returns and proclaiming the winner on the basis thereof.
When the BOC becomes functus officio, it can no longer
reconvene or conduct any subsequent meetings.
However, the Comelec, may order the BOC to reconvene for
the purpose of effecting some corrections or to proclaim the
true winning candidate of a contested election.
5.
a. What are pre-proclamation controversies?
Section 241 of the OEC defines a pre-proclamation controversy
as any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of
the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate
or by any registered political party or coalition of political
parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or
any matter raised under Sections 233(When the election
returns are delayed, lost or destroyed) , 234 (Material defects
in the election returns), 235 (When election returns appear to
be tampered with or falsified) and 236 (Discrepancies in
election returns) in relation to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.
Any candidate, political party or coalition of political parties,
contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any
election returns on any of the grounds authorized under this
article or in Sections 234, 235 and 236 of Article XIX shall
submit their verbal objections to the chairman of the board of
canvassers at the time the questioned returns is presented for
inclusion or exclusion, which objections shall be noted in the
minutes of the canvassing. (245, OEC)
The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
proclamation controversies. It may motuproprio or upon
written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the
ELECTIONS |Page 17 of 19
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any
candidate-elect or annual partially or totally any proclamation,
if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant xxx. (242,
OEC)
However, under RA 7166 Section 15, Pre-proclamation cases are not
allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member
of the House of Representatives. Instances when Comelec has the
authority to decide a pre-proclamation controversy.
In Chavez v. Comelec, the SC ruled that a PPC are not allowed in
elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of
the House of Representatives. The only exception to the said
rule is the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or the election returns sought to be corrected and/or
objections there must have been made before the board of
canvassers and especially noted in the minutes of their
respective proceedings as provided for under Section 15 of RA
7166.
6. W/N X can file a motion for execution before the RTC
Yes. Under Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, within five (5) days after promulgation of the
decision of the court, the aggrieved party may file with said
court a notice of appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the
attorney of record of the adverse party. Thus, X should file the
motion not later than January 27, 1996.
7. Does the Comelec allow the award of actual and compensatory
damages in an election protest?
Yes. Under Section 259 of the OEC, actual or compensatory
damages may be granted in all election contests or in quo
warranto proceedings in accordance with law.
Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code only provides for the
granting in election cases of actual and compensatory damages
in accordance with law. The victorious party in an election case
cannot be indemnified for expenses which he has incurred in an
electoral contest in the absence of a wrongful act or omission
or breach of obligation clearly attributable to the losing party.
Evidently, if any damage had been suffered by private
respondent due to the execution of judgment pending appeal,
that damage may be said to be equivalent to
damnumabsqueinjuria, which is, damage without injury, or
damage or injury inflicted without injustice, or loss or damage
without violation of a legal right, or a wrong done to a man for
which the law provides no remedy.
8. Jurisdiction involving election contests.
Section 249 of the OEC provides that the COMELEC shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all Members of the BatasangPambansa,
elective regional, provincial and city officials.
A sworn petition contesting the election of any Member of the
BatasangPambansa or any regional, provincial or city official
shall be filed with the Commission by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the
same office, within ten days after the proclamation of the
results of the election.

A sworn petition contesting the election of a municipal officer
shall be filed with the proper regional trial court by any
candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
been voted for the same office, within ten days after
proclamation of the results of the election.
A sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay officer
shall be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial
court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of the election. The
trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days
after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or
metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten days from
receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional
trial court which shall decide the case within thirty days from its
submission, and whose decisions shall be final.
The aggrieved party may appeal to the IAC within five days
after receipt of a copy of the decision. No motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained by the court. The appeal
shall be decided within sixty days after the case has been
submitted for decision.
2005 Law Review Final Exam
I. Fill in the Blanks.
1. The statement of votes forms the certificate of canvass (?) and
the basis of proclamation.
2. Adherence to the technicalitythat would put a stamp of
palpably void election, with the inevitable result of
frustratingthe peoples will cannot be countenance.
3. The Comelec may sit enbanc or in twoDivisions, and shall
promulgate its rules and procedures in order to expedite
disposition of electioncases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and
decided in divisions, provided that motions for reconsideration
of decisions shall be decided by the Comelec en banc.
4. The Comelec exercises exclusive original jurisdiction on all
contests relating to the elections, returns andqualifications of
all elective regional, provincial and city officials.
5. Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Comelec involving
elective municipal and barangay officers shall be final and
executory and not appealable.
6. Plurality of votes is the essence of an election.
7. Election contest are reasonably and liberally construed as it is
imbued with public interest to give way to the will of the
electorate and ascertain by all means the real candidate elected
by the people.
8. Plebiscite is generally associated with the amending process of
the Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects.
9. No recall shall take place within one year immediately
preceding a regular election.
ELECTIONS |Page 18 of 19
10. A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of
a division shall be filed within five (5) days from the
promulgation thereof.
11. Such motion, if not pro-forma suspends the execution for
implementation of the decision, resolution, order or matter to
the Supreme Court.
12. A motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution,
order or decision is a prohibited pleading, except in election
offenses cases.
13. Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a
sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before
the election office of the municipality wherein he resides and
including the same in the book of registered voters upon
approval by the Election Registration Board.
14. Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have the
reached the required age or period of residence but who on
the day of election shall possess such qualification, may
register as a voter.
15. R.A. 8189 introduced a system of continuing registration
whereby applications for registration shall be conducted daily.
16. the Commission en banc may motupropioor upon a verified
petition by any interested party, and after due notice and
hearing whereby all interest parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election to a date
which is reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
17. a petition for inclusion shall be filed anytime except 105 days
prior to a regular elections/
18. Every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is a clear
and good reason to justify its rejected.
19. The certificate of votes shall be admissible in evidence to
prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly
committed in preparation of the election returns concerned.
20. Election survey refers to measurement of opinions and
perceptions of the voters as regards a candidates popularity,
qualifications, platforms or matter of public discussion in
relation to the election.
21. Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers may be initiated with the Board of directly
with the Commission on Elections.
22. a pre-proclamation controversy is summary in nature,
administrative in character and which is filed before the Board
of Canvassers
23. An election contest is a special statutory proceeding, designed
to contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter upon
and hold office.
24. A petition to declare failure of elections is an extraordinary
remedy and therefore must alleged the essential grounds that
would justify the same.

25. The Comelec is not mandated to conduct a technical
examination before it dismisses a petition for nullification of
election when the petition is, on its face, without merit.
26. Voters are entitled to cast two votes for the House of
Representatives; the first vote for the legislative district
representative and the second vote for the party list/ sectoral
representative.
27. The mere filing of an election protest calls for the opening and
appreciation of the ballots and certificate of votes.
28. Payment of the correct filing fees is jurisdictional and
mandatory.
29. The fact of illiteracy or disability should accordingly be recorded
in the application
30. Certificate of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators
and House of Representatives is prepared in seven (7) copies.
31. A petition for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty or
ineligibility of the winning candidate.
II. True or False.
1. In Matalam v. Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that the
enumeration of the issues in a pre-proclamation controversy is
restrictive and exclusive and the Comelec is limited and
restricted only to an examination of the election returns and is
without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind the election
returns. FALSE
2. Political parties and party-lists are not required to secure
authority from Comelec to put up posters for their candidates.
FALSE
3. B.P. 881 mandates that the affidavits of withdrawal must be
filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to
be withdrawn is filed. TRUE
4. The material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 of
BP 881 refer to qualifications for elective office. TRUE
5. inTorayno, Sr. v. Comelec, 337 SCRA 574, the Supreme Court
explained the purpose of the residence as required by the
Constitution and law as a qualification for seeking and holding
public office. TRUE
6. In Republic v. dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785, the Supreme Court
ruled that the term limit for elective local officials must be
taken to refer to the right to be selected as well as the right to
serve in the same elective position. FALSE
7. The Divisions of the Comelec have the authority to resolve
petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election
protest filed with lower courts. TRUE
8. The SC is empowered to review an interlocutory order or a final
resolution of a division of the Comelec. FALSE
ELECTIONS |Page 19 of 19
9. RA 9189 also known as the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003 allowed qualified Filipinos abroad on the day of the
elections to vote in any electoral exercise. FALSE
10. RA 9006, the Fair Elections Act of 2002, allow substitution of
candidates. However, in case of valid substitution, votes cast
for the substituted candidates are considered stray except if
the substituted candidate has the same surname. FALSE
11. The division of the Comelec has no power to postpone an
election. TRUE
12. A ballot should be counted even if it was not signed at the back
by the chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors. TRUE
13. A Certificate of votes can be considered sufficient evidence of
the results of the election. FALSE
14. The board of canvassers may proclaim a candidate
notwithstanding the pendency of its ruling on appeal with the
Comelec. TRUE
15. A petition to correct entries in the Certificates of canvass on the
ground of manifest errors must be predicated on errors that
appear on the face of the certificate of canvass sought to be
corrected. TRUE.
16. The rule that a pre-proclamation controversy is not allowed for
members of the House of Representatives is absolute.
17. The fact that a candidate receives zero votes in all precincts
cannot support the contention that the election return contains
statistically improbable results.
18. Formal defects, duress and intimidation are grounds for
excluding an election return.
19. Election protests should contain a certificate of non-forum
shopping.
The 20% requirement for party-list representation under the Constitution
prescribes a ceiling and is considered a mandatory requirement.