1. LANOT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858 There are two aspects of disqualification cases.
s. The electoral aspect of a disqualification case
(November 16, 2006) EN BANC determines whether the offender should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office. Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear preponderance of evidence. An erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa. The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from holding a future public office. The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or after an election. When the disqualification case is filed before the elections, the question of disqualification is raised before the voting public. If the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him/her assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid. These two aspects can proceed simultaneously. The COMELEC commits grave abuse of discretion if it orders the dismissal of the disqualification case pending preliminary investigation of the election offense by the COMELEC Law Department. COMELEC has the discretion to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate during the pendency of a disqualification case when evidence of his/her guilt is strong. However, an order suspending the proclamation of a winning candidate against whom a disqualification case is filed is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted when warranted by the evidence. The essential elements for violating Section 80 of the OEC are: first, a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; second, the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; and third, the act is done outside the campaign period. However, a certificate of candidacy must first be filed. Otherwise, one is not considered a candidate. Acts committed by a person prior to his/her being a “candidate” even if 11 constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities are not punishable under Section 80 and are considered to be protected as part of freedom of expression of a citizen before s/he becomes a candidate for elective public office. If the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him/her assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid. 2. PENERA v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613 Motorcades conducted after filing of the certificate of candidacy prior to the campaign period (September 11, 2009) EN BANC constitute premature campaigning. When the campaign period starts and a person proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her acts, after the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy and prior to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, constitute premature campaigning, for which s/he may be disqualified. 3. MITMUG v. COMELEC, ET. AL., G.R. No. The COMELEC has the authority to deny motu proprio and without due notice and hearing a 106270-73 (February 10, 1994) EN BANC petition seeking to declare a failure of election where the allegations therein did not warrant the relief sought. According to Section 2, Rule 26 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur: (1) no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect; and (2) the votes not cast would affect the result of the election. The fact that a verified petition is filed does not automatically mean that a hearing on the case will be held before COMELEC will act on it. The verified petition must still show on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect are present. An election protest instituted subsequent to the filing of a petition to declare a failure of election is not an automatic abandonment of the petition initially filed. Where only an election protest ex abundante cautela is filed, the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the petition seeking to annul an election. 4. MACABAGO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. Rule 64 of the Rules of Court does not foreclose recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 152163 (November 18, 2002) EN BANC of orders of the COMELEC issued in the exercise of its administrative function. A failure of elections cannot be declared on the ground that there was a massive substitution of voters. Under Section 2 of the same Rule, a judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, as amended, except as therein provided. We ruled in Elpidio M. Salva, et. al. v. Hon. Roberto L. Makalintal, et. al. that Rule 64 of the Rules applies only to judgments or final orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The rule does not apply to interlocutory orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions or to its administrative orders. Rule 64, a procedural device for the review of final orders, resolutions or decision of the COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 from administrative orders of COMELEC issued in the exercise of its administrative function. Judicial power is an antidote to and a safety net against whimsical, despotic and oppressive exercise of governmental power. The aggrieved party may seek redress therefrom through the appropriate special civil action provided by the Rules of Court. As to acts of the COMELEC, the special civil action may be one for certiorari pursuant to Article IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution. As a general rule, an administrative order of the COMELEC is not a proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari. But when the COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing such an order, the aggrieved party may seek redress from the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. In pre-proclamation proceedings, the COMELEC is not to look beyond or behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic returns. Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution of which would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima facie 100 regular, on their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues should be posed and resolved in a regular election protest. 5. TYPOCO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 186359 A certificate of votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine results of (March 5, 2010) EN BANC 614 the election, only election returns are. In cases wherein the correctness of the number of votes is involved, the ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence. However, if such cannot be produced or are not available, the election returns would then be the next best evidence While fraud is a ground to declare a failure of election, the commission of fraud must be such that it prevented or suspended the holding of an election, including the preparation and transmission of the election returns. The proper remedy in assailing election returns as manufactured for being allegedly prepared by one person, is to seek a recount, which is a proper subject of an election protest. 6. UTTO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 150111 A proclamation made pending appeal of the ruling of the BOC is void. After proclamation, the (January 31, 2002) EN BANC remedy of a party aggrieved in an election is an election protest. This is on the assumption, however, that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive COMELEC of the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. 7. SIQUIAN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135627 An objection to an election return cannot be made after the same has been canvassed. Once a (December 9, 1999) EN BANC proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation case should be dismissed. 8. CHU v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135423 In a pre-proclamation case, there is no need to go beyond the face of the election return which (November 29, 1999) EN BANC appears to be authentic and regular. If there had been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through the falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy. In the absence of any indication of patent irregularity or “palpable errors and/or material defects [which] are clearly discernible on the faces of the returns,” the BOC should include such returns in the canvass. Moreover, intimidation is not a ground for excluding an election return. 9. LEGARDA v. DE CASTRO, PET Case No. PET By assuming office in another position, whose term of office conflicts with that of the 003 (January 18, 2008) protested position during the pendency of the election protest, and discharging his/her duties as such, the protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn his/her protest, or abandoned his/her determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. The PET adopts the Hearing Commissioner’s recommendations that the Motion to Resolve the First Aspect of the Protest under consideration should be denied. Consequently, the protest itself, should be dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis, as the pilottested revision of ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would not affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of the returns. This is in addition to the ground of abandonment or withdrawal by reason of his/her candidacy for, election and assumption of office as Senator of the Philippines. COMELEC En Banc does not have jurisdiction in the first instance, whether original or appellate, over election cases, pre-proclamation controversies, and incidents thereof. When such disputes are filed before or elevated to the COMELEC, they should be heard and adjudicated first at the division level. However, the COMELEC En Banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. Only upon motion for reconsideration of the said case can the En Banc acquire jurisdiction over the case. As public documents, the Congress retrieved election return copies, used for the proclamation of the protestee by the National BOC, are presumed authentic and duly executed in the regular course of official business. The presumption of regularity could only be overcome by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Absent such convincing evidence, the presumption must be upheld. As far as cash deposits in presidential protests cases are concerned, the same is reckoned on the basis of the basis of the number of precincts protested, not the number of ballot boxes containing the election returns. 10. FERMO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. An execution pending appeal, under Section 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, must be based 140179 (March 13, 2000) EN BANC upon good reasons. The following constitute “good reasons” and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to support an order granting execution pending appeal: (1) public interest involved or will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. “Shortness of term” alone cannot justify premature execution. 11. AGUJETAS and BIJIS v. COURT OF The Members of the Provincial BOC are guilty of violating Section 231 of the OEC for the APPEALS, G.R. No. 106560 (August 23, preparation of an incorrect certificate of canvass and the erroneous proclamation of a winning 1996) EN BANC candidate. The explanation that the provision merely punishes the preparation of a certificate of canvass and failing to make the corresponding proclamation on the basis thereof would be tantamount to tolerating and licensing BOCs to make an erroneous proclamation. The Members of the Provincial BOC are guilty of violating Section 231 of the OEC for the preparation of an incorrect certificate of canvass and the erroneous proclamation of a winning candidate. The explanation that the provision merely punishes the preparation of a certificate of canvass and failing to make the corresponding proclamation on the basis thereof would be tantamount to tolerating and licensing BOCs to make an erroneous proclamation. The Members of the Provincial BOC are guilty of violating Section 231 of the OEC for the preparation of an incorrect certificate of canvass and the erroneous proclamation of a winning candidate. The explanation that the provision merely punishes the preparation of a certificate of canvass and failing to make the corresponding proclamation on the basis thereof would be tantamount to tolerating and licensing BOCs to make an erroneous proclamation. To construe the provision of the law in such a way would defeat the purpose and spirit of that law, which is to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. A person who did not file a complaint for violation of the OEC may claim civil liability on the basis of the judgment thereof. The OEC does not specifically provide that a particular person must file the complaint. A complaint that a public crime has been committed may be filed by any competent person except where the law specifically provides the contrary. 12. DOMALANTA v. COMELEC, G.R. No. The unauthorized alteration of statement of votes by members of BOC is an election offense. 125586 (June 29, 2000) EN BANC