Anda di halaman 1dari 5

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai