Anda di halaman 1dari 56

Year Assigned Brief Ruling

Case Facts
Title
1 Lacson v Posadas Ladrillano This is an administrative case against a judge who Any person who has been refused
approved several petition for inclusion in the voters' registration or whose name has
list without compliance with the requirements. The been stricken out from the permanent
judge, however, still summarily approved the said list of voters may at any time
petition even though the certificate for application for except sixty (60) days before a regular
inclusion were not submitted and the Board of election or twenty-five (25)
Inspectors were not properly notified thus they were days before a special election, apply to
not able to send representatives. the proper court for an order
directing the election registration board
or the board of inspectors as
2 the case may be, to include or reinstate
his name in the permanent list
of voters, attaching to his application for
inclusion the certificate of the
Election registration board or the board
of inspectors regarding his
case and proof of service of a copy of
his application and of the notice
of hearing thereof upon a member of the
said board.
2 Pungutan v Guevara The COMELEC excluded from the canvass for the The right to vote has reference to a
Abubakar election of delegates for the lone district of the constitutional guarantee of the utmost
province of Sulu the returns from 107 precincts of significance. It is a right without which
Siasi, 56 precincts of Tapul, 67 precincts of Parang the principle of sovereignty residing in
and 60 precincts of Luuk for being spurious or the people becomes nugatory. In the
manufactured and therefore no returns at all. Their traditional terminology, it is a political
finding was based on the fact that no elections were right enabling every citizen to participate
held in said municipalities as the voting was done by in the process of government to assure
3 persons other than the registered voters while armed that it derives its power from the consent
men went from precinct to precinct, prepared the of the governed. How such a right is to
ballots and dictated how the election returns were to be exercised is regulated by the
be prepared Election Code. Its enforcement under
the Constitution is, as noted, vested in
respondent Commission. Such a power,
however, is purely executive or
administrative. It becomes obvious then
why the right to vote, a denial of which
should find redress in the judiciary as
the guardian of constitutional rights, is
excluded from the authority vested in
respondent Commission.
3 Taule v Santos 1991 Manuel The Federation of ABCs (Associations of Barangay
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does
Councils) of Catanduanes, composed of 11 not cover protests over the
members, in their capacities as Presidents of the
organizational set-up of the katipunan
ABCs in their respective municipalities, convened an
ng mga barangay composed of
election with 6 members. When the group decided to
popularly elected punong barangays as
hold the election despite the absence of 5 of its
prescribed by law whose officers are
members, 2 of the 3 members of the Board of voted upon by their respective
Election Supervisors/Consultants walked out. The
members. The COMELEC exercises
election nevertheless proceeded.
only appellate jurisdiction over election
contests involving elective barangay
4 The governor questioned this before the Sec of officials decided by the Metropolitan or
DILG. Municipal Trial Courts which likewise
have limited jurisdiction. The authority of
the COMELEC over the katipunan ng
mga barangay is limited by law to
supervision of the election of the
representative of the katipunan
concerned to the sanggunian in a
particular level conducted by their own
respective organization
4 Romualdez v RTC Soresca Philip Romualdez is the nephew of the then First - In election cases, the Court treats
Lady Imelda Marcos. He established his residence at domicile and residence as
Brgy. Malbog, Tolosa, where he also had a synonymous.
residential house made and where he served as - Domicile denotes a fixed permanent
Barangay captain. residence to which, when absent for
During the 1987 Revolution, Petitioner Romualdez business or pleasure, or for like
fled the country then returned in December 1991. reasons, one intends to return.
5 In Feb 1992, he applied for voter registration, but In order to acquire a new domicile by
Donato Advincula prayed that Romualdez be choice, there must concur:
excluded from the list of registered voters. Advincula a. residence of bodily presence in the
argued that Romualdez is a resident of new locality
Massachusetts and that he had not acqured 1-year b. an intention to remain there, and
residence in the Philippines and 6-month residence c. an intention to abandon the old
in Tolosa domicile.
- There must basically be animus
manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or
at the domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the
residence at the place chosen for the
new domicile must be actual.
- The People's Power Revolution must
have truly caused great apprehension to
the Romualdezes, as well as a serious
concern over the safety. Their sudden
departure from the country cannot be
described as "voluntary," or as
"abandonment of residence" at least in
the context that these terms are used in
applying the concept of "domicile by
choice."

Also, on sufferage:
- The right to vote is a most precious
political right, as well as a bounden duty
of every citizen, enabling and requiring
him to participate in the process of
government so as to ensure that the
government can truly be said to derive
its power solely from the consent of the
governed.
- As the right of suffrage is not to be
abridged, so also must we safeguard
and preserve it but only on behalf of
those entitled and bound to exercise it.
5 Badelles v Cabili Balang Two election protests against the duly proclaimed DISMISSAL REVERSED. The
Mayor and Councilors of Iligan City, after the Nov. seriousness and gravity of the imputed
14, 1967 elections, based on the allegations of failure to have the elections conducted
flagrant violations of certain mandatory provisions of freely and honestly, with such
6 the Election Code, to be more specifically set forth irregularities alleged, give rise to doubts,
hereafter, were dismissed in a single order by the rational and honest, as to who were the
Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. In the duly elected officials. Such allegations, it
order of dismissal, it was admitted that while is to be stressed, would have to be
irregularities as well as misconduct on the part of accepted at their face value for the
election officers were alleged in the election protests purpose of determining whether there is
filed, there was however an absence of an allegation a cause of action, a motion to dismiss
that they would change the result of the election in amounting to a hypothetical admission
favor of the protestants and against the protestees, of facts thus pleaded.
that such irregularities would destroy the secrecy
and integrity of the ballots cast, or that the Time and time again, we have stressed
protestees knew of or participated in the commission the importance of preserving inviolate
thereof. For the lower court then, the lack of a cause the right of suffrage. If that right be
of action was rather evident. disregarded or frittered away, then
popular sovereignty becomes a myth.
As long as popular government is an
end to be achieved and safeguarded,
suffrage, whatever may be the modality
and form devised, must continue to be
the means by which the great reservoir
of power must be emptied into the
receptacular agencies wrought by the
people through their Constitution in the
interest of good government and the
common weal. Republicanism, in so far
as it implies the adoption of a
representative type of government,
necessarily points to the enfranchised
citizen as a particle of popular
sovereignty and as the ultimate source
of the established authority.

A republic then to be true to its name


requires that the government rests on
the consent of the people, consent
freely given, intelligently arrived at,
honestly recorded, and thereafter
counted. Only thus can they be really
looked upon as the ultimate sources of
established authority. It is their
undeniable right to have officials of their
unfettered choice. The election law has
no justification except as a means for
assuring a free, honest and orderly
expression of their views. It is of the
essence that corruption and
irregularities should not be permitted to
taint the electoral process.
6 Gallardo v Ramirez Respondent filed his Petition before the court against The Constitution empowers the
Tabamo petitioners to prohibit and restrain them from Commission on Elections to 'have
pursuing or prosecuting certain public works exclusive charge of the enforcement
projects; from releasing, disbursing and/or spending and administration of all laws relative to
any public funds for such projects; and from issuing, the conduct of the elections. Trial court
using or availing of treasury warrants or any device has no jurisdiction over the subject
for the future delivery of money, goods and other matter of Special Civil Action No. 465.
things of value chargeable against public funds in Respondent to file the appropriate
connection with the said projects – were undertaken complaint for an election offense
in violation of the 45-day ban on public works pursuant to the COMELEC Rules of
imposed by the Omnibus Election Code, because Procedure
7 although they were initiated a few days before 27
March 1992, the date the ban took effect, they were
not covered by detailed engineering plans,
specifications or a program of work which are
preconditions for the commencement of any public
works project; hence, they could not have been
lawfully and validly undertaken; (2) the hiring of
hundreds of laborers in the different projects
continues unabated in flagrant violation of
paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w), Section 261 of the
Omnibus Election Code;
7 Tan v Comelec Ferrer Tan, as incumbent city Prosecutor of Davao City, SC Cites Sec. 52, Art. VII of the OEC.
was designated by the COMELEC as Vice Chairman (Powers and functions of the
of the City Board of Canvassars of Davao City. He COMELEC)
was later on administratively charged before the
COMELEC for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross It should be stressed that the
Incompetence, and Acts Inimical to the Service. administrative case against petitioner,
8 Issue is: considering that petitioner is under the taken cognizance of by, and still
Executive Department of the Government, does the pending with, the COMELEC, is in
COMELEC have jurisdiction over the admin relation to the performance of his duties
complaint against him? as an election canvasser and not as a
city prosecutor. The COMELEC's
mandate includes its authority to
exercise direct and immediate
supervision and control over national
and local officials or employees,
including members of any national or
local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government,
required by law to perform duties
relative to the conduct of elections. In
order to help ensure that such duly
deputized officials and employees of
government carry out their respective
assigned tasks, the law has also
provided than upon the COMELEC's
recommendation, the corresponding
proper authority (the Secretary of the
Department of Justice in the case at
bar) shall take appropriate action, either
to suspend or remove from office the
officer or employee who may, after due
process, be found guilty of violation of
election laws or failure to comply with
instructions, orders, decision or rulings
of the COMELEC.

8 MONTEJO VS Gabay The province of Leyte has 5 legislative districts. Comelec relied on the the Ordinance
COMELEC Biliran, which was in the 3rd district was made a sub- appended to the 1987 Constitution, as a
province with 8 municipalities leaving only 5 in the basis of its power of redistricting. But, a
3rd district. Comelec issued a resolution to remedy review of the deliberations of the
the inequality whereby it transferred some ConCom revealed that it denied to the
municipalities of Biliran to the 3rd district. Montejo, COMELEC the major power of
the representative of the 1st district then fiiled an MR legislative apportionment. Section 2 of
to call the attention of the Comelec to the inequitable the Ordinance only empowered the
9 distribution between the 1st and 2nd district. The COMELEC "to make minor adjustments
opposition, however, argued that Comleec has no of the reapportionment herein made."
jurisdiction to issue the resolution transferring Respondent COMELEC, therefore,
municipalities from one district to another. committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
promulgated the reslolution transferring
municipalities from 1 district to another.
The issue involved in this case is a
problem of reapportionment of
legislative districts and petitioner's
remedy lies with Congress. Section 5(4),
Article VI of the Constitution
categorically gives Congress the power
to reapportion, thus: "Within three (3)
years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this
section."
9 MASTURA VS 1998 Vitente The COMELEC annulled and set aside the canvass We find no grave abuse of discretion on
COMELEC made by the original Municipal Board of Canvassers the part of respondent COMELEC. It is
and ordered a recanvass. This was prompted by a settled jurisprudence that COMELEC
finding that certificate of canvass had been tampered can suspend the canvass of votes
with. Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of pending its inquiry whether there exists
discretion? a discrepancy between the various
copies of election returns from the
disputed voting centers. Corollarily,
once the election returns were found to
be falsified or tampered with, the
COMELEC can annul the illegal
canvass and order the Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim
the winners on the basis of the genuine
10 returns or, if it should refuse, replace the
members of the board or proclaim the
winners itself.

This was exactly what happened in the


instant petition. x x x

Pursuant to its administrative functions,


the COMELEC exercises direct
supervision and control over the
proceedings before the Board of
Canvassers. x x x

The assailed Orders having been issued


pursuant to COMELEC's administrative
powers and in the absence of any
finding of grave abuse of discretion,
judicial interference is therefore
unnecessary and uncalled for.
Consequently, the questioned Orders
must perforce be upheld.
10 BANAGA JR. VS Crudo Petitioner Banaga and private respondent Bernabe The COMELEC’s authority to declare a
COMELEC were candidates for Vice-Mayor in Paranaque in the failure of elections is provided in our
May 1998 election. The city board of canvassers election laws. Section 4 of RA 7166
proclaimed respondent Bernabe as the winner. provides that the COMELEC sitting en
Banaga filed with the COMELEC an action banc by a majority vote of its members
denominated as Petition to Declare Failure of may decide, among others, the
Elections and/or For Annulment of Elections due to declaration of failure of election and the
massive vote-buying, flying voters allowed to vote, calling of special election as provided in
glaring discrepancies and omissions in election Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
returns, and that results are statistically improbable. Code. x x x Before the COMELEC can
act on a verified petition seeking to
11 declare a failure of election two
conditions must concur, namely (1) no
voting took place in the precinct or
precincts on the date fixed by law, or
even if there was voting, the election
resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the
votes not cast would have affected the
result of the election.11 Note that the
cause of such failure of election could
only be any of the following: force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes.
11 AGGABAO VS Montes Anthony Miranda was proclaimed the winning Once a winning candidate has been
COMELEC candidate for the congressional seat in the 4th proclaimed, taken his oath, and
district of Isabela. Giorgidi Aggabao filed a certiorari assumed office as a Member of the
case before the SC questioning the proclamation in House of Representatives, COMELEC's
12 favor of Miranda considering that Aggabao filed a jurisdiction over election contests
protest on the decision of Board of Canvassers. relating to his elections, returns, and
However, prior to the petition by Aggabao, Miranda qualifications ends, and the HRET's own
already has taken his oath and assumed office as jurisdiction begins
Member of the HoR.
13 12 POE VS Bagayas
MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO
13 LEGARDA VS DE Pineda Legarda challenges the proclamation of De Castro On the issue of abandonment of protest
CASTRO because of the spurious electoral returns (ER). As The court used the case of Defensor-
evidence, she asked PET for revision of the votes in Santiago v. Ramos wherein the protest
two municipalities in Lanao del Sur. However PET filed by the former in the 1992
dismissed the protest because she abandoned the Presidential elections was deemed
same when she assumed her senatorial seat in the abandoned when she assumed her seat
2007 elections. Furthermore, the ERs as public in the Senate. This would be in the
documents, have prima facie proof that the facts interest of the public as it would
contained therein are accurate. Legarda failed to dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to
overturn this presumption. Even ruling in favor of the the results of the 1992 elections. This
petitioner would not change the result of the case is on all fours with the present
elections. controversy, except that Legarda was
VP candidate. For being elected senator
in 2007, she is deemed to have
abandoned her 2004 VP election
protest.

On the issue of electoral fraud


14 Legarda failed to rebut the presumption
of regularity of ER as public documents.
The ER used by Congress in
proclaiming De Castro as VP elect were
authentic and duly executed in the
regular course of business. To
overcome the presumption of regularity,
there must be clear and convincing
evidence.
1. Legarda: the security features in the
ERs retrieved by Congress and
COMELEC were different!
SC: Nope, not enough as this is not
evidence that ERs were fake and
spurious. Testimonial evidence
presented not sufficient as those
examined were from a sample set only,
and witnesses were able to identify
security features naman!
2. Legarda: there was a break-in in
Congress to switch the ERs
SC: No conclusive evidence presented!
Deputy for Operations from HoR denied
the allegations
14 SARMIENTO VS Uaminal The COMELEC ruled on several special cases The COMELEC en banc does not have
COMELEC excluding canvasses of election returns in the authority to hear and decide election
Catanduanes, Iriga, Camarines Sur, and Davao, cases
dismissing appeals from the ruling of Municipal (including pre-proclamation
Board of Canvassers, and denying an amended pre- controversies) at the first instance.
15 proclamation petition. Rodulfo Sarmiento assails the
aforesaid decisions for being issued with grave
abuse of discretion because respondent took
cognizance of and decided the appeals without
referring them to any of its Divisions, as mandated
by Art. IX(C).3.
15 MUNICIPAL Villanueva Flora Benzonan who was a mayoralty candidate in Not all cases relating to election laws
BOARD OF the Municipality of Glan, Sarangani during 2001 filed before the COMELEC are required
CANVASSERS sought to declare null and void the canvass to be first heard by a division, under the
VS COMELEC conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of constitution the COMELEC exercise
Glan and to recall the proclamation of petitioners. both the administrative and quasi-
The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution finding judicial powers. The COMELEC en banc
the based on the evidence presented the can act directly on matters falling with in
proclamation of the winning candidates were its administrative powers. It is only when
declared null and void. And a re-canvass of the the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are
election returns was ordered. Arising from the said involved that the COMELEC is
decision was a petition for Certiorari filed to review mandated to decide cases first in
16 the COMELEC en banc resolution and praying that a division. It is clear that this case is one
Temporary Restraining Order be given for the that involves a preproclamation
reason that COMELEC was not in the proper controversy that requires the exercise of
jurisdiction to render such resolution. the COMELEC quasi-judicial powers as
the illegality of the composition and
proceedings of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers. Also, Benzonan filed her
pre proclamation case directly with the
COMELEC en banc. Since COMELEC
en banc is without jurisdiction to decide
cases involving such, the procedure
taken by Benzonan resulted in a
resolution in her favor thus declared null
and void.
16 ALVAREZ VS Leal Alvarez and Sarmiento were candidates for punong COMELEC decisions on barangay and
COMELEC barangay. Alvarez was initially declared as winner municipal election contests are
but when the MTC reopened the ballots, Sarmiento appealable
prevailed. Alvarez appealed to COMELEC in division ONLY by way of special civil action for
which affirmed MTC. MR was junked by the En certiorari to the SC where the factual
Banc, citing Art. IX Sec. 2 (2) last paragraph of the determinations
Constitution. are marred with grave abuse of
discretion. Side issue: No violation of
the 90 day requirement (Article IX-C Sec
3 and OEC Sec 257). However, strict
application of the deadline might result
in injustice if COMELEC is forced to
17 rush its
investigation given practical limitation on
manpower and resources. Also, the
phrase ―preferential disposition‖ with
respect to election cases is found in
OEC
258. It says regular courts must give
preferential treatment to election cases.
It does not
refer to the COMELEC, which obviously
only handles election cases and by
default gives
preference to them.
17 ARROYO VS DOJ Reyes
18 AND COMELEC
18 BANAT VS Cruz After the 2007 elections, BANAT filed a Petition to In determining the allocation of seats for
COMELEC Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List party-list representatives under Section
Representatives Provided by the Constitution before 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following
the COMELEC. However, the latter only proclaimed procedure shall be observed:
the winning candidates based on the formula in
19 the Veterans ruling. COMELEC then ruled that 1. The parties, organizations, and
BANAT's petition was already moot and academic. coalitions shall be ranked from the
BANAT filed petition highest to the lowest based on the
for certiorariand mandamus against the COMELEC number of votes they garnered during
ruling. the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and
coalitions receiving at least two percent
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-
list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each.

3. Those garnering sufficient number of


votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes until all the
additional seats are allocated. This is
computed by determining the total
number of seats alloted for the party-list
system, which is twenty percent (20%)
of the total number of Members of the
House of Representatives, including
those under the party-list, less those
already guaranteed under paragraph 2.
The difference shall be apportioned
based on the number of votes garnered
by each party-list.

4. Each party, organization, or coalition


shall be entitled to not more than three
(3) seats.
19 ATONG Lopez 54 party-lists assail the COMELEC resolutions R.A. No. 7941 does not require national
PAGLAUM VS disqualifying them from participating in the May 2013 and regional parties or organizations to
COMELEC elections by denying their petitions for registration, represent the "marginalized and
mainly due to the ground that the sectors they underrepresented" sectors. To require
represent and/or the nominees that they fielded all national and regional parties under
cannot be considered marginalized and the party-list system to represent the
20 underrepresented. SC granted all these petitions. "marginalized and underrepresented" is
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat,
in following prevailing SC decisions in disqualifying ideology-based and cause-oriented
petitioners from participating in the coming 13 May parties from the party-list system.
2013 party-list elections. However, the Court Section 5(1), Article VI of the
abandoned the guidelines they made in Ang Bayani Constitution is crystal-clear that there
and BANAT and enumerated new guidelines for shall be "a party-list system of
party-list representation. (The issue is if all parties registered national, regional, and
are required to represent the ―marginalized and sectoral parties or organizations." The
underrepresented‖. SC said no) commas after the words "national," and
"regional," separate national and
regional parties from sectoral parties.
Had the framers of the 1987
Constitution intended national and
regional parties to be at the same time
sectoral, they would have stated
"national and regional sectoral parties."
They did not, precisely because it was
never their intention to make the party-
list system exclusively sectoral... Thus,
the party-list system is composed of
three different groups: (1) national
parties or organizations; (2) regional
parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.National and
regional parties or organizations are
different from sectoral parties or
organizations. National and regional
parties or organizations need not be
organized along sectoral lines and need
not represent any particular sector.
20 AKBAYAN- Albao Akbayan seeks to direct the COMELEC to conduct a The right of a citizen to vote is
YOUTH VS 2-day special registration, claiming that around 4M necessarily conditioned upon certain
COMELEC youth nationwide were not able to register before the procedural requirements he must
initial Dec 27, 2000 deadline. COMELEC and SC undergo: among others, the process of
ruled against Akbayan. registration. Specifically, a citizen in
order to be qualified to exercise his right
to vote, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by the fundamental
21 charter, is obliged by law to register.
Stated differently, the act of registration
is an indispensable precondition to the
right of suffrage. For registration is part
and parcel of the right to vote and an
indispensable element in the election
process. Thus, contrary to petitioners
argument, registration cannot and
should not be denigrated to the lowly
stature of a mere statutory requirement.
Proceeding from the significance of
registration as a necessary requisite to
the right to vote, the State undoubtedly,
in the exercise of its inherent police
power, may then enact laws to
safeguard and regulate the act of voters
registration for the ultimate purpose of
conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
election
21 ROMUALDEZ VS Flores In election cases, the Court treats
RTC (SUPRA) domicile and residence as synonymous
terms. In order, in turn, to acquire a new
domicile by choice, there must concur
(1) residence or bodily presence in the
new locality, (2) an intention to remain
there, and (3) an intention to abandon
the old domicile. In other words, there
22 must basically be animus manendi
coupled with animus non revertendi.
The purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the
residence at the place chosen for the
new domicile must be actual.
22 SIAWAN VS Vergara, Judge Inopiquez's uncle, Ponciano and the Herbases filed Judge Inopiquez disregarded the
INOPIQUEZ T. their respective petitions for inclusion in the voters list. provisions of the Omnibus Election
Ponciano alleged that he was unable to register in Brgy. Code. Under the law, a petition for
Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte, because he could not book a
inclusion may be filed only by a person
plane for Leyte and that it was his intention to vote in Leyte
as he was already retired as judge of RTC Manila.
(a) whose application for registration
Meanwhile, the Herbases alleged that they had been has been disapproved by the board of
23 election inspectors or (b) whose name
residents of Brgy. San Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte for two
years at the time of the petition; that they were refused has been stricken out from the list of
registration on February 1, 1992 by the Board of Election voters. No exception is provided by the
Inspectors; and that they have not voted for two law. The petition of Ponciano does not
consecutive elections. Judge Inopiquez granted their fall within the coverage of the law, since
petitions. he was neither refused registration by
the board nor his name ordered stricken
from the list of voters. Whether or not
Ponciano had good reason for his
failure to register as a voter was
irrelevant.
The records also show that the petitions
did not name the board of election
inspectors a party to the proceedings.
There was also no showing that the
board of election inspectors was ever
notified of hearings to be conducted on
such inclusion proceedings either by
registered mail or by personal delivery,
or by notice posted in a conspicuous
place in the city hall or municipal
building and in two other conspicuous
places within the city or municipality at
least 10 days prior to the day set for the
hearing as required in par. (b) Section
143 of OEC.
23 MERCADO VS Lerios A complaint for grave misconduct was filed against The clear mandate of the law (Section
DYSANGCO Judge Dysangco, alleging that prior to the Barangay 143, Omnibus Election Code) is for the
election, 48 petitions for inclusion in the voter's list municipal judge:
were filed and 39 of which were granted. a) to decide the petition on the basis of
Complainants averred that the issuance of the Order the evidence presented
by respondent judge was highly anomalous, illegal, b) to conduct a hearing thereon, and
and patently of dubious origin as not one of the 39 c) to render a decision within 10 days
petitioners presented evidence or appeared in the from the filing of the petition
scheduled hearings.
24 Personal interview is different to the
hearing required by law. A hearing
means that a party is given the chance
to adduce evidence to support his side
of the case. The interview merely show
that it is a superficial and mechanical
inquiry on each petitioners age,
citizenship, residence and years of
residence.
25 24 KABATAAN Young
PARTYLIST VS
COMELEC
25 GADOR VS Medina In a petition for mandamus, the petitioner alleged ISSUE: WON the certificate of
COMELEC that he filed his certificate of candidacy with the candidacy of the petitioner which was
Election Registrar of Ozamis City on January 7, filed on January 7, 1980 is valid.
1980 and his certificate of candidacy for Mayor on HOLDING AND RATIO: It is VOID. The
January 7, 1980 on the basis of a news item in the petition for mandamus is hereby
Bulletin Today, January 6, issue. DISMISSED for lack of merit.
On January 8, 1980, the petitioner wired the 1. Section 7, Batasang Pambansa
Chairman of the COMELEC informing him of the Bilang 52, provides that "The sworn
filing of the certificate of candidacy and at the time certificate of candidacy shall be filed in
requesting him to release the approval of the said triplicate not later than January 4, 1980."
certificate.On January 11, 1980, the petitioner It is a fact admitted by the petitioner that
caused the Election Registrar of Ozamiz City to wire the President had not extended the
the Chairman, COMELEC, reiterating the information period within which to file the certificate
26 that the petitioner had filed a certificate of candidacy of candidacy.
on January 7. Petitioner admits that in view of the 2. The SC is powerless to grant the
President's announcement that the resolution of the remedy prayed for in the petition.
respondent, COMELEC, for the extension of time for Having been filed beyond January 4,
filing certificates of candidacy from January 4 to 1980, the certificate of candidacy of the
January 10 had been denied, there is a strong petitioner is void.
probability that the his name as candidate for Mayor
may not be included in the list of candidates to be
voted which is to be printed soon and distributed. He
contends that on the grounds of fairness, principles
of equity and for the best interest of the people,
judgment should be rendered commanding the
COMELEC to immediately include the petitioner in
the list of candidates for Mayor.
26 GO VS Ravina Petitioner filed COC for mayor with the Municipal First, the withdarawal of the COC for
COMELEC Election Officer of Baybay. Then she tried to file with mayor was effective. According to the
the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte, which Omnibus Election Code, before the
has a Tacloban City office, another COC for expiration of the period to file a COC, a
governor of Leyte, and an affidavit of withdrawal of person who has more than 1 COC may
27 the COC for mayor. This was refused, so the declare under oath which office he
petitioner faxed the affidavit to her father who filed it desires to be eligible and cancel the
at Baybay. Respondents filed a petition to deny due other. Nothing says that the affidavit of
course and/or to cancel both COCs of petitioner, and withdrawal has to be filed at the same
a petition to disqualify petitioner. COMELEC Law office where the COC was filed. Second,
Department conducted an ex-parte study of the there was a deprivation of due process
cases, submitted its recommendation to the en banc, when the petitioner was not given an
which cancelled both COCs. opportunity to be heard. There was no
hearing, and the COMELEC en banc, in
merely approving the Law Department's
recommendation, deprived the petitioner
of procedural due process.
27 VILLAROSA VS Vergara, Petitioner (Villarosa) and Private Respondent The facts established in this case,
HRET D. (Quintos) were rival candidates for a congressional strengthened by the admission of the
position. Petitioner is the wife of a previous parties at the preliminary conference
congressman who was known by the initials "JTV"/ conducted by the HRET on 6 August
"JOE-JTV". Petitioner wrote in her COC as her 1998 and during the oral argument
nickname "JTV" Quintos filed a protest in the HRET before the Court on 15 August 2000,
which subsequently ruled to invalidate the votes for lead us to no other conclusion than that
Villarosa. Hence the petition the use by VILLAROSA of JTV as her
nickname or stage name, as indicated in
her Certificate of Candidacy, was a
clever ruse or ploy to make a mockery
of the election process. Therefore, the
HRET did not commit any grave abuse
of discretion in ruling that JTV votes
should not be counted in favor of
VILLAROSA. It would be the height of
28 naivety to believe that, indeed, JTV is
petitioners nickname, or that she used it
for any other purpose than to ride on the
popularity of her husband to mislead the
voters, especially the less informed.

Since JTV undoubtedly refers to the


initials or nickname of VILLAROSAs
husband, Jose Tapales Villarosa, who
was, let it be stressed again, the
incumbent Representative of the district
in question at the time of the election for
his successor, neither reason nor rhyme
can support or justify a claim that JTV
votes were intended for petitioner
VILLAROSA.
Even if VILLAROSA decided to use JTV
as her nickname for purposes of the 11
May 1998 elections, one must never
forget that she never used it as a
nickname before she filed her certificate
of candidacy. The nickname which the
second paragraph of Section 74 of the
Omnibus Election Code allows to be
included in the certificate of candidacy is
that by which [the candidate] is
generally or popularly known. This
clearly means the nickname by which
one has been generally or popularly
known BEFORE the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, but NOT what
the candidate wants to THEREAFTER
use. By her own statement under oath
in her affidavit of 16 April 1998,
VILLAROSA solemnly declared that she
was generally and popularly known in
every barangay in Occidental Mindoro
as GIRLIE BEFORE and AFTER she
filed her certificate of candidacy. And, as
asserted by her counsel during the oral
argument on 15 August 2000, her other
nickname before she filed her certificate
of candidacy was MRS. JTV, not JTV.
28 QUINTO VS Macatiag Substantial distinctions clearly exist between
COMELEC elective officials and appointive officials. The
former occupy their office by virtue of the
mandate of the electorate. They are elected
The Court initially declared unconstitutional Sec. 13 of RA to an office for a definite term and may be
9369, Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and Sec. 4(a) removed therefrom only upon stringent
conditions. On the other hand, appointive
29 of COMELEC Resolution 8678. These provisions deemed
officials hold their office by virtue of their
that public appointive officials are resigned from their
designation thereto by an appointing
position at the start of the campaign season if they run for authority. Some appointive officials hold their
office. The assailed then Decision paved the way for public office in a permanent capacity and are
appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, entitled to security of tenure while others
prerogatives, and functions of their office notwithstanding serve at the pleasure of the appointing
their entry into the political arena. authority.
29 MARQUEZ VS Lapid
30 COMELEC
30 FERMIN VS Villanueva The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Kabuntalan Under Section 227 of the Omnibus
COMELEC proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Election Code, the COMELEC is vested
Kabuntalan. The COMELEC, however, annulled the with the power of direct control and
proclamation due to the failure of clustered polling supervision over the board of
Precinct No. 25A/26A to function in Barangay canvassers; hence, it took cognizance
Guiawa, Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The existence of the complaint in the omnibus motion
31 of 264 registered voters in the clustered precinct which questioned the conduct of the
would affect the results of the election. Thus, the special elections by the SMBOC.
COMELEC scheduled a special election. Under the circumstances, COMELEC's
COMELEC en banc issued an Order, which annulled action is not tainted with grave abuse of
the proceedings of the Special Public Hearing discretion.
conducted on May 14, 2006 and set aside the
proclamation of petitioner
31 DIANGKA VS Uaminal FOR REVISION PA ITO SEC. 68. Disqualifications. - Any
COMELEC candidate who, in an action or protest in
which he is a party is declared by final
decision of a 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 to
enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in
his election campaign an amount in
32 excess of that allowed by this code; (d)
solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections
89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated
any of Section 80, 83,85,86 and 261,
paragraphs d,e,k,v, and cc, sub-
paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from
continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office.
Any person who is a permanent resident
of or an immigrant of a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office under this 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. (Sec. 25, 1971 EC)."
(emphasis supplied)
32 JURILLA VS Crudo Antonio V. Hernandez filed with the Commission on It maybe gleaned from the provisions of
COMELEC Elections his certificate of candidacy for one of the Sec. 39, par. (a), of the Local
contested seats.‖ However, he did not indicate on Government Code of 1991, earlier
the space provided in Item No.12 therein his Precinct quoted, that the law does not
Number and the particular Barangay where he was a specifically require that the candidate
registered voter. His biodata gave his address as must state in his certificate of candidacy
―Acacia Street, Mariana, Quezon City,‖ which is part his Precinct Number and the Barangay
of the Fourth District of Quezon City. His certificate where he is registered. Apparently, it is
of candidacy and his biodata filed with COMELEC enough that he is actually registered as
33 did not expressly state that he was a registered voter a voter in the precinct where he intends
of Quezon City or that he was a resident of the to vote, which should be within the
Second District thereof. district where he is running for office. x x
x The holding of COMELEC that private
respondent Hernandez was a ―nuisance
candidate‖ is erroneous because, tested
against the provisions of Sec. 69, there
is no way by which we can categorize
him as a ―nuisance candidate".
33 DOMINO VS Guevara Petitioner DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy On Jurisdiction: The factual findings of
COMELEC for the position of Representative of the Lone the trial court and its resultant
Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani conclusions in the exclusion
indicating that he had resided there for 1 year and 2 proceedings on matters other than the
mos immediately preceding the election. right to vote in the precinct within its
Respondents filed with the COMELEC a Petition to territorial jurisdiction are not conclusive
Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of upon the COMELEC. The COMELEC
34 Candidacy alleging that DOMINO is not a resident, has jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 78,
much less a registered voter, of the province of Art. IX of the Omnibus Election Code,
Sarangani where he seeks election. For his defense, over a petition to deny due course to or
DOMINO presented before the COMELEC a cancel certificate of candidacy. In the
contract of lease and True Carbon Xerox copy of the exercise of the said jurisdiction,
Decision of the MTC QC in Election Case declaring COMELEC may determine whether
the registration of petitioner as voters in Dist 3 false representation as to material facts
Quezon City as completely erroneous and approving was made in the certificate of
the transfer of registration of voters of petitioners candidacy. The determination of the
from Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City to Brgy. MTC of QC in the exclusion proceedings
Poblacion of Alabel, Sarangani. as to the right of DOMINO to be
included or excluded from the list of
voters does not preclude the COMELEC
to pass upon the issue of compliance
with the residency requirement. On
Domicile and Residence A person’s
domicile, once established, is
considered to continue and will not be
deemed lost until a new one is
established. To successfully effect a
change of domicile, one must
demonstrate 1. An actual removal or an
actual change of domicile; 2. A bona
fide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a
new one; and 3. Definite acts which
correspond with the purpose.
34 BAUTISTA VS Manuel The COMELEC Law Department recommended the Under the Local Government Code of
COMELEC cancellation of Bautista’s certificate of candidacy 1991, an elective local official, including
since he was not registered as a voter in a Punong Barangay, must not only be a
Lumbangan. The COMELEC en banc failed to act on ―qualified elector‖ or "qualified voter,‖ he
the COMELEC Law Department’s recommendation must also be a ―registered voter.
before the barangay elections. Bautista won.
COMELEC en banc approved the Law Dept Under the Comelec Rules of Procedure,
recommendation after the elections. jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
certificate of candidacy lies with the
COMELEC sitting in Division, not en
35 banc.

the electorate cannot amend or waive


the qualifications prescribed by law for
elective office. The will of the people as
expressed through the ballot cannot
cure the vice of ineligibility

When the electorate voted for Bautista


as Punong Barangay, it was under the
belief that he was qualified. There is no
presumption that the electorate agreed
to the invalidation of their votes as stray
votes in case of Bautista’s
disqualification. Thus, second placer is
not the successor.
35 SALCEDO VS Pineda Victorino Salcedo filed with the Comelec a petition HELD: There was no false
COMELEC seeking the cancellation of Emerlita Cacao representation in her certificate of
Salcedo’s certificate of candidacy for the mayoralty candidacy. There are 2 requisites to
race in Sara, Iloilo on the ground that she had made satisfy in order to justify the cancellation
a false representation therein by stating that her of the certificate of candidacy under
surname was Salcedo. He contends that Emerlita Sec. 78: 1) the false representation
had no right to use said surname because she was must pertain to a material matter and 2)
not legally married to Neptali Salcedo there must be intent to deceive the
electorate as to one’s qualifications for
public office. Looking at SC’s previous
interpretation of material representation,
it may be concluded that the material
misrepresentation refer to qualifications
for elective office. Victorino was not able
to prove that Emerlita lacks the requisite
residency, age, citizenship or any other
legal qualification necessary to run for a
36 local elective office. Also, the use of a
surname, when not intended to mislead
or deceive the public as to one’s
identity, is not within the scope of the
provision.
DOCTRINE: The material
representation contemplated by Sec. 78
of the Omnibus Election Code refers to
qualifications for elective office. It could
not have been the intention of the law to
deprive a person of such a basic and
substantive political right to be voted for
a public office upon just any innocuous
mistake. Aside from the requirement of
materiality, a false representation under
Sec. 78 must consist of a ―deliberate
attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a
fact which would otherwise render a
candidate ineligible.‖
36 JALOSJOS VS Macatiag A sentence of prision mayor by final
COMELEC judgment is a ground for disqualification
under Sec. 40, LGC and under Sec. 12,
OEC. It is also a material fact involving the
eligibility of a candidate under Sec. 74 and
37 Cardino filed a petition under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus 78, OEC. Such ineligibility carries with it the
Election Code to cancel Jalosjos’ COC. The COMELEC accessory penalty of PSD which makes
did cancel the COC but applied the LGC rules on one’s COC void ab initio. Being void ab
succession (vice mayor to take over). The Court held that initio, votes for him were considered stray
the cancellation was indeed correct, but since Jalosjos votes, and thus the second candidate should
committed a false material misrepresentation. be proclaimed as the winner
37 ARATEA VS Flores Lonzanida won as Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. All the offenses mentioned in Sec. 68
COMELEC He was subsequently disqualified because: (1) he refer to election offenses under the
had served as Mayor for more than three Omnibus Election Code, not to
consecutive terms; and (2) he had been convicted by violations of other penal laws. There is
final judgment of 10 counts of falsification. absolutely nothing in the language of
Sec. 68 that would justify including
violation of the three-term limit rule, or
conviction by final judgment of the crime
of falsification. Lonzanida’s
representation that he was eligible for
the office that he sought election
constitutes false material representation
as to his qualification or eligibility for the
38 office, a ground for the cancellation of
his certificate of candidacy under Sec.
78.

Even without a petition, the COMELEC


is under a legal duty to cancel the
certificate of candidacy of anyone
suffering from perpetual special
disqualification to run for public office by
virtue of a final judgment of conviction.

A cancelled certificate of candidacy is


void ab initio and cannot give rise to a
valid candidacy, and much less to valid
votes. The second placer should be
proclaimed as Mayor.
38 TAGOLINO VS Lopez Richard Gomez filed his Certificate of Candidacy A valid CoC as a condition sine que non
COMELEC seeking the Congressional office of the House of for the substitution of candidate. A
Representatives for the 4th District of Leyte. In his person whose CoC has been denied
CoC, he indicated that he resided in 910 Carlota due course to and/or cancelled under
Hills, Can-adieng Ormoc City. Bueneventura Juntilla, Sec 78 cannot be substituted because
39 one of the opposing candidates, questioned the he is not considered a candidate.
residence indicated in the CoC before the Hence, being a cancelled CoC it is
COMELEC. Juntilla argued that, Richard is a considered void ab initio and thus
resident of Colgate St, East Greenhills, San Juan cannot give rise to a valid candidacy
City, Metro Manila and not of Can-adieng Ormoc and valid votes.
City
39 MAQUILING VS Young
40 COMELEC
40 POE- Ladrillano The Constitution provides that only the
LLAMANZARES SET and HRET tribunals have sole
VS COMELEC jurisdiction over the election contests,
(SUPRA) returns, and qualifications of their
respective members, whereas over the
President and Vice President, only the
SC en banc has sole jurisdiction. As for
the qualifications of candidates for such
positions, the Constitution is silent.
There is simply no authorized
proceeding in determining the
ineligibility of candidates before
41 elections. Such lack of provision cannot
be supplied by a mere rule, and for the
COMELEC to assimilate grounds for
ineligibility into grounds for
disqualification in Rule 25 in its rules of
procedures would be contrary to the
intent of the Constitution.

The COMELEC cannot cancel her COC


on the ground that she misrepresented
facts as to her citizenship and residency
because such facts refer to grounds for
ineligibility in which the COMELEC has
no jurisdiction to decide upon. Only
when there is a prior authority finding
that a candidate is suffering from a
disqualification provided by law or the
Constitution that the COMELEC may
deny due course or cancel her
candidacy on ground of false
representations regarding her
qualifications.
41 FRIVALDO VS 1996 Vitente Frivaldo was a Philippine citizen, who lost such Under Section 39 (a) of the LGC, an
COMELEC citizenship and became a US citizen. He filed his elective local official must be a citizen of
(SUPRA) certificate of candidacy for the office of governor of the Philippines. The Court noted that
Sorsogon, and won the election. Before his based on a strict textual reading of the
proclamation, he took his oath of allegiance of the provision, the qualifications pertain to
Philippines and became a Philippine citizen by way "elective officials" NOT candidates.
of repatriation. Is he qualified to hold office under the Therefore, the citizenship requirement
LGC? need only be satisfied at the time of
proclamation and assumption of office,
and not at the time of filing for
candidacy nor at the time of election.
42 Further, "to remove all doubts on this
important issue", the Court observed
that Frivaldo applied for repatriation
prior to filing his certificate of candidacy.
It construed repatriation as a curative
statute, and hence one which may be
given RETROACTIVE effect, essentially
making Frivaldo, by legal fiction, a
Philippine citizen at the time he filed his
certificate of candidacy, even if
repatriation was actually granted only
later.
42 MERCADO VS Soresca Manzano, being born in the USA, obtained US The Court said that dual citizenship is
MANZANO citizenship by operation of the US constitution and different from dual allegiance. Dual
43 (SUPRA) laws under principle of jus soli (basis is place of citizenship is involuntary; it arises out of
birth).Yet, by being born to Filipino parents, circumstances of birth or marriage,
Manzano natural born Filipino citizen, by operation of where a person is recognized to be a
the 1935 Philippine Constitution and laws under national by two or more states. Dual
principle jus sanguinis (the right of blood). allegiance is a result of a person’s
volition; it is a situation wherein a person
On the May 11, 1998 elections for vice-mayoralty of simultaneously owes, by some positive
Makati City, three candidates competed for the post: act, loyalty to two or more states. In
Eduardo B. Manzano (respondent), Ernesto S. Sec.5 Article IV of the Constitution on
Mercado (petitioner), and Gabriel V. Daza III. Citizenship, the concern was not with
Manzano won the elections but his proclamation was dual citizenship per se, but with
suspended due to a pending petition for naturalized citizens who maintain
disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril allegiance to their countries of origin
alleging that Manzano was an American citizen even after naturalization. Hence, the
phrase ―dual citizenship‖ in R.A. No.
The disqualification of private respondent Manzano 7160, Section 40(d) and in R.A. No.
is being sought under Section 40(d) of the Local 7854, Section 20 must be understood
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which as referring to ―dual allegiance.‖
declares as ―disqualified from running for any Consequently, persons with mere dual
elective local position: . . . (d) Those with dual citizenship do not fall under this
citizenship.‖ This provision is incorporated in the disqualification.
Charter of the City of Makati.
Manzano’s oath of allegiance, together
with the fact he has spent his life here,
received his education here, and
practiced his profession here, and has
taken part in past Philippine elections,
leaves no doubt of his election of
Philippine citizenship.
43 RISOS-VIDAL VS Gabay Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for The disqualification of former President
COMELEC AND Disqualification against Estrada before the Comelec Estrada under Section 40 of the LGC in
ESTRADA stating that Estrada is disqualified to run for public relation to Section 12 of the OEC was
(SUPRA) office because of his conviction for plunder removed by his acceptance of the
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion absolute pardon granted to him. The
perpetua with perpetual absolute disqualification. provision identifies who are disqualified
Petitioner relied on Section 40 of the Local from running for any elective local
44 Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of position. Risos-Vidal argues that former
the Omnibus Election Code. The Comelec dismissed President Estrada is disqualified under
the petition for disqualification holding that President item (a) Those sentenced by final
Estrada’s right to seek public office has been judgment for an offense involving moral
effectively restored by the pardon vested upon him turpitude or for an offense punishable by
by former President Gloria M. Arroyo. one (1) year or more of imprisonment,
within two (2) years after serving
sentence. However, the subsequent
absolute pardon granted to former
President Estrada effectively restored
his right to seek public elective office.
45 44 PENERA CASE Bagayas
45 CHAVEZ VS Ferrer The petitioner, a candidate for Senator, previously It is true that when petitioner entered
COMELEC put up 4 billboards pursuant to endorsement into the contracts or agreements to
agreements with different establishments. A endorse certain products, he acted as a
COMELEC resolution is passed which states that all private individual and had all the right to
"propaganda materials such as posters, streamers, . lend his name and image to these
. . who subsequent to the placement or display products. However, when he filed his
thereof becomes a candidate for public office shall certificate of candidacy for Senator, the
be immediately removed by said candidate [xx]." billboards featuring his name and image
Petitioner claims that he should be exempted from assumed partisan political character
its application since the billboards are purely product because the same indirectly promoted
endorsements and do not annoucne nor solicit any his candidacy. Therefore, the
46 support for his candidacy. COMELEC was acting well within its
scope of powers when it required
petitioner to discontinue the display of
the subject billboards.
Note: Under the OEC, one of the
activities constituting "election campaign
or partisan political activity" is "directly
or INDIRECTLY soliciting votes,
pledges, or support for or against a
candidate."

46 ABSCBN VS Young
47 COMELEC
47 SWS VS Crudo Petitioners brought action to enjoin implementation Section 5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an
COMELEC of Section 5.4 of RA 9006 or the Fair Elections Act unconstitutional abridgment of freedom
which disallows publication of surveys affecting of speech, expression, and the press.
national candidates 15 days before national The restraint in expression bears a
48 elections, and local candidates 7 days before local weighty presumption of invalidity.
elections. hey argued that the restriction imposed by COMELEC’s supervisory power to
above rules constitutes a restraint on the freedom of regulate the enjoyment or utilization of
speech without any clear and present danger to franchise for the operation of media of
justify such restraint. Petitioners argued that communication cannot imply that no
publishing of election surveys days before the presumption of invalidity may attach to a
election were allowed in 1992, 1995, and 1998 and measure like Section 5.4. The grant of
there was no proof whatsoever that such publication power to the COMELEC under the
caused confusion among the voters nor was there Constitution is limited to ensuring ―equal
any evidence of immediate and ievitable danger to opportunity, time, space, and the right to
the voting process. reply‖ as well as uniform rates of
charges for the use of such media
facilities for ―public information
campaigns and forums among
candidates‖.
US v. O'Brien test. The validity of a
government regulation is justified :
If it is within the constitutional power of
the Government
If it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest
If the governmental interest is unrelated
to the suppression of free 
expression
If the incidental restriction on alleged
First Amendment freedoms is no

greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest.
Section 5.4 invalid because (1) it
imposes a prior restraint on the freedom
of expression, (2) it is a direct and total
suppression of a category of expression
even though such suppression is only
for a limited period (suppresses a whole
class of expression while allowing
expression of opinion concerning the
same subject matter by newspaper
columnists, radio and TV commentators
armchair theorists and other opinion
makers.), and (3) the governmental
interest sought to be promoted can be
achieved by means other than the
suppression of freedom of expression.
48 GMA NETWORK Pineda COMELEC wants to change their interpretation of A. Aggregate Time Limit
49 VS COMELEC the limits of political ads. For the past elections, the In the public hearing for reso 9615,
limit was on a per station basis. Now, they want it to GMA explained that no empirical data
be on an aggregate basis. They also require the on the excesses or abuses of broadcast
stations to report on the ads and appearances of media were brought to the attention of
candidates. They also require a right to reply the public by respondent Comelec, or
even stated in the Comelec. Chairman
Brillantes just said "if the Constitution
allows us to regulate and then it gives
us the prerogative to amplify then the
prerogative to amplify you should leave
this to the discretion of the
Commission."

The Court could not agree with what


appears as a nonchalant exercise of
discretion, as expounded. COMELEC is
duty bound to come up with reasonable
basis for changing the interpretation and
implementation of the airtime limits.
Those governed by administrative
regulations are entitled to a reasonable
and rational basis for any changes in
those rules by which they are supposed
to live by, especially if there is a radical
departure from the previous ones.

B. Freedom of Expression, of Speech,


and of the Press

The guaranty of freedom to speak is


useless without the ability to
communicate and disseminate what is
said. And where there is a need to
reach a large audience, the need to
access the means and media for such
dissemination becomes critical. This is
where the press and broadcast media
come along. At the same time, the right
to speak and to reach out would not be
meaningful if it is just a token ability to
be heard by a few. It must be coupled
with substantially reasonable means by
which the communicator and the
audience could effectively interact.

It is also particularly unreasonable and


whimsical to adopt the aggregate-based
time limits on broadcast time when we
consider that the Philippines is not only
composed of so many islands. There
are also a lot of languages and dialects
spoken among the citizens across the
country. Accordingly, for a national
candidate to really reach out to as many
of the electorates as possible, then it
might also be necessary that he
conveys his message through his
advertisements in languages and
dialects that the people may more
readily understand and relate to. To add
all of these airtimes in different dialects
would greatly hamper the ability of such
candidate to express himself - a form of
suppression of his political speech.
49 I-UTAK VS Balang On January 15, 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, which provided for the rules Resolution No. 9615 are content-neutral
implementing R.A. No. 9006 in connection with the regulations since they merely control the
May 13, 2013 national and local elections and place where election campaign
subsequent elections. Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), materials may be posted. However, the
in relation to Section 7(f) prohibits the posting of prohibition is still repugnant to the free
election campaign materials on public utility vehicles speech clause as it fails to satisfy all of
50 and privately owned transport terminal. Petitioners the requisites for a valid content-neutral
assail the validity of said Resolution. It posits that the regulation. First, Section 7(g) items (5)
prohibition is violative of their right to freedom of and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of
expression. In reply, the COMELEC claims that while Resolution No. 9615, are not within the
said Resolution may incidentally restrict the right to constitutionally delegated power of the
free speech of owners of PUVs and transport COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C
terminals, the same is nevertheless constitutionally of the Constitution. Second, there is
permissible since it is a valid content-neutral absolutely no necessity to restrict the
regulation. right to free speech of the owners of
PUVs and transport terminals.

Anent the first requisite, the COMELEC


may only regulate the franchise or
permit to operate and not the ownership
per se of PUVs and transport terminals.
It is not disputed that the COMELEC
has the power to supervise or regulate
the enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of
transportation utilities during an election
period. However, as worded, Section 4,
Article IX-C of the Constitution only
grants COMELEC supervisory and
regulatory powers over the enjoyment or
utilization "of all franchises or permits for
the operation," inter alia, of
transportation and other public utilities.
The COMELEC's constitutionally
delegated powers of supervision and
regulation do not extend to the
ownership per se of PUVs and transport
terminals, but only to the franchise or
permit to operate the same.

The expression of ideas or opinion of an


owner of a PUV, through the posting of
election campaign materials on the
vehicle, does not affect considerations
pertinent to the operation of the PUV.
Surely, posting a decal expressing
support for a certain candidate in an
election will not in any manner affect the
operation of the PUV as such.
Regulating the expression of ideas or
opinion in a PUV, through the posting of
an election campaign material thereon,
is not a regulation of the franchise or
permit to operate, but a regulation on
the very ownership of the vehicle.
50 HALILI VS CA Lerios Suntay is a gubernatorial candidate in Bulacan in the 1. The prohibition applies to natural
1951 elections. Halili is the incumbent governor, a persons.
public utility operator, and Suntay's campaign According to Section 47, ―any
manager. Because Section 47 of the Revised corporation or entity operating a public
Election Code prohibits public utility operators from utility‖ cannot ―contribute or make any
contributing funds for election campaign, Halili made expenditure in connection with an
cash advances and loans in favor of Suntay but election campaign. The word ―entity‖
made it in the name of Halili's trusted employees in does not only refer to juridical persons
order to conceal the same. but also to a natural person.
If a corporation operating a public utility
Section 48 also limits the allowed expenses of a is prohibited from making a political
candidate to an amount equivalent to the annual contribution or expenditure, there is no
salary of the position one is running for. In this case valid reason for not applying the same
P5,000 but the total amount loaned to Suntay is prohibition to a natural person operating
P87,000. a public service business because the
justification for the prohibition also exists
with respect to natural persons who are
public utility operators.
51
2. Section 48 (limitation upon expenses
of candidates) applies to a non-
candidate.
Section 48 applies to a non-candidate
like Halili because Section 184 of the
Revised Election Code (persons
criminally responsible for election
offenses) speaks of principals and
accomplices. Halili was no ordinary
lender and lessee as knew that the
rental and the loans would be spent for
Suntay’s candidacy. He was not only
Suntay’s financial backer but, as
campaign manager, he had a hand in
the expenditure of the funds supplied by
him to Suntay. He was Suntay’s co-
principal.
51 PILAR VS Ravina On March 22, 1992, the petitioner filed his COC for a Section 14 of RA 7166 states that
52 COMELEC member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of "every candidate" has the obligation to
Isabela. Three days later, he withdrew the same. file his statement of contributions and
COMELEC fined him Php10,000 for failure to file his expenditures, and this includes not only
statement of contributions and expenditures. candidates who pursued their
candidacy, but also to those who
withdrew. Where the law does not
distinguish, the courts should not
distinguish. The state has an interest to
protect in seeing that the electoral
process is clean, and this is one way to
attain that objective. Further, the
Omnibus Election Code also states that
the filing of withdrawal does not affect
any liability which a candidate may have
incurred.
52 EJERCITO VS Ramirez Opponent of ER Ejercito for the position of Governor Ejercito's defense that he did not know
COMELEC of Laguna filed a petition to nullify his proclamation. the amount spent for him by his friends.
He alleges that ER Ejercito spent 21 Million pesos, He furthered that should he be
which is way above the maximum expenditure disqualified based on overspending, the
allowed (4.5 Million pesos for 1.5 million registered same is a bad precedent as it is a
voters at 3 pesos/voter). common practice that friends and
supporters donate in favor of
candidates. The court ruled that he
53 could have not possibly overlook the
said donation because the said
donations took the form of
advertisements. An RA provides that
candidates should be made aware of
advertisements paid for them before the
same is played or aired by
broadcasting/TV station.
53 MAKALINTAL VS Montes Romulo Macalintal questions the constitutionality of RA 9189 is constitutional. The domicile
COMELEC Republic Act No. 9189 or the Overseas Absentee is the place where one has the intention
Voting Act of 2003 on the ground that a Filipino who to return to. Thus, an immigrant who
is an immigrant abroad, despite the execution of an executes an affidavit stating his intent to
54 affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines, return to the Philippines is considered a
is not qualified to vote since he is not a resident of resident of the Philippines for purposes
the Philippines for at least one (1) year and in the of being qualified as a vote
place where he intends to vote for at least six (6)
months immediately preceding the election. Held:
SC ruled that RA 9189 is constitutional.
54 LIBANAN VS Uaminal Libanan alleged, among other issues, that ballots There is really nothing in the law
HRET without the signature of the BEI Chair at the back (Section 24 of R.A. No. 7166) to the
should be considered as spurious and not be effect that a ballot which is not so
counted. authenticated shall thereby be deemed
spurious. The law merely renders the
BEI Chairman accountable for such
failure.

The consistent rule laid down by the


HRET is: A ballot is considered valid
and genuine for as long as it bears any
55 one of these authenticating marks, to
wit: (a) the COMELEC watermark, or (b)
the signature or initials, or thumbprint of
the Chairman of the BEI; and, (c) in
those cases where the COMELEC
watermarks are blurred or not readily
apparent to the naked eye, the
presence of red and blue fibers in the
ballots. It is only when none of these
marks appears extant that the ballot
can be considered spurious and
subject to rejection.
55 DE GUZMAN VS Manuel When the RTC judge was asked to explain why he There is no legal presumption that the
SISON decided the election case contradictory to existing alleged markings were deliberately
law and controlling jurisprudence, respondent judge, made by the voter himself and for the
pleading good faith, argued that whenever ballots purpose of identifying it thereafter. In the
contain obvious markings visible on their faces, the absence of any circumstance showing
56 presumption is that said markings on the ballots that the intention of the voter to mark
were placed thereat by the voters themselves, thus the ballot is unmistakable, or any
nullifying the said ballots. evidence aliunde to show that the words
or marks were deliberately written or put
therein to identify the ballots, the ballot
should not be rejected.
56 BASHER VS Guevara There was tension in the Branagay Elections for The Election Officer does not have the
COMELEC Branagay Maidan between the incumbet mayor and power to postpone the election. Only
57 the Election Officer to a point where religous leaders COMELEC has the power to postpone
advised the Election officers to postpone the the election pusuant to the procedures
election. The tension was settled when the Elction outlined in section 2 RA 6679.
officer agreed to postpone the elections and
surrendered the ballot boxes and election
paraphernalia to the PNP. However at 9:00 pm of
the same day, the Election officer proceeded with
the election.
57 CAWASA VS Macatiag Polling place was transferred to another municipality Sec. 153 OEC: Designation of polling
COMELEC without authority from the COMELEC. Moreover, places. – xxx The location of polling
Members of AFP acted as BEI members, again places designated in the preceding
withou authority from COMELEC. regular election shall continue with such
changes as the Commission may find
necessary, after notice to registered
political parties and candidates in the
political unit affected, if any, and
hearing: provided, That no location shall
be changed within forty-five days before
a regular election and thirty days before
a special election or a referendum or
plebiscite, except in case it is destroyed
or it cannot be used.
Sec. 154, OEC: xxx No designation of
polling places shall be changed except
upon written petition of the majority of
58 the voters of the precinct or agreement
of all the political parties or by resolution
of the Commission upon prior notice and
hearing.
Sec. 164, OEC: .xxx , the Commission
shall, directly or through its duly
authorized representatives, constitute a
board of election inspectors for each
precinct to be composed of a chairman
and a poll clerk who must be public
school teachers, priority to be given to
civil service eligibles, and two members,
each representing the two accredited
political parties. xxx

Pre-conditions for declaring a failure of


election:
(1) no voting has been held in any
precinct or precincts because of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes
(2) the votes not cast therein are
sufficient to affect the results of the
elections.

Prayer to annul election results, as in


the instant case, and a prayer to declare
failure of elections based on allegations
of fraud, terrorism, violence or
analogous causes, are actually of the
same nature and the OEC denominates
them similarly. COMELEC may exercise
the power to annul election results or
declare a failure of election motu proprio
or upon a verified petition. The hearing
of the case shall be summary in nature.
A formal trial-type hearing is not at all
times and in all instances essential to
due process – it is enough that the
parties are given a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective
sides of the controversy and to present
evidence on which a fair decision can
be based. In fine, a trial is not at all
indispensable to satisfy the demands of
due process.
58 CARLOS VS Gabay Serapio, the candidate who received the 2nd highest The nature of the case filed by Serapio
ANGELES number of votes in the elections for Mayor filed an was an election contest. The RTC,
election protest in the RTC. The results of the however, set aside the tally of the votes
revision of the ballots affirmed that petitioner Carlos and this was tantamount to a ruling
should be declared the winner, yet, the RTC set more appropriate for an action declare
59 aside the results and proclaimed Serapio as the failure of elections since it was as if no
Mayor based on its findings of fraud which it blamed valid votes were cast. If such were the
on petitioner Carlos. case, no winner should have been
declared. However, in this case, there
were valid votes cast based on the
revision and there was substantial
margin in the number of votes in favor of
Carlos. To set aside those would be to
disenfranchise the voters. Also, the RTC
does not have jurisdiction to declare
failure of elections based on sec. 6 of
the Omnibus Election Code and sec 4 of
RA 7166. The proper remedy should
have been to file the petition to declare
failure of elections or to annul the
election in the Comelec en banc.
Hence, the RTC committed grave abuse
of discretion in declaring the candidate
who garnered the second highest
number of votes.
59 MITMUG VS Lopez The turnout of voters during the election in Lumba- There can be failure of election in a
COMELEC Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, was abnormally low. As a political unit only if the will of the
result, several petitions were filed seeking the majority has been defiled and cannot be
declaration of failure of election in precincts where ascertained. But, if it can be determined,
less than 25% of the electorate managed to cast it must be accorded respect. After all,
their votes. But a special election was ordered in there is no provision in our election laws
60 precincts where no voting actually took place. The which requires that a majority of
COMELEC ruled that for as long as the precincts registered voters must cast their votes.
functioned and conducted actual voting during All the law requires is that a winning
election day, low voter turnout would not justify a candidate must be elected by a plurality
declaration of failure of election. The Court sustained of valid votes, regardless of the actual
this ruling. number of ballots cast.
60 TAN VS Medina Tan and Burahan, together with other local The COMELEC correctly dismissed the
COMELEC candidates for congressman, mayor, and vice- Petitions for Declaration of Failure of
mayor, filed with the COMELEC 4 Petitions for Election since the electoral anomalies
Declaration of Failure of Elections. Tan and Burahan alleged in the petitions should have
alleged systematic fraud, terrorism, illegal schemes, been raised in an election protest, not in
and machinations allegedly perpetrated by private a petition to declare a failure of election.
61 respondents and their supporters resulting in . Section 6 of the Code prescribes the
massive disenfranchisement of voters. conditions for the exercise of this power.
three (3) instances justify the declaration
of failure of election, to wit: (a) the
election in any polling place has not
been held on the date fixed on account
of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes; (b)
the election in any polling place had
been suspended before the hour fixed
by law for the closing of the voting on
account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes; or (c) after the voting and during
the preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in
a failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes. there must be
a resulting failure to elect. A scrutiny of
the petitions filed before the COMELEC
shows that petitioners never alleged that
no voting was held nor was voting
suspended in the subject municipalities.
Neither did petitioners allege that no
one was elected. Petitioners only allege
that there was a sham election and
similar sham canvassing. As noted
earlier, to warrant a declaration of failure
of election, the alleged irregularities
must be proven to have prevented or
suspended the holding of an election, or
marred fatally the preparation and
transmission, custody, and canvass of
the election returns. These essential
facts should have been clearly alleged
by petitioners before the COMELEC en
banc, but they were not.
61 MUTILAN VS Soresca Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan (petitioner) and Zaldy Uy On the jurisdiction over Petition to Annul
COMELEC Ampatuan (private respondent) were candidates for the Elections:
Governor in the ARMM. On 11 August 2005, private
respondent Ampatuan was proclaimed as the duly Under Section 4 of Republic Act No.
62 elected Governor of the ARMM. Petitioner filed an 7166 (RA 7166), jurisdiction over
Electoral Protest and/or Petition to Annul the postponements, failure of elections and
Elections, on the ground that no actual election was special elections vests in the COMELEC
conducted in the precincts in Maguindanao, Basilan, En Banc because a petition to declare a
Tawi-Tawi, and Sulu. failure of elections is neither a pre-
proclamation controversy nor an
Petitioner alleged that the voters did not actually vote election case. Thus, the COMELEC
and that the ballots were filled up by non-registered Second Division has no jurisdiction over
voters in the four provinces. Petitioner also the petition to annul the elections, but
contested the results in the several municipalities here is nothing in the COMELEC Rules
where alleged massive substitute voting allegedly of Procedure to prevent the COMELEC
took place. Second Division from referring the
petition to annul the elections to the
COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition. It COMELEC En Banc instead of
stated that during the initial hearing of the case, dismissing it as it had done. (Sec 4,
petitioner’s counsel admitted that the petition was Rule 2 Comelec Rules of Procedure)
not an election protest but one for annulment of
elections. Mutilan’s counsel prayed that the case be On the Petition to Annul:
elevated to the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC
Second Division ruled that jurisdiction over petitions There are three instances where a
for annulment of elections is vested in the failure of elections may be declared,
COMELEC En Banc. However, the elevation of the thus:
case to the COMELEC En Banc is not sanctioned by (a) the election in any polling place has
the rules or by jurisprudence. Thus, the COMELEC not been held on the date fixed on
Second Division dismissed the petition for lack of account of force majeure, violence,
jurisdiction terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes;
(b) the election in any polling place has
been suspended before the hour fixed
by law for the closing of the voting on
account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes; or
c) after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in
a failure to elect on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes.
None of the three instances are present
in this case. In this case, the elections
took place. In fact, Ampatuan was
proclaimed the winner.
To warrant a declaration of failure of
election on the ground of fraud, the
fraud must prevent or suspend the
holding of an election, or mar fatally the
preparation, transmission, custody and
canvass of the election returns. The
conditions for the declaration of failure
of election are stringent. Otherwise,
elections will never end for losers will
always cry fraud and terrorism.
62 TOLENTINO VS Cruz After the 2001 elections, PGMA nominated Sen. The call for election, which is a notice
COMELEC Teofisto Guingona as the new VP, leaving a vacancy that fixes the time, date, place and
in the Senate. The Senate then passed Resolution manner of elections, is indispensable. In
No. 87 calling for a special election to fill the a general election, where the law fixes
vacancy, and which Resolution specifically stated such details, no call is necessary. For a
that the 13th placer in the upcoming senatorial special election to fill a vacancy, a call
elections shall fill the vacancy left by Sen. Guingona. for election is necessary. However, if the
COMELEC proclaimed Gregorio Honasana as the law itself fixes that the special election
13th placer. Former senator Arturo Tolentino to fill the vacancy is to be held
petitioned the Court questioning the proclamation of simultaneous with the general election,
Honasan, claiming that a separate special election no call is necessary for the law operates
should have been held. as the call. Here, RA 6645, as
amended, specifically provides that the
special election shall be held together
63 with the general election. So, no call by
the COMELEC was necessary.

The test in determining the validity of a


special election is whether the lack of a
call has resulted in misleading a number
of voters as would change the result of
the election. Here, there was no
allegation nor proof that the lack of call
by the COMELEC resulted in misleading
a number of voters.

COMELEC is likewise granted wide


discretion in ensuring free, orderly and
honest elections. This, COMELEC
exercised when it opted to follow what
the Senate Resolution prescribed in
how the special election would be
conducted.
63 LOONG VS 1999 Vitente RA 8436 was enacted, prescribing the use of an In this case, the Court said that the
COMELEC automated election system. In the course of counting COMELEC's departure from RA 8436
the votes, the COMELEC ran into some issues with was justified on account of the particular
the technology. Because of errors in printing the factual circumstances.
ballots, they could not be read by the automated
counting machines. The COMELEC resolved to 1. Vacuum in the law. In case of
conduct a manual count instead. Did the COMELEC system breakdown, the remedy under
commit grave abuse of discretion in conducting a Section 9 of RA 8436 was to use
manual count when the law requires the use of an counting machines from other
automated system? municipalities. However in this case,
there was nothing wrong with the
machines, the errors being traceable to
the ballots themselves. Even if the
COMELEC were to use different
machines, the result would be the same.
In short, this remedy proved futile and
was completely inadequate to resolve
the situation confronting the COMELEC.
64
2. Implied powers. Not finding relief in
RRA 8436, the COMELEC resolved to
conduct a manual count. The Court held
that such directive was within the
powers of the COMELEC under the
doctrine of necessary impliciation, and
the general trend of empowering the
COMELEC with broader powers and
discretion. This is so especially because
of the silence of RA 8436 on the
particular factual circumstances of the
case.

3. Judicious exercise. Not only did the


COMELEC have implied power to
conduct the manual, it exercised such
power carefully. The Court observed
that throughout the manual count, the
integrity of the ballot boxes and the
reliablility of the count was maintained.
Watchers and representatives of
political parties observed the
proceedings, and accompanied the
transfer of election paraphernalia and
the ballot boxes. The Court also noted
that there was growing unrest in the
province of Sulu as a result of the
elections. It appreciated that the
COMELEC had to act quickly to
preserve the peace, and that its
decision to conduct a manual count,
given the circumstances, could not be
ascribed as grave abuse of discretion.
64 DOJILO VS Ladrillano The petitioner, a losing candidate in a barangay Sec 211 of the OEC prescribes the
COMELEC election filed an election protest. He is claiming that Rules for Appreciation of Ballot.
there was an improper misappropriation of ballots.
Comelec visually scrutinized the ballots and 1. Markings that clearly has the intent to
proclaimed the respondent as winner. identify the ballot makes the ballot a
marked ballot and is invalid
2. Use of hyphens, use of bold capital
letters, different writings used do not
invalidate a ballot without a clear intent
to mark the same.
3. Idem Sonans rule: if the written entry
whn pronounced sound similar to a
65 candidate's name, it should be
considered as a vote for the candidate
4. An entry which does not clearly
identify any of the candidate is a stray
vote
5. A name of a candidate written in the
space filled for another position is a
stray vote
6. Superimposition of another
candidate's name over another shows
the intent to vote for the condidate with
the superimposed name
7. Initials of the nickname followed by
the last name of the candidate is
acceptable and is considered a valid
vote
65 SANCHEZ VS Lapid Sanchez petitioned the COMELEC for a recount of
COMELEC the 1987 senatorial election on the ground that votes
intended for him were declared as stray votes
66 because of the sameness of his surname with that of
disqualified candidate Gil Sanchez, whose name had
not been crossed out from the Comelec election
returns and other election forms.
66 BRILLANTES VS Vergara, Comelec approved the assailed resolution 6712 1. The assailed resolution usurps, under
COMELEC D. which allows for the electronic transmission of the guise of an unofficial tabulation of
results. The COMELEC justifies this as an unofficial election results based on a copy of the
tabulation of results hence is allowed under law. The election returns, the sole and exclusive
Supreme Court invalidated this for the following authority of Congress to canvass the
reasons (see ruling) votes for the election of President and
Vice-President. Article VII, Section 4 of
the Constitution provides in part:

The returns of every election for


President and Vice-President duly
certified by the board of canvassers
of each province or city, shall be
transmitted to the Congress, directed
67 to the President of the Senate. Upon
receipt of the certificates of canvass,
the President of the Senate shall, not
later than thirty days after the day of
the election, open all the certificates
in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint
public session, and the Congress,
upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution
thereof in the manner provided by
law, canvass the votes.

Such resolution directly infringes the


authority of Congress, considering that
Section 4 thereof allows the use of the
third copy of the Election Returns (ERs)
for the positions of President, Vice-
President, Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives, intended for
the COMELEC, as basis for the
encoding and transmission of advanced
precinct results, and in the process,
canvass the votes for the President and
Vice-President, ahead of the canvassing
of the same votes by Congress.

2. The assailed COMELEC resolution


contravenes the constitutional provision
that no money shall be paid out of the
treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.

3. 3. The assailed resolution disregards


existing laws which authorize solely the
duly-accredited citizens arm to conduct
the unofficial counting of votes. Under
Section 27 of Rep. Act No. 7166, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 8173, and
reiterated in Section 18 of Rep. Act No.
8436, the accredited citizens arm - in
this case, NAMFREL - is exclusively
authorized to use a copy of the election
returns in the conduct of an unofficial
counting of the votes, whether for the
national or the local elections. No other
entity, including the respondent
COMELEC itself, is authorized to use a
copy of the election returns for purposes
of conducting an unofficial count.
67 SAMAD VS Reyes Petitioner and reapondent were both mayoralty No valid prpclmation may be had based
COMELEC candidiates and both were proclaimed as mayor by on an incomplete canvass and all votes
68 different Boards of Canvassers. Both filed pettions must be counted. This is to ensure that
with the COMELEC whuch were then consolidated. the will of the elecgorate is properly
The COMELEC denied the petition since both reflected and no voter is
canvasses and proclamations were found to be disenfranchised. Canvassing must be
defective. The BOC in favor of Respondent was complete except: 1) the COMELEC
improperly constituted while the canvass in favor of finds that thete was failure of elections
Samad was based on an incomplete canvass since and a special election is ordered, OR 2)
no elections were held in 2 precincts while the the missing votes are insufficient to
returns were lost for a third precinct. change the results of the canvass.
68 ONG VS Vergara, Lucero filed a petition with the COMELEC for the Considering that Lucero alleged that the
COMELEC T. recount of precincts 7 and 16 as the election returns election returns of precinct 16 were
from said precincts were either missing or not legible missing, thus invoking Sec. 233 of the
(Sec. 234, OEC). COMELEC en banc GRANTED OEC, the Board of Canvassers (BOC)
Lucero’s prayer for recounting of votes from should have first obtained “such
precincts 7 and 16, and ordered Provincial Election missing election returns from the BEI
Supervisor of Northern Samar to produce the ballot concerned, or if said returns have
boxes from said precincts before the COMELEC. been lost or destroyed, the BOC,
The Special BEI recounted the votes from Precinct upon prior authority of the
16 while it canvassed the COMELEC’s copy of the Commission, may use any of the
election return from precinct 7. The issue is authentic copies of said election
whether or not the COMELEC en banc gravely returns or a certified copy of said
abused its jurisdiction when it ordered a recount of election returns issued by the
votes from precinct 16. Commission.” The COMELEC
indiscriminately issued the order of
recount even before the remedies under
69 the law have been complied with. Sec.
233 of the OEC does not authorize a
recount. Nowhere in Sec. 233 is there
any mention of a recount of ballots.
Instead, the remedy under said Section
is a referral to other authentic copies of
election returns issued by the
Commission. An order for a recount
shall be issued only as a last resort and
only if the Commission is satisfied that
the identity and integrity of the ballots
have not been violated. Under Sec. 237
of OEC, once the integrity of ballots is
violated, the Commission shall not order
a recount but shall seal and secure the
ballot box. Unlike in precinct 16 where
the COMELEC erroneously ordered a
recount, the COMELEC upon discovery
that it had in its possession a copy of
the election returns of precinct 7, issued
a Resolution which correctly directed the
Special MBC to canvass instead the
COMELEC’s copy of election returns -
an authentic copy of the election returns
of said precinct.
69 NAVARRO VS Villanueva Petitioner file before the BOC to exclude the election Non-compliance by a BOC of the prescribed
COMELEC contained in 9 ballot boxes on the ground that they canvassing procedure is not an "illegal
were not secured with the required 3 padlocks proceeding" under paragraph (a) of Section
243 of the Omnibus Election Code, given
the summary nature of a pre-proclamation
controversy, consistent with the law’s desire
that the canvass and proclamation be
70 delayed as little as possible. A pre-
proclamation controversy is limited to an
examination of the election returns on their
face and the COMELEC as a general rule
need not go beyond the face of the returns
and investigate the alleged election
irregularities.
70 PATORAY VS Albao Patoray seeks to invalidate the COMELEC The Certificate of Votes (CoV) is evidence
COMELEC Resolution excluding 2 sets of election returns (for not only of tampering, alteration,
alleged tampering and irregularities) which falsification or any other anomaly in the
effectively removed his lead against mayoralty preparation of election returns but also of
opponent Disomimba. With regard the 1st set of the votes obtained by candidates.
returns, the SC said that while the COMELEC was
correct in excluding them from the initial count, the Sec. 236 provides that in case of
71 COMELEC should have proceeded to check if its discrepancies in the other authentic copies
integrity was preserved, and if it did, to order its of the election returns, and such difference
recount based on the Certificate of Votes. As to the affects the results of the election, the
second set of returns, the SC said that since it was COMELEC shall proceed summarily to
governed by OEC 234 on material defects, for determine whether the integrity of the ballot
lacking data on provincial candidates, it should not box had been preserved, and once satisfied,
have excluded these returns but must have resorted shall order the opening of the ballot box to
to the correction remedy provided in said OEC 234. recount.
71 BARBERS VS Flores Robert Barbers filed a petition for certiorari with the The Senate Electoral Tribunal is the
72 COMELEC SC to nullify the Comelec resolution affirming the sole judge of all contests relating to the
proclamation of Rodolfo Biazon as the 12th ranking election, returns, and qualifications of
Senator in the May 2004 elections. He alleges that the Members of the Senate. Where the
the procalamtion was based on an incomplete candidate has already been proclaimed
canvass of election returns. winner, the remedy of petitioner is to file
an electoral protest with the Electoral
Tribunal. Certiorari and prohibition will
not lie considering that there is an
available and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal


and cannot be the basis of a
subsequent proclamation. A canvass is
not reflective of the true vote of the
electorate unless the board of
canvassers considers all returns and
omits none. However, this is true only
where the election returns missing or
not counted will affect the results of the
election.
72 QUILALA VS Leal Quilala filed a petition to annul the canvass and It is the duty of the candidate to assign
COMELEC proclamation + conduct proper canvass, alleging watchers or representatives in order to
non-representation in canvassing. COMELEC ensure the sanctity of the process. The
sustained the Board, finding that its members met at practice is a matter of judicial notice.
6pm but since there were no returns yet, they merely While the law grants the right of
73 recessed and met again by 10pm. Furthermore, representation, such is not a
there was no need to send Quilala a new notice compulsion.
since there was no new canvassing to speak of + his
watchers could have easily found out about the
change of time and venue had they exercised
diligence. SC sustained COMELEC.
73 TUGADE VS Vergara, Tugade and Agustin were candidates for Punong The SC ruled that the COMELEC did
COMELEC T. Barangay. The canvassing of votes revealed that not commit grave abuse of discretion
Tugade got 256 votes while Agustin got 255 votes. because the COMELEC's order was in
Tugade was proclaimed as the winner. Agustin filed accordance with Section 240 of OEC
74 an election protest with MTC. MTC ruled that Agustin which states that "Whenever it shall
got more votes than Tugade. On appeal, the appear from the canvass that two or
COMELEC ruled that the result of the election was a more candidates have received an
tie. Tugade filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. equal and highest number of votes, or in
cases where two or more candidates
are to be elected for the same position
and two or more candidates received
the same number of votes for the last
place in the number to be elected, the
board of canvassers, after recording this
fact in its minutes, shall by a resolution,
upon 5 days notice to all the tied
candidates, hold a special public
meeting at, which the board shall
proceed to the drawing of lots of the
candidates who have tied and shall
proclaim as elected the candidates who
may be favored by luck, and the
candidates so proclaimed shall have the
right to assume office in the same
manner as if he had been elected by
plurality of vote. The board shall make a
certificate stating the candidate who had
been favored by luck and his
proclamation on the basis thereof."
74 SANDOVAL VS Guevarra During the election for the congressional seat of the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction
COMELEC Malabon-Navotas district, the board of canvassers over pre-procalaimation cases. Section
for the municaplity of Malabon declared that they 15 of RA 7166 provides for the following
canvassed the votes of 804 out of the 805 presincts rules:
in the municipality of Malabon. The respondent
Oreta filed a case for correction of manifest error in Generally, candidates and registered
the certification of canvasses votes alleging that only political parties involved in an election
790 presincts were canvassed. The district board of are allowed to file pre-proclamation
canvassers ruled that the canvassing was valid and cases before the COMELEC.
75 proclaimed the petitioner as the winner. The
petitioner filed another case with COMELEC asking Exception: Candidates for presedential,
the proclamation of the petitioner to be annulled. The vice-presedential, senatorial and
COMELEC en banc annulled the proclamaition of congressional elections.
the petitioner.
Exception to the exception: Filing of
petitions for correction of manifest errors
in the certificate of canvass or election
returns even in elections for president,
vice- president and members of the
House of Representatives

Section 5 of 1993 COMELEC rules of


Procedure provide that COMELEC en
banc may decide cases on correction of
manifest errors in the certicate of
canvass or election returns.
75 TAN VS
76 COMELEC
76 DAGLOC VS Pineda PR filed a petition to declare a failure of elections The filing of pre-proclamation
COMELEC and/or annul the election results. (filed on May 23) controversies under §248 of the
PR also filed an election protest in RTC. (filed on Omnibus Election Code, however, is not
June 19). Samad was proclaimed as Mayor on May the only ground for the suspension of
14. (Samad later passed away and was substituted proclamation. Two other instances are
by P who was vice mayor). It is contended that the provided in R.A. No. 6646, known as
election protest was filed on time since the petition to "The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987,"
declare a failure of elections and/or annul the viz.: (1) Under §6 of the statute, the
election results suspended the 10 day period for COMELEC may, upon motion of the
filing an election protest. (So dapat last day of filing complainant in an action for
of election protest May 24, but since nagfile daw disqualification, suspend the
nung May 23, na-suspend yung period) proclamation of the winning candidate if
the evidence of his guilt is strong, and
(2) under §7 thereof, the COMELEC
may likewise suspend the proclamation
77 of the winning candidate if there is
ground for denying or canceling his
certificate of candidacy. However,
petitioner is correct that SPA No. 98-356
is not a pre-proclamation controversy.
Much less is it a petition for
disqualification or for the denial or
cancelation of a certificate of candidacy.
Indeed, private respondent does not
claim that her petition raises pre-
proclamation issues. She frankly admits
that SPA No. 98-356 is a petition filed
under §6 of the Omnibus Election Code
for a declaration of failure of election.
Private respondent, 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. This
contention has no merit. Not all actions
seeking the annulment of proclamation
suspend the running of the period for
filing an election protest or a petition for
quo warranto. For it is not the relief
prayed for which distinguishes actions
under §248 from an election protest or
quo warranto proceedings, but the
grounds on which they are based.

The purpose for allowing pre-


proclamation controversies is to put a
stop to the pernicious practice of
unscrupulous candidates of "grabbing
the proclamation and prolonging the
protest." Accordingly, grounds which are
proper for electoral protests should not
be allowed to delay the proclamation of
the winners

In view of the foregoing, we hold that


the filing by private respondent of a
petition for declaration of failure of
election (SPA No. 98-356) did not
suspend the running of the
reglementary period within which to file
an election protest or quo warranto
proceedings. The period for private
respondent to do so expired on May 24,
1998, 10 days from the proclamation of
Sukarno Samad and petitioner as mayor
and vice-mayor, respectively. The filing
of private respondent's election protest
in the RTC on June 19, 1998 was made
out of time.
77 ROCES VS HRET Ferrer To cut the story short, respondent Ang Ping was not No. the HRET is the sole judge of all
allowed to substitute for her husband, whose COC contests relating to the elelction, returns,
was cancelled by the COMELEC 1st division on the and qualifications of the members of the
ground of false material representation (COMELEC HOR and has the power to promulgate
Division resolution). However, when the election procedural rules to govern proceedings
protest was filed in the HRET, the COMELEC before it. This exclusive jurisdiction
Division resolution was still pending MR with the includes the power to determine
COMELEC en banc. Thus, when Petitioner Roces whether it has the authority to hear and
questioned if respondent Ang Ping was the proper determine the controversy presented,
party to file the election protest despite her not being and the right to decide whether the state
a candidate technically (her name was ordered of facts exists which confers jurisdiction,
removed from the list of candidates), the HRET ruled as well as all other matters which arise
that she was a proper party as there was no final in the case legitimately before it.
COMELEC resolution disqualifying or denying due Accordingly, it has the power to hear
course to the COC of Ang Ping, she was one of the and determine or inquire into, the
78 candidates voted for during the election day. Issue is question of its own jurisdiction, both as
whether or not the HRET acted with GAOD in NOT to parties and as to subject matter, and
dismissing the election protest. to decide all questions, whether of law
or fact, the decision of which is
necessary to determine the question of
jurisdiction.

Another ratio: It is true that generally,


the method of assailing a judgment or
order of the COMELEC is via petition for
certiorari (to the SC; under the consti).
However, void judgments or resolutions
may be impeached through collateral
attack; thus, in declaring the COMELEC
resolutions void, the HRET had
jurisdiction over the case.
78 PAHILAN VS Ladillano Petitioner filed an election protest before the RTC. The SC ruled that the act of perfecting
TABALDA Enclosed in his petition which he mailed to the RTC an appeal, which was what the
was P200 for docket fees. The RTC,however, petitioner did in this case is more
79 dismissed the case for non-payment of Docket fee. expressive of the intention to appeal
The petitioner filed an appeal brief to the Comelec that the mere filing of a notice of appeal.
and sent copies of the same to the RTC and the It held that if the Court can be lenient in
counsel of respondent. When Comelec ordered the ordinary civil cases, more so in election
RTC to forward the records of the case to them, the cases which is imbued with public
RTC said there was no notice of appeal filed. Thus, policy. Furthermore, the petitioner
the Comelec dismissed the appeal. provided copied of the appeal brief to
both the RTC and the respondents and
the petition contains all the necessary
allegations.
79 PENA VS HRET Crudo Petitioner questioned the election of the private Petitioner makes no specific mention of
respondent Abueg, Jr. Representative of 2nd the precincts where widespread
District, Palawan. The elections in the precincts were election, fraud and irregularities
tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote-buying, occurred. This is a fatal omission, as it
intimidation and terrorism and other serious goes into the very substance of the
irregularities committed before, during and after the protest. Under Section 21 of the
voting, and during the counting of votes and the Revised Rules of Procedure of HRET,
preparation of election returns and certificates of insufficiency in form and substance of
canvass which affected the results of the election. the petition constitutes a ground for the
Abueg filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition averring immediate dismissal of the Petition. The
that the HRET has not acquired jurisdiction over the prescription that the petition must be
petition, the same being insufficient in form and sufficient in form and substance means
substance, that the petition failed to allege the that the petition must be more than
precincts where the massive fraud and merely rhetorical. If the allegations
80 disenfranchisement of voters occurred, nor did it contained therein are unsupported by
point out how many votes would be gained by the even the faintest whisper of authority in
protestant as a result of the same. fact and law, then there is no other
Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to course than to dismiss the petition,
Dismiss on July 10, 1995, attaching thereto a otherwise, the assumption of an elected
Summary of Contested Precincts, naming 700 public official may, and will always be
precincts where election irregularities allegedly held up by petitions of this sort by the
occurred. losing candidate. Substantial
amendments to the protest may be
allowed only within the same period for
filing the election protest—the protestant
must stand or fall upon the issues he
had raised in his original or amended
pleading filed prior to the lapse of the
statutory period for filing of the protest.
80 SAQUILAYAN VS Gabay The 2nd Division of Comelec applied Pena v HRET Election contest involve public interest.
COMELEC and held that the protest filed by Jaro should be Laws should be construed liberally to
81 dismissed for failure to state cause of action for not ensure that the will of the people will not
specifying the precincts where the anomalies in the be defeated by purely technical
election allegedly occured and for having bare objections. Allowaing the election
allegations of massive fraud" without specifying protest to proceed is the best way of
where and how it happened The Comelec en banc, removing doubts on to who should be
on the other hand, applied a different case- Miguel v. the real candidate chosen by the
Comelec, wherein the protest was allowed to electorate. Hence, the Supreme Court
proceed, even if it did not specify the precincts since agreed with the Comelec en banc.
the allegation stated "all precincts."
81 SOLLER VS Pineda Ferdinand Thomas Soller and Angel Saulong were A. Jurisdiction
COMELEC both candidates formayor of the Municipality of Section 3, Article IX-C 1987 Consti:
Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 1998elections. Section 3. The Commission on Elections
On May 14, 1998, Soller was proclaimed by the may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
municipal board of canvassers as the duly elected shall promulgate its rules of procedure
mayor. On May 19, 1998, Saulong filed withthe in order to expedite disposition of
COMELEC a petition for annulment of the election cases, including pre-
proclamation/exclusion of election return. On May proclamation controversies. All such
25, 1998, Saulong also filed an election election cases shall be heard and
protestbefore the RTC. Soller moved to dismiss decided in division, provided that
Saulong’s protest on the ground of lack of motions for reconsideration of decisions
jurisdiction, forum-shopping and failure to state a shall be decided by the Commission en
cause of action. On July 3, 1998, the COMELEC banc.
dismissed the petition filed by Saulong. On theother
hand, the RTC denied Soller’s motion to dismiss. The SC has ruled in previous cases that
Soller then filed apetition for certiorari with the the COMELEC, sitting en banc,does not
82 COMELEC contending that the RTC actedwithout have the requisite authority to hear and
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not decide election casesincluding pre-
dismissing theelection protest. COMELEC en banc proclamation controversies in the first
dismissed the petition. Hence, this suit instance. Thispower pertains to the
divisions of the Commission. Any
decision by theCommission en banc as
regards election cases decided by it in
the firstinstance is null and void

B. Filing Fee
A close scrutiny of the receipts will show
that Saulong failed to paythe filing fee of
300 pesos for his protest as prescribed
by the COMELECrules. A court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon
paymeny of theprescribed docket fee.
Patently, the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction overSaulong’s protest.
82 ARROYO VS Ramirez Boboy Syjuco filed an election contest before the Majority opinion: Expanded jurisdiction
HRET HRET assailing the proclamation of Cong. Joker of SC covers review of the decisions of
Arroyo as the district congressman for the lone the HRET. Concurring opinion of J.
district of Makati. During the course of revision Puno discussed the history as to who
proceedings Syjuco conceded that the results of serves as arbiter for congressional
revision will not overturn the margin of votes in favor election contests. The dissents of J.
of Arroyo and interposes a novel type of evidence Padilla and J. Vitug however, insists that
namely "precint-level document based evidence". HRET is the sole judge of ALL election
With the composition of HRET 6 Congressmen contests involving election of members
members ruled in favor of Syjuco, with the dissent of of HoR. As to the substantial issue, the
the 3 Justice members. HRET's decision is VOID for lack of
quorum (there should be at least 1
83 Justice member but there is none when
they resolved the Syjuco petition).
Further, Syjuco is estopped in changing
his theory (or if the same is deemed as
an amendment, it should be made
within the 10 day period to file protest.
Lastly, Syjuco is bound in his admission
that the revision shall not overcome the
margin of votes in favor of Arroyo and
that the same is an admission against
his interest (Rules of Court applied
suppletorily to HRET Rules of
Procedure).
83 IDULZA VS Uaminal Bollozos, the supposed-to-be 8th placer in the Election protests are guided by an extra-
COMELEC Sangguniang Panglungsod race, filed a motion for ordinary rule of interpretation that
intervention but only during the MR stage with the statutes providing for election contests
Comelec En Banc are to be liberally construed to the end
that the will of the people in the choice
of public officers may not be defeated
84 by mere technical objections. For that
reason, the Court sustains the
allowance by the COMELEC of Bollozos
Intervention. It would have been
explicitly anomalous had Bollozos not
been seated in the City Council,
considering that her uncontested vote
total had exceeded that of the ninth
(9th) placer according to the Comelec
Second Division. The allowance of the
motion for intervention was clearly
geared towards fostering honest,
credible elections and a just outcome
centered around the proper
proclamation of a candidate whom the
voters have chosen to serve as their
councilor.
84 REYES VS Albao Regina Reyes' CoC was being questioned for Now, the determinative fact of
COMELEC various reasons, including citizenship and residency jurisdiction between the HRET and the
issues. However, on May 18, 2013, having received COMELEC is one's assumption of
majority of the votes, she was officially proclaimed office, not any more one's proclamation
the winner. Then on June 5, COMELEC declared its as winner of an election.
May 14 Resolution final. However, Reyes brought
the case before the Court, with Reyes arguing that
85 COMELEC already lost its jurisdiction as such was
already transferred to the HRET upon her
proclamation as winner.

For some reason, disregarding previous rlings,the


SC ruled that the determinative fact of jursidiction is
one's assumption of office, not his/her mere
proclamation.
85 AQUINO VS Lerios On January 8, 2010, Aquino, the President and CEO 1. The election law’s prohibition on
COMELEC of Philhealth, issued a Reassignment Order directing transfer or detail covers any
the reassignment of several officers and employees. movement of personnel from one station
A complaint was filed against Aquino, claiming that to another, whether or not in the same
the Order is in violation of Section 261 (h) of BP 881 office or agency when made or caused
which prohibits transfer/reassignment of officers and during the election period. (the terms
employees within the election period without the transfer and detail are modified by the
86 prior approval of COMELEC. term "whatever")

2. Under Section 261(h) of BP 881,a


person commits the election offense of
violation of the election transfer ban
when he makes or causes the transfer
or detail whatever of any official or
employee of the government during the
election period absent prior approval of
the COMELEC.

The elements of the offense:


(1) the making or causing of a
government official or employee’s
transfer or detail whatever;
(2) the making or causing of the transfer
or detail whatever was made during the
election period; and
(3) these acts were made without the
required prior COMELEC approval.

The prohibition only covers the making


or causing phase of the entire transfer
or reassignment process (from drafting,
signing, up to release). COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it
held Aquino liable even though he made
or caused the reassignment before the
start of the election period on January 8,
2010. (January 8 is Friday, election
period begins on January 11, Monday)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai