3/1/19

1 Election Law Finals

2 Aim of Election Law
• Holding an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections
(HOPE-FRECRE)
3 ABSENTEE VOTING
4
• RA 7166 Local Absentee Voting – In local absentee voting, public
officials and employees, in the performance of their election
duties, stationed in places other than the place where they are
registered voters of (e.g. members of the PNP, AFP, offices of the
Comelec, school teachers, among others) are allowed to vote in
their respective place of work (Sec. 12, RA 7166).
5
• RA No.10380, otherwise known as the “Local Absentee Voting
for Media Act”, now allow media practitioners to vote on specified
days earlier than Election Day so that that even if on Election
Day, they are assigned to cover election events away from their
place of registration as voters, they would nonetheless have the
opportunity to cast their votes.
6
• Limitation: Those entitled to avail of local absentee voting shall
only be allowed to vote for President, VP, Senators, and Party-
List Representative
7 Grounds for disapproval of the Application for Local
Absentee Voting
•
1. The applicant is not a Registered Voter or his registration
records have been deactivated.
2. It was filed out of time;
3. It was not sworn to or otherwise not under oath by any person
authorized to administer oath;
4. It was only photocopied/faxed;
5. The Certification portion of the application form is not duly
accomplished.
•
8 POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY LIST AND CITIZENS ARM
9
• Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec under the
Constitution to “Register, after sufficient publication, political

10
8

9
• Article IX-C, Sec. 1 (5), authorizes the Comelec under the 3/1/19
Constitution to “Register, after sufficient publication, political
parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on
Elections.
10
• Section 60 of the OEC/Section 1, Rule 32 of the Comelec Rules
of Procedure provides that any group pursuing the same political
ideals may register with the Comelec.
• HOW? by filing a verified petition with its Law Department duly
verified by its President and Secretary-General, or any official
duly authorized to do so under its Constitutions and by-laws.
11
• Before Comelec takes action, the Comelec shall first verify,
through its field offices, the status and capacity of the petitioner
and the veracity of the allegations in the petition. (Sec. 4, Rule
32). After the verification process, the Petition will be published
with the Notice of Hearing.
12
• Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of
Registration (Sec. 7) (1) is conferred juridical personality for
election related purposes (2) public is informed of the party’s
existence and ideals (3) it identifies the party and its officers for
purposes of regulation by the Comelec.
13 Limitations on Registration
1. It is a religious sect or denomination or association, organized
for religious purposes. Registration of religious sects are
prohibited for the purpose of the electoral process which is
made in the spirit of separation of church and state and intended
to prevent churches from wielding political power. Does not
extend to organizations with religious affiliations or to political
parties which derive their principles from religious beliefs.
2. Those who seek to achieve their goals through unlawful means
3. Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
4. Those which are supported by any foreign government (Sec.
2(5) Article IX-C)
•
14
• Cancellation of Registration (Sec. 8) –Upon verified complaint of
any interested party, or motu propio by the Commission, the
registration of any political party, coalition of political parties or
organizations under the party-list system may be cancelled after

15 2
14

registration of any political party, coalition of political parties or 3/1/19

organizations under the party-list system may be cancelled after
due notice and hearing on the following grounds:
15
A.Acceptance by the political party, coalition of political parties, or
organizations or any of its candidates, of financial contributions
from foreign governments and/or their agencies for activities
related to elections.
B.Violation of laws, rules or regulations relating to elections,
plebiscites, referenda or initiative.
16
A. Untruthful statements in its petition for registration
B.The said political party, coalition of political parties or
organization has become a religious sect or denomination, is
pursuing its goals thru violence or other unlawful means, is
refusing to adhere to or uphold the Constitution of the
Philippines, or is receiving support from any foreign government;
C.Failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations of
the Commission
D.Failure to field official candidates in the last two preceding
elections or failure of their candidates to obtain at least five (5)
per centum of the votes cast in the last two preceding elections.
E.
E.
•
17 Jurisdiction of Comelec over Inter-Party Disputes/Power to
Register Political Parties
• Samson Alcantara, et. al. vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 547 (2013) –
Under the Constitution, the Comelec is empowered to register
political parties. In the exercise of its power to register political
parties, the Comelec necessarily possesses the power to pass
upon the question of who, among the legitimate officers of the
part-list group, are entitled to exercise the right and privileges
granted to a party-list group under the law. The Comelec’s
jurisdiction on this point is well-settled and is not here disputed.
18
• Luis LokinJr./Teresita Planas v. Comelec/CIBAC 674 SCRA 538
(2012)
19
• In Atienza v. Comelec (612 SCRA 961 (2010), it was expressly
settled that the Comelec possessed the authority to resolve intra-
party disputes as a necessary tributary of its constitutionally

3
18

19

settled that the Comelec possessed the authority to resolve intra- 3/1/19
party disputes as a necessary tributary of its constitutionally
mandated power to enforce election laws and register political
parties. The Court, therein cited Kalaw v. Comelec and Palmares
v. Comelec which uniformly upheld the Comelec’s jurisdiction
over intra-party disputes: As ruled in Kalaw v. Comelec, the
Comelec’s powers and functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of
the Constitution, “include the ascertainment of the identity of the
political party and its legitimate officers responsible for the acts.”
The Court also declared in another case that the Comelec’s
power to register political parties necessarily involved the
determination of the persons who must act on its behalf. Thus,
the Comelec may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a
proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to
register political parties.
•
20
• Lico vs. Comelec 771 SCRA 596 (2015)
21
• Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections 620 SCRA 393 (May
6, 2010), the SC distinguished REGISTRATION from
ACCREDITATION of a political party. The root of this petition
before the SC is the Nationalista Party-Nationalista Party
Coalition (NP-NPC) petition before the COMELEC for registration
as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant minority party.
The Comelec En Banc approved the registration of NP-NPC as a
coalition, but Comelec did NOT rule on the accreditation aspect.
Hence, the Petition before the SC that Comelec gravely abused
its discretion. The SC ruled that the registration of a coalition and
the accreditation of a dominant minority party are two separate
matters that are substantively distinct from each other.
22
•
• Section 2(5), Article IX-C and Rule 32 of the CRP regulate the
registration of political parties, organizations or coalition of
political parties. Accreditation as a dominant party is governed by
Comelec Resolution No. 8752, Section 1 of which states that the
petition for accreditation shall be filed with the Clerk of the
Commission who shall docket it as an SPP (means Special
Proceedings (DM) case. This was the manner the NP-NPC was
docketed.
• Registration of political parties is a special proceeding
assigned to a Division for handling under the CRP. No similar
clear cut rules is available to a petition for accreditation as a

23

24
 assigned to a Division for handling under the CRP. No similar 3/1/19
clear cut rules is available to a petition for accreditation as a
dominant party.
• Registration must first take place before a request for
accreditation can be made. Accreditation is the next natural step
to follow after registration.
•
23 PARTY LIST
24
• R.A. 7941, otherwise known as An Act Providing for the Election
of Party-List Representatives through the Part-List System. The
party-list system is a mechanism of the proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, registered with the Comelec,
to enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would
benefit them. (Sec. 2)
25
• Party-list representation shall constitute 20% of the total number
of representatives by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural minorities, women,
youth and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religious sector (Sec. 11 and Art. V, Sec. 5(2) 1987
Constitution)
•
• NOTE: The party-list system is composed of three (3) different
groups: (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties
or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organization.
National and regional parties or organization are different from
sectoral parties or organizations. The former need not be
organized along sectoral lines and not represent any particular
sector nor should they be marginalized and underrepresented.
26
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. Comelec G.R. Nos. 694 SCRA 477
(2013), the Supreme Court ruled – “Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the
Constitution is crystal clear that there shall be “a party-list system
of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organization. “The 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.”

27 5

28
 national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral, 3/1/19
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.
27
• What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in
Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list system is
composed of 3-different groups, and the sectoral parties belong
to only one of the 3 groups.”
28
• In this case, the Court laid down new parameters to be observed
by the Comelec in screening parties, organizations or
associations seeking registration and/or accreditation under the
party-list system, viz:
• 1. Three different groups may participate in the party list system:
(1) national parties, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
sectoral parties or organizations.
•
29
•
• 2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and
do not need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
30
• 3. Political parties can participate in partly-list elections provided
they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that field candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral
party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
•
31
• 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized
and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political
constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interests and concerns in their sector. The
sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented” include
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers.
The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies”

32
 communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. 3/1/19
The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.
•
•
32
• 5. A majority of the members of the sectoral parties or
organization that represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented” must belong to the “M and U” sector they
represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties
or organization that lack “well-defined constituencies” must
belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the “M and U” or that
represent those who lack “well-defined constituencies”, either
must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record or advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of
national and regional parties or organizations must be bona fide
members of such parties or organizations.
•
33
• 6. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall
not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.
•
34
• Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec 618 SCRA 32 – Ladlad is an
organization composed of men and women who identify
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered
individuals. They applied for registration with Comelec in 2006
and its accreditation was denied on the ground that the
organization had no substantial membership. Ladlad in 2009
again filed a petition for registration which was dismissed by
Comelec on moral grounds (Bible and Koran).
35
• The SC ruled that moral disapproval is not a sufficient
governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from
participation to the party list system. The Constitution provides in
Sec. 5, Art. III that “No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is
“government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly,
“governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent

7
 “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, 3/1/19
“governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent
with this policy of neutrality.” Hence, the Court finds that it was
grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the Comelec
to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of ang
Ladlad.
• In sum, the crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with
the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The SC found
that Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the
legal requirements for accreditation.
36
• Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec 342 SCRA 244, the SC
provided for the four unique parameters of the Filipino Party-list
System which are as follows –
• The 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of
the HR, including those under the party-list;
• The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a minimum of
2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are
“qualified” to have a seat in the HR;
• The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum
three seats, that is, one qualifying and two additional seats;
• The proportional representation – the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to
their total number of votes..
•
37
• In this case, following the May11, 1998 national elections which
is the first election for party-list representation, the Comelec en
banc proclaimed 14 parties and organizations which had
obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the
party-list system which constitute a total of 25 nominees short of
the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the
house. The PAG-ASA files with the Comelec a Petition to
proclaim the full number of party-list representative provided by
the Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of the 20%
membership of party list representative in the House, as provided
under the Constitution, was mandatory. Nine other party list
organizations filed their respective motions to intervene seeking
the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the
same grounds
38

8
 same grounds 3/1/19
38
• The Comelec, contrary to its rules and regulations governing the
said elections, instead proclaimed the other 38 party-list
organization notwithstanding its not having garnered the required
2% votes. RULING: Sec. 5(2) of Article VI which states that the
sectoral representation shall constitute the 20% is not
“mandatory” as it merely provides a ceiling for party-list in
congress. And, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to a maximum of two
additional slots. Comelec was held to have abused its discretion
in disregarding an act of Congress.
39 The 8-point guidelines for screening party-list participants
• In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. Comelec 359 SCRA 698 (2001)
(also reiterated the ruling in Veterans), at issue is the Omnibus
Resolution of the Comelec which approved the participation of
154 organizations and parties and which the SC remanded to the
Comelec for the latter to determine evidentiary hearings, whether
the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the
party-list elections complied with the requirements of the law.
The SC ruled that the party-list organizations or parties must
factually and truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA
7941 and the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-
organization must be “Filipino citizens belonging to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties.”
40 In remanding the case to Comelec the SC laid down the
following guidelines –
•
• First, the PP, sector or organization must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section
5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show – through the
Constitution, articles of incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of
government and track record – that it represents and seeks to
uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
•
• Second, while major political parties are expressly allowed by
RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate, they must comply
with the declared statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to the M and U to be elected to the HR.
•
41

9
 • 3/1/19
41
•
• Third, religious sector may not be represented in the party-list
system. In view of the objections directed against the registration
of Ang Buhay Hayaang Humabong, which is allegedly a religious
group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that
the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list
system. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that “religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered.” The prohibition
was explained by a member of the Constitutional Commission in
this wise “The prohibition is on any religious organization
registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here
against a priest running as a candidate. This is not prohibited
here; it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.”
•
42
•
• Fourth, it must not be disqualified under the ground enumerated
under Section 6 of RA 7941 (not a religious sect or denomination
or association organized for religious purposes, advocates
violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; a foreign party or
organization; receives support from any foreign government, fails
to comply with laws rules or regulations relating to elections,
declared untruthful statement in its petition, it has ceased to exist
for at least one (1) year, it fails to participate in the last 2
preceding elections or failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes
cast under the party list system in the 2 preceding elections for
the constituency in which it was registered)
•
43
•
• Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a
project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the
government (referring to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be
independent of the government. The participants of the
government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is
not only illegal and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to
the objective of the law; to enable citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to
be elected to the House of Representatives.
•
• Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of
the law, its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941

10
 • Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of 3/1/19
the law, its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941
reads – “qualifications of Party-List Nominees – No person shall
be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural
born citizen of the Philippines, a RV, a resident of the Philippines
for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the
day of the election, able to read and write, a bona-fide member
of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
least 90 days preceding the day of the elections and is at least
25 years of age on the day of the election.
•
•
44
•
• Seventh and Eight not only the candidate party must represent
the M and U sectors, so also must its nominees must likewise be
able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
•
45 New Formula in the Allocation of Seats for Party-List
Representatives
• Banat et. al. vs. Comelec G.R. 178271/12972 586 SCRA 210
(2009) – Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig Masa (AKMA-PTM) v.
Comelec 758 SCRA 2015.
46
• After the VFP v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781, 136786 and
136795, 06 October 2000, ruling of the Supreme Court and the
controversial application of the “Panganiban Formula” by the
Abalos Commission, Party-list participants in Banat et al., filed
separate complaints against the Comelec on the proper
allocation of seats in the party-list system. On 23 April 2009, the
Supreme Court declared the 2% threshold clause in relation to
the distribution of the additional seats of RA 7941
unconstitutional.
• Following Section 5, Article VI, par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
20% of all seats in the HR is reserved for sectoral
representatives elected in the party list system. This formula is
now called the “Carpio formula.
47
• Under the Banat and Bayan Muna cases (G.R. No. 179271 and
G.R. No. 179295, 21 April 2009), the SC laid down the latest
formula in the allocation of seats for party-list participants:
• 1) The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from

11
47

formula in the allocation of seats for party-list participants: 3/1/19

• 1) The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from
the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.
• 2) The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least 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 above-mentioned in paragraph no. 1 hereof, shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes until all the additional seats are allocated. (2% cap no
longer considered in the second round since the 2% cap was
declared unconstitutional in the Banat Case.)
• 4) Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than 3 seats.
• Banat abandoned the matter of computation held in the Veterans
Party case considering that the intention was to fill the 20% seats
in the HR.
48 ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES
49
• Candidate defined: The term “candidate” refers to any person
aspiring or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a
certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited
political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec. 79,
OEC)
50
• The terms “candidate” under the Automated Election System
(AES) in 2010, refers to “any person aspiring for or seeking an
elective public office who has filed his COC and who has not
died or withdrawn or otherwise disqualified before the start of the
campaign period for which he filed his COC. Provided, that,
unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take
effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period.”
(Comelec Reso. No. 8678).
51
• As regards a Party-List system, a “candidate” also refers to “any
registered national, regional, or sectoral party, organization or
coalition thereof that has filed a manifestation to participate
under the part-list system which has not withdrawn or which has
not be disqualified before the start of the campaign period.” (RA
7941).
• Comelec Reso. No. 9615 adopted a broader definition of the
term “candidate” for the 13 May 2013 Elections to include party-

12
52
 • Comelec Reso. No. 9615 adopted a broader definition of the 3/1/19
term “candidate” for the 13 May 2013 Elections to include party-
list in include all the above-definitions.
•
•
52 Qualifications
• For President and Vice-President – No person may be elected
President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least 40 years of age
on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at
least 10 years immediately preceding such election.
• There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same
qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the
same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office
in the same manner as the President (Article VII, Section 2 and
3, Constitution)
53
• For Senator – No person shall be a Senator unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of election,
is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write, a registered
voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years
immediately preceding the elections. (Article VI, Section 3,
Constitution)
54
• For Members of the House of Representatives – No person shall
be a Member of the HR unless he is natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, and, on the day of election, is at least 25 years of
age, able to read and write, and except the party list
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than on
year immediately preceding the election. (Article VI, Section 6,
Constitution)
55
• For Party-List Nominees – No person shall be nominated as
party-list representative unless he is a natural born-citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the
day of the election, able to read to read and write, a bona fide
member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent
for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election and is at
least 25 years of age on the day of the election.
• In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be 25
but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any

13
56
 • In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be 25 3/1/19
but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any
youth sectoral representative who attains the age of 30 during
his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration
of his term. (RA 7941).
56 Repatriation
• Bengzon III v. HRET 357 SCRA 545 (2001) – Repatriation results
in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his
prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.. On the other hand, if
he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as
a natural-born Filipino.
57
• Local Government Officials – An elective local official must be a
citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a
resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding
the day of the election; able to read and write Filipino or any
other local language or dialect.
58
• Common to All Offices - Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of the service for the full term for which they were
elected.
59 Drug Test Requirement
• Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
157870, 03 November 2008
60 CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
61
• 1. Under the Manual Elections – The COC of candidacy shall be
filed on any day from the commencement of the election period
but not later than the day before the beginning of the campaign
period; Provided, that in cases of postponement or failure of
election under Section 5 and 6 of the OEC, no additional COC
shall be accepted except in cases of substitution of candidates
as provided un Section 77. (Section 75, OEC)
• COC must be filed not later than the day before the date for the
beginning of the campaign period. (Sec. 7, RA 7166)
62

14
 beginning of the campaign period. (Sec. 7, RA 7166) 3/1/19
62
• 2. Under the AES –RA 9369 provides – “For this purpose, the
Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of COC/petition of
registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any
person who files his COC within this period shall only be
considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for
which he filed his COC; Provided that, unlawful acts or omissions
applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the start of the
aforesaid campaign period. Xxxx “. This provision repealed
Section 11 of RA 8436 provides “for this purpose, the deadline
for filing of COC/petition for registration/manifestation to
participate in the election shall not be later than 120 days before
the elections.
63 CASES
• Coquilla v. Comelec G.R. No. 139801, 31 May 2000
• A certificate which did not indicate the position for which the
candidate is running may be corrected. The SC ruling on the
effectiveness of the amended COC filed to correct the defect
declared that the filing of an amended COC even after the
deadline but before the election was substantial compliance with
the law which cured the defect
64 Multiple COCs
• Section 73 (3) BP 881 (Effect of filing multiple certificates of
candidacy)
• No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filed in
the same election (requirement to run for elective office), and if
he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he
shall not be eligible for any of them.
65 Name on COC
• Section 74 of BP 881 requires, among others, that a candidate
shall use in a COC the name by which he has been baptized,
unless the candidate has changed his name through court-
approved proceedings, and that he may include one nickname or
stage name by which he is generally or popularly known in the
locality. (Villafuerte vs. Comelec 717 SCRA 312)
66 Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy
• before the expiration of the period for the filing of the certificates
of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate
of candidacy may submit a written declaration under oath the
office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate
of candidacy for the other office or offices.
67

15

68
66

of candidacy for the other office or offices. 3/1/19

67
• Pilar v. Comelec 245 SCRA 759 (1995) – The withdrawal of a
certificate of candidacy does not extinguish one’s liability for the
administrative fine imposed by Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166,
which requires every candidate to file a true statement of all
contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections.
68
• Villanueva v. Comelec 122 SCRA 636 (1983) – the withdrawal of
a certificate of candidacy not made under oath produces no legal
effect; for all intents and purposes, the withdrawing candidate
remains a candidate.
69
• Go v. Comelec 357 SCRA 739 (2001) – Where affidavit of
withdrawal filed. There is nothing that mandates that the affidavit
of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the
certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be
filed directly with the main office of the Comelec, the office of the
regional election supervisor concerned, the office of the
provincial election supervisor of the province to which the
municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal
election officer of the said municipality.
•
•
70 EFFECTS: FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
• In Talaga v. Comelec/Alcala 683 SCRA 197 (2012) The High
Court provided for the rationale for the filing of CoC within a
prescribed period
• The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs
and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, namely; (a) to
enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the regular
election, the candidates from among whom they are to make the
choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the
tabulation of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the
duly-registered candidates the choice of the voters, there may be
as many persons voted for as there are voters, and votes may be
cast even for unknown or factitious persons as a mark to identify
the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same
election.
71 Deemed Resigned
• Sec. 66 BP 881/OEC. An appointive official is considered
resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The
forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of

16

72
71

resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The 3/1/19

forfeiture is automatic and the operative act is the moment of
filing which shall render the appointive official resigned
(Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC, May 31,
1993), where the provision of Sec. 66 is applicable also to GOCC
and can constitute as a just cause for termination of employment
in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code.
72 Deemed Resigned
• Section 66 has already been repealed by RA 9369 to wit –
“Section 13. Section 11 of RA 8436 is hereby amended to read
as follows: “Any person holding a public office or position,
including active members of the AFP, and officers and employees
in GOCC, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her
office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the
filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.
73 Deemed Resigned repeal
• Sec. 67 OEC – An elective official running for a position other
than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
President and Vice-President, is deemed resigned upon the filing
of his certificate of candidacy. Section 67 has been repealed by
Section 14 of RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Law), a candidate
holding an elective position whether national or local running for
office other than the one he is holding in a permanent capaci is
considered resigned only upon the expiration of his term..
74
• Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 (1999) – The provision of the
election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing
and swearing on the same, as well as the information required to
be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the
elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory.
75 Distinction of Elective and Appointive
• Quinto v. Comelec G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010 – the
Court ruled that substantial distinctions exists between elective
official and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by
virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an
office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only
upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials
hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an
appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their tenure
while other serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
76 SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
77 Section 77 BP 881
• Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of

17
76

77 Section 77 BP 881 3/1/19

• Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of
another. After the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited
political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause,
only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political
party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate
who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate
nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate
of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the
preceding sections not later than mid-day of the date of the
election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur
between the day before the election and mid-day of election day,
said certificate may be filed with the board of election inspectors
in the political subdivisions where he is a candidate or, in the
case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the
country, with the Commission.
78
• A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable requisite in
case of substitution of a disqualified candidate under Sec. 77.
Under said provision, the candidate who dies, withdraws or is
disqualified must be an official candidate of a registered or
accredited political party and the substitute candidate must be of
the same political party as the original candidate and must be
duly nominated as such by the political party.
79 Cases
• Rulloda vs. Comelec G.R. No. 154198 January 20, 2003 – The
absence of a specific provision governing substitution of
candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a
prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not
written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow substitution of
candidates where no political parties are involved than when
political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must
have been subsumed by law.
80
• Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999 – Substitution
is not allowed if certificate of the candidate to be substituted was
cancelled, because he was running for the 4th consecutive term.
A person without a valid COC cannot be considered a candidate
in much the same way as any person who has not filed any COC
at all cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a candidate at
all.
81

18
 all. 3/1/19
81
• Talaga v. Comelec & Castillo and Castillo v. Comelec & Talaga,
683 SCRA 197 (2012) – In this case, Ramon was disqualified
having been found to be ineligible for the position of Mayor of
Lucena City which disqualification became final prior to the May
10, 2010 elections. Barbara Ruby filed her CoC in substitution of
Ramon. Castillo was the opponent who filed a disqualification
case against Barbara Ruby on the ground that the substitution
was not valid in view of the ineligibility of Ramon, Ramon did not
voluntarily withdraw his CoC before the elections in accordance
with Section 73 and that she was not an additional candidate for
the position of Mayor because her filing of her CoC was beyond
the period fixed by law. Comelec declared the substitution of
Barbara Ruby as invalid on May 20, 2011
82
• Barbara Ruby garnered the highest number of votes while
Castillo garnered second. Castillo contends that since the
disqualification of Ramon was final prior to the election he should
be declared winner. Castillo made reference to case of Cayat. In
this case, Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat, the petitioner in Cayat, was
disqualified and his disqualification became final before the May
10, 20014 elections. Considering that no substitution of Cayat
was made, Thomas R. Pelileng, Sr. his rival remained the only
candidate for the mayoralty post in Buguias, Benguet. (Cayat v.
Comelec 522 SCRA 23 (2007)).
•
• In contrast, after Barbara Ruby substituted Ramon, the May 10,
2010 elections proceeded with her being regarded by the
electorate of Lucena City as a bona fide candidate. To the
electorate, she became a contender for the same position vied
for by Castillo, such that she stood on the same footing as
Castillo. Such standing as a candidate negated Castillo’s claim of
being the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes,
and being consequently entitled to assume the office of Mayor.
The Court stressed that the existence of a valid CoC is a
condition sine qua non for a valid substitution. While Barbara
won, although disqualified because of invalid substitution, the law
of succession will apply by operation of law
•
83
• Effect of Substitution of Candidates after Official Ballots Have
Been Printed in AES- in case of valid substitution after the official
ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted

84 19
83

Been Printed in AES- in case of valid substitution after the official 3/1/19
ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted
candidates shall be considered votes for the substitutes.” (Sec.
12 RA 8436, 22 December 1997)
84
• Section 12 of RA 9006, 12 February 2001 provides – in case of
valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the
votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as
stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. For this
purpose, the official ballot shall provide spaces where the voters
may write the name of the substitute candidates if they are voting
for the latter; Provided, however, that if the substitute candidate
has the same family name, this provision shall not apply.
85
• Since Section 12 of RA 8436 has not been amended nor
repealed by RA 9369, it can be assumed that the votes cast for
the substituted candidates shall be considered votes for the
substitutes in an AES for the reason that the counting machine
will not read any unwarranted marks on the official ballot such as
writing the name of the substitute candidate.
86 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
• Svetlana P. Jalosjos vs. Comelec/Tupag/Estrellada 699 SCRA
507 (2013) – The SC stressed that to be an actual and physical
resident of a locality, one must have a dwelling place where one
resides no matter how modest and regardless of ownership. The
fact that the residential structure where petitioner intends to
reside was still under construction on the lot she purchased
means that she has not yet established actual and physical
residence in the barangay, contrary to the declaration of her
witnesses that she has been an actual and physical resident of
Brgy. Tugas since 2008.
87
• Meynard Sabili v. Comelec/Florencio Librea 670 SCRA 664
(2012). It is not required that a candidate should have his own
house in order to establish his residence or domicile in a place. It
is enough that he should live in the locality even in a rented
house or that of a friend or relative. What is of central concern
then is that the person identified and established a place in the
said City where he intended to live in and return to for an
indefinite period of time.
88
• Jalosjos v. Comelec 683 SCRA 1 24 April 2012 – Jalosjos came
to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in

20
88
• Jalosjos v. Comelec 683 SCRA 1 24 April 2012 – Jalosjos came 3/1/19
to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in
Zamboanga Sibugay. It is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent
to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his
Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that
country. In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in
his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship by the BID. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal
right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his
domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
89
• Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, Antonio Gonzales and
Orlando Balbon, Jr. 622 SCRA 744 (July 2010). In considering
the residency issue, the dwelling where a person permanently
intends to return to and to remain – his or her capacity or
inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, IS
IMMATERIAL. Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it
determined the fitness of a dwelling as a person’s residence
based solely on very personal and subjective assessment
standards when the law is replete with standards that can be
used. Comelec used wrong considerations in arriving at the
conclusion that Mitra’s residence is not the residence
contemplated by law.
90
• Asistio v. Trindad Pe-Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, 27 April 2010 –
the High Court said – “Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully
effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual
removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
new one; and (3) acts which corresponding with that purpose.
There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revetendi. This purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must for 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.
91
• Limbona v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181970, June 25, 2008 – There is
no hard and fast rule to determine a candidate’s compliance with
residency requirement since the question of residence is a
question of intention.
92
• Coquilla vs. Comelec 385 SCRA 607 – A former Filipino citizen

21
91

92 3/1/19
• Coquilla vs. Comelec 385 SCRA 607 – A former Filipino citizen
cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines and in the
locality he intends to be elected prior to his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship.
• The “term residence” is to be understood NOT in its common
acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation”, but rather to
“domicile” or legal residence, that is, “the place where the party
actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return and remain (animus manendi)”. A domicile of
origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place
where the child’s parents reside and continues until the same is
abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (by choice.)
93
• Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec 248 SCRA 30 (1995). “it is the
fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of candidacy
which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an
individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification
requirement. The said statement becomes material only when
there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render the
candidate ineligible.
94 ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE CANDIDACY OF A CANDIDATE OR
DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE
95 DISQUALIFICATION
96 Sec. 12 of the 0EC
Disqualifications:
• any person who has been declared by competent authority
insane or incompetent (when we say incompetence, the same
may refer not only to mental illness, disease or physical disability
but also to other causes which may include minority or lack of
residence requirement)
• any person who has been sentenced by final judgment for
subversion, insurrection, rebellion
• for any offense for which carries a penalty of more than 18
months
• for a crime involving moral turpitude
•
97
• The disqualification is removed by
• plenary pardon or granted amnesty
• upon declaration by a competent authority that said insanity or

22

98
97

• plenary pardon or granted amnesty 3/1/19

• upon declaration by a competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed
• expiration of a period of 5 years from his service of sentence
unless of course within the same period he again becomes
disqualified.
•
98 2) Sec. 68 of the OEC
•
• those guilty of giving money or material consideration to
influence, induce or corrupt voters or public official performing
electoral functions;
• those who have committed terrorism to enhance his candidacy
• those who have spend in the election campaign more than that
required by law (Php10/RV/Php5.00)
•
99 Period to file
• A petition to disqualify a candidate based on Sec. 68, as would
validly cancel any votes cast for him as “stray votes” if granted,
should be filed before the day of the elections. This will enable
the substitute candidacy to be filed thus giving the electorate a
choice of alternative candidates
100
• NOTE: Section 68 deals with a petition to disqualify a candidate
for other violation of the election code as specified in said
section, and against a candidate who is a permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country. That section does not specify a
period within which to file the petition.
101
• In Codilla vs. De Venecia 393 SCRA 634, it was held that the
power of Comelec to disqualify candidates is limited to the
enumerations mentioned in Section 68 of the OEC. Elements to
be proved are as follows:
– the candidate, personally or through his instructions, must
have given money or other material consideration and
– the act of giving material consideration or money should be
for the purpose of influencing, inducing or corrupting the voters
or public officials performing electoral functions.
•
102
• NOTE: All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election
offenses under the OEC, not to violations of other penal laws.

23

103
102
• NOTE: All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election 3/1/19
offenses under the OEC, not to violations of other penal laws.
There is absolutely nothing in the language of Section 68 that
would justify including violation of the 3-term limit rule, or
conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification under the
Revised Penal Code, as one of the ground or offenses covered
under Section 68. (Aratea vs. Commission on Elections 683
SCRA 105).
103 Nuisance Candidate
• 3) Sec. 69 – Petition to Abate a Nuisance Candidate – the
Comelec, may motu propio or upon verified petition of an
interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy if it is shown that it is filed in
contemplation of a nuisance candidate or cancel the same if
already filed. This is an exception to the ministerial duty of the
Comelec and its officers to receive a certificate of candidacy
under Section 76 of the OEC.
104 WHO IS A NUISANCE CANDIDATE
•
• one who files his certificate to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute
• contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the similarity of
surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. (in the
appreciation of ballots, when two candidates with the same name
or surname and only the name or surname is written, will be
considered stray vote and will not be counted for either of the
candidate unless one of the candidate with the same name or
surname is an incumbent – equity of the incumbent rule)
• by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that
the candidate has no bonafide intention to run for office, thus
would prevent the faithful determination of the true will of the
people.
• (Bautista vs. Comelec 298 SCRA 480)
105 Who can file
• a petition to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate shall be
filed by any registered candidate for the same office within 5
days from the last day of the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
(As amended by Section 5 of RA 6646)
106
• Rev. Elly Chavez Pumatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872 13
April 2004
107
• The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates

24
106

107 3/1/19
• The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates
and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a
bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State
has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises
are rational;, objective and orderly. Towards this end, the State
takes into account the practical considerations in conducting
elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the
greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention
the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for
the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never
attempt the State from the conduct of a mandated electoral
exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available
to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and
proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook
example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our
democratic institutions.
108 Martinez III vs. HRET 610 SCRA 53 (January 2010)
• Proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt
disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as
nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his COC. In this
case, Celestino Martinez and private respondent Benhur
Salimbangon were among the candidate for member of the HR in
the 4th District of Cebu. Celestino Martinez filed a petition to
abate Edelito C. Martinez as nuisance candidate which was
decided one month after the elections. Salimbangon was
proclaimed winner with 67,277 votes against Martinez 67,173
votes or a difference of 104 votes. Martinez filed an Election
Protest Ad Cautelam based on 300 ballots more less with only
“Martinez” or “C. Martinez” written on the line which was
considered stray on the ground that there was another
congressional candidate who had the same surname. The
Comelec and HRET considered the votes stray. Issue: What then
is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate as such in a
final judgment AFTER the elections? Should ballots containing
only the similar surname of two (2) candidates be considered as
stray votes in favor of the bona fide candidate? The votes should
be counted in favor of the bonafide candidate. The SC ruled that
Martinez should not be prejudiced by the Comelec’s inefficiency
and lethargy.
109
• Dela Cruz v. Comelec G.R. No. 192221, 13 November 2012 -
(Should the votes cast for such nuisance candidate be
considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?)
– In an automated election, the Supreme Court, likewise ruled

25
109

considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?) 3/1/19

– In an automated election, the Supreme Court, likewise ruled
not to consider the votes cast for a nuisance candidate as stray
but to count them in favor of the bona fide candidate.
• “As far as Comelec is concerned, the confusion caused by
similarity of surnames of candidates for the same position and
putting the electoral process in mockery or disrepute, had
already been rectified by the new voting system where the voter
simply shades the oval corresponding to the name of their
chosen candidate. However, as shown in this case, Comelec
issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010, 9 days before the
elections, with sufficient time to delete the names of disqualified
candidates not just from the Certified List of Candidates, but also
from the Official Ballot. Indeed, what use will it serve if Comelec
orders the names of disqualified candidates to be deleted from
list of official candidates if the official ballots still carry their
name?
110
• The Court holds that the rule in Resolution No. 4116 considering
the votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a
final judgment, particularly where such nuisance candidate has
the same surname as that of the legitimate candidate, not stray
but counted in favor of the latter, remains a good law. As earlier
discuss, a petition to cancel or deny a CoC under Section 69 of
the OEC should be distinguished from a petition to disqualify
under Section 68. Hence, the legal effect of such cancellation of
a CoC of a nuisance candidate cannot be equated with a
candidate disqualified on grounds provided in the OEC and the
Local Government Code.
• The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names
of nuisance candidates remained in the ballot on election day,
cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated
voting system especially considering that voters who mistakenly
shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate
instead of the bonafide candidate they intended to vote for could
no longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.
•
111
• Joseph Timbol v. Comelec 751 SCRA 456
112 Petition to Deny due Course or to Cancel a Certificate of
Candidacy
• Sec. 78 OEC “A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
exclusively on the ground that any material representation

26

113
111

112

cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person 3/1/19

exclusively on the ground that any material representation
contained therein as required under Section 74 (contents of the
COC) of the OEC is false. The petition may be filed at any time
not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing,
not later than 15 days before election.”
113
• Who may file – by any person through a verified petition
• On What Grounds – the candidate made material
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. Section 78
deals “exclusively” with a petition to deny due course to a COC
on the ground that a material representation in the contents of
the certificate under Sec. 74, is false. (pertains to a candidate’s
eligibility or qualification such as citizenship, residence or status
as a registered voter Maruhom vs. Comelec 594 SCRA 108)
• Period to File – Within 25 days from the last day for the filing of
the certificate of candidacy.
• Jurisdiction – Comelec sitting in a division.
114
• Hayudini v. Comelec 723 SCRA 223 – The Court ruled that the
false representation in Section 78 must pertain to a material fact,
not to a mere innocuous mistake. A candidate who falsifies a
material fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, he cannot
serve; in both cases. He or she can be prosecuted for violation of
the election laws. These facts pertain to a candidate’s
qualification for election office, such as his or her citizenship and
residence. Similarly, the candidate’s status as a registered voter
falls under this classification as it is a legal requirement which
must be reflected in the CoC. The reason for this is obvious: the
candidate, if he or she wins, will work for and represent the local
government under which he or she is running. Even the will of
the people, as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice
of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in the
instant case, that the candidate was qualified.
115
• Two remedies available for questioning the qualifications of the
candidate: Distinction between the two proceedings under
Section 78 and Section 253 under B.P. 881, thereof (1) Before
elections under Section 78 and (2) After elections under Section
253.
116
• The only difference between the two proceedings is that, under

27
116 3/1/19
• The only difference between the two proceedings is that, under
Section 78, the qualifications for elective office are
misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy and the
proceedings must be initiated before the elections, whereas a
petition for QW under Section 253 may be brought on the basis
of two grounds – (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines, and must be initiated within 10 days after
proclamation of the election results. Under Section 253, a
candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office,
and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualification for
election office.
117
• Clearly, the ONLY INSTANCE where a petition questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for elective office can be filed before
election is when the petition is filed under Section 78 of the OEC.
• Period for filing a petition under Section 78 – In Loong v.
Comelec 216 SCRA 760 (1992), the Court categorically declared
that the period for filing a petition for cancellation of candidacy
based on false representation is covered by Rule 23 and NOT
Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition at any time after the last
day for filing of CoC’s but not later than the date of proclamation,
is merely a procedural rule that cannot supercede Section 78 of
the OEC.
• A petition filed under Section 78 must not be interchanged or
confused with one filed under Section 68 – In Fermin v. Comelec
574 SCRA 782 (2008), the Court stressed that a petition which is
properly a “Section 78 petition” must therefore be filed within the
period prescribed therein, and a procedural rules subsequently
issue by Comelec cannot supplant this statutory period under
Section 78.
118
• Jurisdiction – Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed,
taken his oath and assumed office as a member of the House of
Representatives, the jurisdiction of the Comelec over election
contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications ENDS
and the HRET own jurisdiction BEGINS.
119
• In Perez v. Comelec 317 SCRA 641 (1999) the Court does not
have jurisdiction to pass upon the eligibility of the private
respondent who was already a Member of the HR at the time of
the filing of the petition for certiorari – considering that by
statutory provision (Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987
Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to

120
28
119

statutory provision (Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 3/1/19

Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the HR.
120
• Procedure in filing Motion to Suspend Proclamation: The
suspension of proclamation of a winning candidate is not a
matter which the Comelec Second Division can dispose of motu
propio. Section 6 of RA No. 6646 requires that the suspension
must be upon motion by the complainant or any intervenor.
121
• Second Placer Rule- It is well-settled that the ineligibility of a
candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be
declared elected.
122
• Exceptions to the Second Placer Rule – The exception to the
second placer rule is predicated on the concurrence of the
following (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is
disqualified; and (2) the electorate is FULLY AWARE in fact and
in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such
awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless
cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. These facts
warranting the exception to the rules are not present in the case
at bar.
123 Disqualification under the Local Government Code R.A. 7160
• A candidate for an elective office may likewise be disqualified on
the following grounds –
• those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or
more imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence. (Sec.
40) (Qualifications of local elective candidates under the LGC
was asked in the 1999 Bar)
•
124
• NOTE: The 1st ground for disqualification consists of two (2)
parts, namely: (1) those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude, regardless of the period of
imprisonment; and (2) those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense, OTHER THAN one involving moral turpitude, punishable
by one (1) year or more imprisonment, within 2 years after
serving sentence.
125

29

126
 serving sentence. 3/1/19
125
•
• Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic
•
• Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political cases.
•
126
•
• Those removed from office as a result of an administrative
charge
•
127
• Reyes v. Comelec 254 SCRA 514 (1996) – A public officer who
was found guilty in an administrative case and ordered removed
in a decision that became final before the elections is not
qualified to run for re-election.
• Rodolfo Aguinaldo v. Luis Santos, 212 SCRA 768 (1992) –
However, if before the petition questioning the validity of the
administrative decision removing a public officer could be
decided, the term of office during which the alleged misconduct
was committed expire, and he is reelected, he can no longer be
removed, because his reelection operates as a condition of the
officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right
to remove him for it.
• Grego v. Comelec 274 SCRA 481, the Court ruled that Sec. 40 of
RA 7160 does not have any retroactive effect. In this case a
Deputy Sheriff was removed for serious misconduct in 1981. He
run in 1992 & 1995. His removal in 1981 cannot serve as basis
for his disqualification. Laws have prospective effect.
128
• Those with dual citizenship
•
• 3 term limit or having served 3 consecutive terms
• Article X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of RA
7160 provides “No local elective official shall serve for more than
3 consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation
of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which
the elective official concerned was elected.
•
129

30
 • 3/1/19
129
• In Laceda Sr., vs. Limena & Comelec 571 SCRA 603 – the Court
held that the rationale behind Section 2 of RA 9164, like Section
43 of RA 7190 (Local Government Code) from which the 3-term
rule was taken, is primarily intended to broaden the choices of
the electorate of the candidates who will run for office, and to
infuse new blood in the political arena by disqualifying officials
from running for the same office after a term of 9 years.
• The case of Laceda Sr. involved a similar question in Latasa vs.
Comelec 417 SCRA 601 where the Court held that where a
person has been elected for 3 consecutive terms as municipal
mayor and prior to the end or termination of such 3-year term the
municipality has been converted by law into a city, without the
city charter interrupting his term until the end of the 3-year term,
the prohibition applied to prevent him from running for the 4th
time as city mayor thereof, there being no break in the continuity
of the terms. Comelec did not err nor commit any abuse of
discretion when it declared Laceda disqualified and cancelled his
COC.
130 DISQUALIFICATION CASES (EFFECTS)
131
• Sec. 72 of the OEC and Section 6 of 6646 states: “any candidate
who been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If
for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and is voted for and received
the winning number of votes in such election, the Comelec shall
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest
and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is
strong.”
132 CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA
133
• Election period is 120 days - 90 days before the date of the
election and 30 days thereafter. Campaign period for Pres., VP
and Senators starts 90 days before the date of the election, 45
days for members of the HR and local candidate and 15 days for
barangay official, which excludes the day before and the day of
the elections.
• Prohibited Activities – Section 80 BP881 – Election campaign or
partisan political activity outside campaign period. It shall be

31

134
 • Prohibited Activities – Section 80 BP881 – Election campaign or 3/1/19
partisan political activity outside campaign period. It shall be
unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or candidate, or
for any party or association of persons, to engage in an election
campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign
period: Provided, That political parties may hold political
convention or meetings to nominate their official candidates
within 30 days before the commencement of the campaign
period and 45 days for President and Vice-President.
134
• RA 9006 (Fair Election Law), Section 3. Election propaganda
whether on television, cable television, radio, newspapers or any
other medium is hereby allowed for all registered political parties,
national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations participating
under the party-list elections and for all bona fide candidates
seeking national and local positions subject to the limitation on
authorized expenses of candidates and political parties,
observance of truth in advertising and to the supervision and
regulation by the Comelec
135
• Requirements for Published or Printed Broadcast Election
Propaganda. RA 9006 now allows paid political advertisements
for print and broadcast media provided the said advertisement
shall bear and be identified by reasonably legible or audible
words “ Political advertisement paid for” followed by the true and
correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose
benefit the election propaganda was printed or aired.
136
• Free of charge – if broadcast is given free of charge the radio
and television station, it shall be identified by the words “airtime
for this broadcast was provided free of charge by” followed by
the true and correct name and address of the broadcast entity.
Provided that said print, broadcast donated shall not be
published or printed without the written acceptance of the
candidate or political party which acceptance shall be attached to
the advertising contract and submitted to the Comelec.
137
• Guidelines whether by purchase or donation – Print
advertisements shall not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and ½
page in tabloids 3 x a week per newspaper, magazine or other
publications during the campaign period. (Section 6, RA 9006).
138
• Television/Radio Advertisements – nation candidates/registered

32

139
137

138 3/1/19
• Television/Radio Advertisements – nation candidates/registered
political party shall be entitled to not more than 120 minutes of
TV advertisement and 180 minutes of radio. Local candidates not
more than 60 minutes of TV advertisement and 90 minutes of
radio.
139
• Comelec Time and space – print space, Comelec shall pay just
compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3 newspapers of general
circulation which Comelec shall allocate free of charge to the
national candidates. Broadcast network (radio and TV) free of
charge to Comelec. (Section 8, RA 9006)
140
• Limitations In Broadcasting of Election Accounts – Comelec shall
ensure that radio and television or cable television broadcasting
entities shall not allow the scheduling of any program or permit
any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or
political party or unduly or repeatedly referring to or including
said candidate and/or political party in such program respecting,
however, in all instances the right of said broadcast entities to air
accounts of significant news or news worthy events and views on
matter of public interest.
141
• Restrictions on Media Practitioners – any mass media columnist,
commentator, reporter or non-air correspondent or personality
who is a candidate for any elective office or is a campaign
volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity by any
candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so
required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence from
his/her work as such during the campaign period. Any media
practitioner who is an official of a political party or member of the
campaign staff of a candidate or political party shall not use
his/her time or space to favor any candidate or political party
• No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying the life or
biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater,
television stations or any public forum during the campaign
period or those portrayed by an actor or media personality who is
himself a candidate
142
• RA 9006, Section 5 Election surveys – refers to the
measurements of opinions and perceptions of the voters as
regards a candidate’s popularity, qualifications, platforms or
matter of public discussion in relation the election, including
voters’ preference or candidates or publicly discussed issues

33
143
142

matter of public discussion in relation the election, including 3/1/19

voters’ preference or candidates or publicly discussed issues
during the campaign period. The person or entity who publishes
a survey is required to include the following information:
143
•
• Name of the person, candidate, party or organization who
commissioned or paid the survey;
• Name and address of the person or polling firm from who
conducted the survey
• Period during which the survey was conducted, methodology
used, including the number or individual respondents and the
areas from which they were selected and the specific questions
asked
• Margin of error of the survey.
•
• The survey together with the raw data gathered to support the
conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and
verification by the Comelec, or by the registered political party or
any Comelec accredited citizen arm.
144
• Posting of Campaign Materials – political parties and party-list
groups may be authorized by the Comelec common poster areas
for their candidates in not more than 10 public places such as
plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like, wherein,
candidates can post, display or exhibit election propaganda. The
size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 x 16 feet or it
equivalent. With respect to independent candidates, may
likewise avail of this but the difference is merely on the size
which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its equivalent. (Section 9, RA
9006)
145
• RA 9189, Section 15 – Regulation of Campaign Abroad – The
use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign
spending shall be governed by the laws and regulations
applicable to the Philippines.
146 Prohibited Contributions
• BP881, Section 95 No contribution for purposes of partisan
political activity shall be made directly or indirectly by any of the
following:
• (a) Public or private financial institutions: Provided, however,
That nothing herein shall prevent the making of any loan to a
candidate or political party by any such public or private financial

34
146

That nothing herein shall prevent the making of any loan to a 3/1/19
candidate or political party by any such public or private financial
institutions legally in the business of lending money, and that the
loan is made in accordance with laws and regulations and in the
ordinary course of the business;
• (b) Natural and juridical persons operating a public utility or in
possession of or exploiting any natural resources of the nation;
• (c) Natural and juridical persons who hold contract or sub-
contract to supply the government or any of its divisions,
subdivisions or instrumentalities, with goods or services or to
perform construction or other works;
•
147
•
• (d) Natural and juridical persons who have been granted
franchises, incentives, exemptions, allocations or similar
privileges or concessions by the government or any of its
divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
• (e) Natural and juridical persons who, within the one year prior to
the date of the election, have been granted loans or other
accommodations in excess of 100K by the government or any of
its divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities including
government owned or controlled corporations.
• (f) Educational institutions which have received grants of public
funds to no less than 100K;
• (g) Officials or employees in the Civil Service, or members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines;
• (h) Foreigners and foreign corporations
• It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any
contribution from any of the persons or entities enumerated
herein
148
• ABS-CBN 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined exit polls as a specie
of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or groups
of individuals for the purpose of determining the probable result
of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected voters
whom they have voted for, immediately after they have officially
cast their ballots. An absolute prohibition is unreasonably
restrictive because it effectively prevents the use of exit poll data
not only for election days of the elections, but also for long term
research. The concern of Comelec of a non-communicative
effect of the exit polls which is disorder and confusion in the
voting centers does not justify a total ban of the exist polls.

149 35
 effect of the exit polls which is disorder and confusion in the 3/1/19
voting centers does not justify a total ban of the exist polls.
Comelec should instead set safeguards in place for those who
intends to conduct exit polls.
149
• Section 5.5 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Law) provides for the
requirements for the taking of an exit polls:
• pollsters shall not conduct their survey within 50 meters from
the polling place whether said survey is taken in a home,
dwelling place and other places;
• pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
• pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to
answer; and
• the result of the exit polls may be announced after the closing
of the polls on election day, and must clearly identify the total
number of respondents, and the places where they were taken..
Said announcement shall state that the same is unofficial and
does not represent a trend.
•
150 PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING
• Penera v. Comelec 599 SCRA 609
151 CANVASSING BODIES
152 Manual Canvassing
• Section 221, BP 881/RA 6646, Section 20 - Boards of
Canvassers (Local Boards). There shall be a board of
canvassers for each province, city and municipality as follows:
• (a) Provincial Board of Canvassers – The provincial board of
canvassers shall be composed of the provincial election
supervisor or a lawyer in the regional office of the Commission,
as chairman, the provincial fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the
provincial superintendent of schools as member.
•
153
•
• (b) City Board of Canvassers – The city board of canvassers
shall be composed of the city election registrar or a lawyer of the
Commission, as chairman, the city fiscal, as vice-chairman, and
the city superintendent of schools, as member. In cities with
more than one election registrar, the Commission shall designate
the election registrar as chairman.
• (c) Municipal Board of Canvassers. – The municipal board of
canvassers shall be composed of the election registrar or a

36

154
 • (c) Municipal Board of Canvassers. – The municipal board of 3/1/19
canvassers shall be composed of the election registrar or a
representative of the Commission, as chairman, the municipal
treasurer, as vice-chairman and the most senior district school
supervisor or in his absence a principal of the school district or
the elementary school, as member.
•
154 FOR AES Electronic Canvassing
• 1)CBOC and MBOC shall canvass the votes for the president
VP, senators and parties, organization or coalitions participating
under the party-list system by consolidating the electronically
transmitted results contained in the data source devices used in
the printing of the ER. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall
print the certificate of canvass of votes for Pres, VP, senators
and members of the HR and elective provincial officials and
thereafter, proclaim the elected city or municipal officials, as the
case may be.
155
• “xxx xxx The municipal, city, district and provincial certificate of
canvass of votes shall each be supported by a Statement of
Votes (SOV).
• “Within 1-hour after canvassing, the Chairman of the district or
provincial Board of Canvassers or the city board of canvassers of
those cities which comprise one or more legislative districts shall
electronically transmit the COC to the Commission sitting as the
national board of canvassers for senators and party-list rep and
to the Congress as the NBOC for the president and VP directed
to the President of the Senate.
• “The certificate of canvass transmitted electronically and digitally
signed shall be considered as official election results and shall
be used as the basis for the proclamation of a winning
candidate”. (RA 9369)
156
•
• Comelec – as NBOC for Senators and Party-List
Representatives – Chairman and members of the Commission
sitting en banc. It shall canvass the results by consolidating the
certificates of canvass electronically transmitted and thereafter
proclaim the winning candidates for senators and party-list rep.
(Section 27, RA 9369)
• Congress – Senate and HR in joint public session as NBOC for
President and VP. Senate President shall open all the certificates
not later than 30 days after the day of the election. (Section 28,
RA 9369)

157 37

158
 not later than 30 days after the day of the election. (Section 28, 3/1/19
RA 9369)
•
157
• Each of the BOC shall be assisted by an Information Technology
– capable person authorized to operate the Consolidation and
Canvass System (CCS), to be known as CCS operators who
shall be deputized by the Commission. (Section 7, RA 9369)
158
• BP881, Section 222. Relationship with Candidates and other
members of the Board. The chairman and the members of the
boards of canvassers shall not be related within the 4th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the candidates
whose votes will be canvassed by the said board, or to any
member of the same board.
159
• BP881, Section 224. Feigned Illness. Any member of the board
of canvassers feigning illness in order to be substituted on
election day until the proclamation of the winning candidates
shall be guilty of an election offense.
160
• Section 30, RA 7166 – Congress as the National Board of
Canvassers for the election of President and Vice-President:
Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates
of Canvass. –
161
•
• 1) Congress for Pres. & VP (Sec. 4, Article VII)
• 2) Comelec – Senators and Regional Officials –
• 3) PBC – Members of the HR and provincial officials (composed
of the PES, Provincial Prosecutor and provincial official of the
DepEd
• 4) District BOC in each legislative district in MM – members of
the HR and municipal officials
• 5) City and MBOC – member of the HR, city and municipal
officials composed of the city or municipal EO, City Prosecutor
and DepEd Superintendent
•
162
• RA 9189, Section 18(4) – A Special Board of Canvassers
composed of a lawyer preferably of the Commission as
chairman, a senior career office from any of the government

38
162

composed of a lawyer preferably of the Commission as 3/1/19

chairman, a senior career office from any of the government
agencies maintaining a post abroad and, in the absence of
another government officer, a citizen of the Philippines qualified
to vote under this Act deputized by the Commission, as vice-
chairman and member secretary, respectively, shall be
constituted to canvass election returns submitted to it by the
Special Boards of Elections Inspectors. Xxx xxx “The Certificates
of Canvass and the accompanying Statements of Votes as
transmitted via facsimile, electronic mail and any other means of
transmission equally safe, secure and reliable shall be the
primary basis for the national canvass.
163 CERTIFICATE OF VOTES, STATEMENT OF VOTES, ELECTION
RETURNS AND DISTRIBUTION
164
• Certificate of Votes – is an election document issued by the BEI’s
after the counting and announcement of the results and before
leaving the polling place upon request of the accredited watcher.
It shall contain the number of votes obtain by each candidate
written in words and figures, precinct #, name of the city or
municipality signed and thumb marked by each member of the
board.
165
• Typoco vs. Comelec 614 SCRA 391 – In Garay v. Comelec 261
SCRA 222 (1996) the Court held that “(a) certificate of votes
does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine
results of the election; only election returns are, pursuant to
Sections 231, 233-236 and 238 of BP881.” Again in De Guzman
v. Comelec 426 SCRA 698 (2004) the Court stated that, in an
election contest where the correctness of the number of votes is
involved, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots
themselves; where the ballots can nor be produced or are not
available, the election returns would be the best evidence.”
166
• Doromal vs. Biron/Comelec 613 SCRA 160 (2010) – the
certificate of votes, which contains the number of votes obtained
by each candidate, is issued by the BEI upon the request of the
duly accredited watcher pursuant to Section 16 of RA 6646.
Relative to its evidentiary value, Section 17 of RA 6646 provides
that Sections 235 and 236 of BP 881 notwithstanding, the
Certificate of Votes shall be admissible in evidence to prove
tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly committed in
the preparation of the election returns concerned, when duly
authenticated by at least two members of the BEI who issued the

39
167
 the preparation of the election returns concerned, when duly 3/1/19
authenticated by at least two members of the BEI who issued the
certificate. Failure to present the CV shall however not bar the
presentation of other evidence to impugn the authenticity of the
ER. It cannot be a valid basis of canvass.
167
• Purpose of requiring authentication of at least 2 members of the
BOC – to safeguard the integrity of the certificate from the time it
is issued by the BEI to the watcher after the counting of votes at
the precinct level up to the time that it is presented to the board
of canvassers to proved tampering.
168 FUNCTIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
•
• Prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other official from
altering the statement because they know of the existence of
such certificate
• To advise the candidate definitely of the number of his votes so
that in case the election statement submitted to the BOC does
not tally with the certificate in his hands, he may ask that the
other authentic copies of the same be used for the canvass
• To serve as evidence of fraud in election protest cases and in
subsequent prosecution of the election offenses against those
liable therefore.
•
169
• Statement of Votes – is a tabulation per precinct of the votes
obtained by the candidates or reflected in the ER.
• Certificate of Canvass – is based on the SV and which serves as
basis for proclamation.
170 DISPOSITION OF ELECTION RETURNS
• Under Manual Elections
171
• Election Returns and Distribution – Section 27 of RA 7166, as
amended by RA 8045 and RA 8173, provides that in the election
for Pres., VP, Senators and members of the HR, the ER shall be
distributed as follows -
• 1st CBO or MBOC
• 2nd posted on a wall within the premises of the polling place
• 3rd copy congress, directed to the Pres. of the Senate
• 4th to Comelec
• 5th to Dominant majority party as may be determined by the
Comelec in accordance with law

40

172
 • 5th to Dominant majority party as may be determined by the 3/1/19
Comelec in accordance with law
• 6th to Dominant minority party as may be determined by
Comelec in accordance with law
• 7th Citizens Arms authorized by the Comelec to conduct an
unofficial count to be deposited inside the ballot box.
• 8th deposited inside the compartment of the ballot box for valid
ballots.
•
172
• For Local officials – (1) CBOB or MBOC (2) posted on the wall
(3) Comelec (4) PBOC (5) DMajorityP (6) DMinorityP (7)
Citizen’s Arms for unofficial count (8) inside ballot box.
• The 30 certified printed copies for national positions – 14 to 14
accredited major and national parties in accordance with a
voluntary agreement among them. Otherwise Comelec shall
decide. Next 3 copies to the 3 accredited major local parties
(same provision). Next 5 copies to the national broadcast or print
media entities as may equitably be determined by the
Commission. Next 2 copies to local broadcast & print media and
next 4 copies to major citizen arms and accredited citizen arm.
Next copy to be place inside the ballot box and last copy to the
PBC.
173
• Electronic Returns for AES
174
• Section 19 RA 6369 amended Sec. 18 of RA 8436. “Sec. 22” –
Electronic Returns – each copy of the printed election returns
shall bear the appropriate control marks to determine the time
and place of printing. Each copy shall be signed and
thumbmarked by all the members of the BEI and watchers
present. Xxx xxxx xxx . The chairman of the boards shall then
publicly read and announce the total number of registered voters
who actually voted and the total numbers of votes obtained by
each candidate based on the election returns.
• “Thereafter, the copies of the election returns shall be sealed and
placed in the proper envelopes for distribution.”
• “Immediately after the 8th copy is printed, the poll clerk shall
announce the posting of said copy on the wall within the
premises of the polling place or counting center, which must
sufficiently be lighted and accessible to the public. Any person
may view or capture an image of the election return by means of
any data capturing device such as, but not limited to cameras at
any time of the day for 48 hours following its posting. After such

41

175
 any data capturing device such as, but not limited to cameras at 3/1/19
any time of the day for 48 hours following its posting. After such
period, the chairman of the BEI shall detach the ER from the wall
and keep the same in his custody to be produced as may be
requested by any voter for image or data capturing or for any
lawful purpose as may be ordered by competent authority.”
175
• “Within one (1) hour after the printing of the ER, the chairman of
the BEI or any official authorized by the Comelec shall, in the
presence of watchers and representatives of the accredited
citizens arm, political parties/candidates, if any, electronically
transmit the precinct results to the respective levels of the BOC,
the dominant majority and minority party, to the accredited
citizen’s arm, and to the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster ng
Pilipinas (KBP).”
• The election results at the city/municipality canvassing centers
shall be transmitted in the same manner by the election officer or
any official authorized by the commission to the district or
provincial canvassing centers. “The election returns transmitted
electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official
election results and shall be used as the basis for the canvassing
of votes and the proclamation of a candidate.”
• After the electornic results have been transmitted additional
copies not to exceed 30 may be printed and given to requesting
parties at their own expenses. (RA 9369)
•
176
• Petition to Declare a postponement, failure or annulment of
elections and call for a special elections in accordance with
Sections 5,6, & 7 of the OEC as amended by Sec. 4 of RA 7166.
177
• Sec. 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for declaring a
postponement of elections that is when for -
• any serious cause such as violence,
• terrorism,
• loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records,
• FM and other analoguous circumstances of such a nature that
the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become impossible in
any political subdivision.
•
178
• Jurisdiction - the Commission en banc may “motu propio or upon
a verified petition by any interested party, and after due notice

42

179
178
• Jurisdiction - the Commission en banc may “motu propio or upon 3/1/19
a verified petition by any interested party, and after due notice
and hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election to a date
which is reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted to a failure to elect but not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
179
• Sec. 6 on the other hand, prescribes the conditions for the
exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections. As
reiterated in Dibaratun vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 367, citing
Banaga Jr. v. Comelec 336 SCRA 701 (2000) also in Canicosa v.
Comelec 282 SCRA 517 - to declare a failure of elections, either
of these three (3) instances should be present conformably with
Section 6 of the OEC –
• 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;
• the election in any polling place has been suspended before
the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting on account of FM,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes
• after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of
the ER or in the custody of canvass thereof, such election results
in a failure to elect on the same grounds.
•
180
• Based on the foregoing provisions, two (2) conditions must
concur to declare a failure of elections –
• no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the
date fixed by law or, even if there was voting the election
nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect and
• the votes not cast would affect the results of the elections
(Carlos. V. Angeles)
•
181
• In the same case of Coquilla v. Comelec, the SC stressed that
“what is common in these three instances is the resulting failure
to elect. In the first instance, no election was held, while in the
second, the election is suspended. In the third instance,
circumstances attending the preparation, transmission, custody
or canvas of the election returns cause a failure to elect. And, the
term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.”
182

43
 term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.” 3/1/19
182
• Procedural Rules - On the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, the Comelec
may call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended
or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than 30 days
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
183
• Sec. 4 of RA 7166 (An Act Providing for the Synchronized
National and Local Elections) provides that any declaration of
postponement, failure of election and calling for a special
elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall be decided by the
Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
This power is exclusively vested in the Comelec as ruled in the
case of Sanchez v. Comelec 193 SCRA 849.
184
• Loong v. Comelec 257 SCRA 1, a petition to declare failure of
elections/annulment of elections on the ground of massive fraud
in some municipalities was filed before proclamation.. Comelec
dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time since it
was filed only after petitioners realized that the annulment of
election will wipe out their lead. HELD: It was ruled that the
Comelec Resolution dismissing the petition was arbitrary as no
law provided for a reglementary period within which to file a
petition for annulment of elections if there is no proclamation yet.
185
• Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512, Canicosa filed with the
Comelec a Petition to declare failure of elections and to declare
null and void the canvass and proclamation based on the
following grounds (names of the RV did not appear on the list,
padlocks were not self locking among other) which was
dismissed by the Comelec en banc on the ground that the
allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of
elections.
• Canicosa insists that its was error on the part of Comelec sitting
en banc to rule on his petition as it should have first been heard
by a division. The SC held that the matter relating to the
declaration of failure of elections or the allegations raised by
Canicosa did not involve an exercise of QJ or adjudicatory
functions. It involves an administrative function which pertains to
the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations

186 44
 functions. It involves an administrative function which pertains to 3/1/19
the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of elections.
186
• Pasandalan vs. Comelec, et. al., G.R. No. 150312 July 18, 2002,
the SC held that a petition for declaration of failure of elections is
an “extraordinary remedy” and therefore the petition must
specifically allege the essential grounds that would justify the
same. Otherwise, the Comelec can dismiss the petition outright
for lack of merit and no grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to it. The Comelec is mandated to exercise this power
with utmost circumspect to prevent disenfranchising voters and
frustrating the electorate’s well.”
187 PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
188
• BP 881, Section 242 – The Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It may motu
propio and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total
suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the
evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding
sections
189
• Matalam v. Comelec 271 SCRA 733/BP 881 – a pre-
proclamation controversy is defined, as a general rule, any
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the BOC
which may be raised by any candidate or any registered political
party or coalition of political before the board or directly with the
Comelec, on any matter raised under Sections 233 (when ER
are delayed, lost or destroyed), 234 (material defects in the ER),
235 (when ER appear to be tampered with or falsified) and 236
(discrepancies in the ER) of the OEC in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
the ER and Certificate of Canvass.
190
• Section 17, RA 6646, questions affecting the composition or
proceedings of the BOC may be initiated with the board or
directly with the Comelec. However, matters raised under Sec.
233 to 236 shall be brought in the first instance before the BOC
only
191
• Authority of the Comelec in PPC – the Commission exercises
authority to decide PPC in two instances –

45
191
• Authority of the Comelec in PPC – the Commission exercises 3/1/19
authority to decide PPC in two instances –
• in appeals from the ruling of the BOC which is generally of two
types first type are on questions contesting its composition or
proceedings and appeal therefrom must be taken by the
contestant adversely affected within 3 days from such ruling .and
the second type refers to ruling on questions contesting ER. The
party adversely affected must immediately inform the board that
he intends to appeal from the ruling and the board shall enter
said information in the minutes of the canvass and within 48
hours from the ruling, the adverse party must file with the board a
written and verified notice of appeal, and within an unextendible
period of 5 days thereafter, he has to take the appeal to the
Comelec
•
• in petitions directly filed with it.
•
•
192
• EXCEPTIONS: Section 15 of RA 7166 provides that for purposes
of the elections for Pres. and VP, Senators and members of the
HR, no Ppcases shall be allowed on matters relating the P,T,R,C,
and A of the ER or the certificate of canvass, as the case may
be. HOWEVER, this does not preclude the authority of the
appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written
complaint of an interested person to correct manifest error in the
certificate of canvass or ER before it.
193
• In the case of Pimentel v. Comelec, Section 68 of RA 9369
significantly amended Section 15 of RA 7166 by adding an
excepting phrase to the general prohibition against pre-
proclamation controversies in elections for Pres., VP, Senators
and members of HR. According to the amended Section 15, “pre-
proclamation cases involving the authenticity and due execution
of COC are now allowed” pursuant to Section 30 of RA 9369.
The general rule is still, that “pre-proclamation cases on matter
relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of ER or COC are still prohibited. The recognize
exceptions to the said prohibition are: 1) correction of manifest
error; 2) question affecting the composition or proceedings of the
BOC and 3) determination of the authenticity and due execution
of the COC.
194
• Sano Jr. vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 475 – It is settled that a pre-

46
194 3/1/19
• Sano Jr. vs. Comelec 611 SCRA 475 – It is settled that a pre-
proclamation controversy is summary in character; indeed, it is a
policy of the law that pre-proclamation be promptly decided, so
as not to delay canvass and proclamation. The board of
canvassers will not look into allegations of irregularity that are not
apparent on the face of ER’s that appear otherwise authentic and
duly accomplished.
• Macabago v. Comelec 392 SCRA 178 – it was held that issues in
a PPC is properly limited to challenges aimed against the BOC
and proceedings before said board relative to particular ER to
which respondent should have made particular verbal objections
subsequently reduced in writing.
195
• BP 881 Section 243.Comelec Rules of Procedure Rule 27 (4) -
SCOPE/ISSUES that may be raised in a PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY
• Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC
• The canvassed ER are incomplete, contain material defects,
appear to be tampered with, or falsified or contain discrepancies
in the same returns or in other authentic copies as mentioned in
Sec. 233-236
• The ER were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or
intimidation or they are obviously manufactures or not authentic
– in Ocampo v. Comelec 235 SCRA 436, it was held that this fact
must be evident from the face of the said document. In the
absence of a strong evidence establishing spuriousness of the
returns, the basic rule is that the ER shall be accorded prima
facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the count of the
votes which shall prevail for purposes of canvassing and
proclamation.
• When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places are canvassed, the result of which materially affect the
standing of the aggrieved candidate. (Sec. 243)
•
196
• Under the AES in 2010 Elections – same scope and coverage.
197 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN A Pre-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY
• Sec. 20 of RA 7166 (repealing Sec. 245 OEC) provides for the
mandatory two-step rule or requirement of verbal objection to the
inclusion of the ER and to be formalized in writing within 24
hours. Failure to observe such rule is fatal to a candidate’s
cause, leaving him with no other remedy except an EP. This

47
198
197

hours. Failure to observe such rule is fatal to a candidate’s 3/1/19

cause, leaving him with no other remedy except an EP. This
cannot be cured by instituting a petition directly filed with the
Comelec under Sec. 241
198
• Sandoval v. Comelec 323 SCRA 407, it was stressed that
Comelec exercises exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio or
upon verified petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of the candidate
elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has
been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with
Sec. 242 of the OEC.
199
• Velayo v. Comelec 327 SCRA 713 – a PPC is summary in
nature, administrative in character and which is filed before the
BOC. It was ruled that while it is true that RA 7166 provides for
summary proceedings in PP cases and does not require a trial
type hearing, nevertheless, summary proceedings cannot be
stretched as to mean ex-parte proceedings
200
• In Velayo case, respondent objected to the inclusion of two
(2)ER’s which did not contain a vote for respondent being
statistically improbable which was overruled by the BOC. It was
ruled that it is possible for a candidate to get zero votes in one or
few precincts. The bare fact that a candidate receive zero votes
in 1 or 2 precincts can not support a finding that the ER are
statistically improbable. (Exception to the Lagumbay Doctrine)
201
• Lagumbay v. Comelec 16 SCRA 175 (1966) - The Lagumbay
doctrine is the prevailing case on statistical improbability which
states that where there exists uniformity of tallies in favor of
candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking
out of the opposing candidates as when all the candidates of one
party received all the votes, each of whom exactly the same
number, and the opposing candidates got zero votes, the
election returns are obviously manufactures, contrary to al
statistical improbabilities and utterly improbable and clearly
incredible.
202 EFFECT OF ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE OF CANDIDATE
ELECT/WHEN PPC IS NOT DEEMED TERMINATED
• A pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable after the
proclamation of the winning candidates as the issues raised
therein may be more closely examined and better resolved in an

203
48
202

proclamation of the winning candidates as the issues raised 3/1/19

therein may be more closely examined and better resolved in an
EP. (RA 7166, Section 16 (2)).
203
• However, this is only true where the proclamation is based on a
complete canvass and on the assumption that the proclamation
is valid where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is
no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s
assumption of office cannot deprive the Comelec of the power to
declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.
204
• Section 16 of RA 7166 provides that all-pre-proclamation cases
pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at
the beginning of the term of office involved and the rulings of the
boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed,
without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the
aggrieved party. HOWEVER, proceedings may continue when on
the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission
determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly
issued an order for the proceedings to continue or when
appropriate order has been issued by the SC in a petition for
certiorari
205 ELECTION PROTEST
• An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to contest the
right of a person, declared elected to enter upon and hold office.
It is strictly a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates as to who actually obtained the majority of the legal
votes and therefore, is entitled to hold office.
206
• NATURE OF PROCEEDING - It is a formal judicial proceedings
that goes into the correctness of the counting and appreciation of
ballots at the precinct level were the parties are allowed to
present and examine evidence in detail.
• WHO CAN FILE – can only be filed by a candidate who has duly
filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for.
• PERIOD TO FILE – within 10 days from proclamation
• GROUNDS – fraud, vote-buying, terrorism, presence of flying
voters, misreading and misappreciation of the ballots,
disenfranchisement of voters, other election irregularities.
207
• Jaime C. Regio vs. Comelec and Ronnie C. Co. 711 SCRA 448
citing Rosal v. Comelec 518 SCRA 473 (2007) on the standards
to be observed in an election contest – In Rosal, the SC

49
207

citing Rosal v. Comelec 518 SCRA 473 (2007) on the standards 3/1/19
to be observed in an election contest – In Rosal, the SC
summarized the standards to be observed in an election contest
predicated on the theory that the election returns do not
accurately reflect the will of the voters due to alleged
irregularities in the appreciation and counting of ballots. These
guiding standards are:
• 1) Ballots cannot be used to overturn the official as reflected in
the election returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that the
ballots have been preserved with a care which precludes the
opportunity of tampering and suspicion of change, abstraction or
substitution.
• 2) The burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been
preserved in such a manner is on the protestant;
•
208
• 3) Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law,
proof must be made of such substantial compliance with the
requirements of that mode as would provide assurance that the
ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations
from the precise mode of achieving that end;
• 4) It is only when the protestant has shown substantial
compliance with the provisions of law on the preservation of
ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering or likelihood
thereof shifts to the protestee; and
• 5) Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court of Comelec
that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved should it
adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in
the election returns.
•
209
• Rosal was promulgated precisely to honor the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official functions. Following
Rosal, it is presumed that the BEI and the BOC had faithfully
performed the solemn duty reposed onto them during the day of
the elections. Primacy is therefore accorded to the official results
of the canvassing, even in cases where there is a discrepancy
between such results and the results of the revision proceedings.
It is only when the protestant successfully discharged the burden
of proving that the recounted ballots are the very same one
counted during the revision proceedings, will the court or the
Commission, as the case may be, even consider the revision
result
210

50

211
 result 3/1/19
210
• The Rosal doctrine ensures that in election protest cases, the
supreme mandate of the people is ultimately determined. In
laying down the rules in appreciating the conflicting results of the
canvassing and results of a revision later made, the Court has no
other intention but to determine the will of the electorate.
211
• The Rosal doctrine is also supplemented by A.M. No. 07-4-15-
SC (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before The Courts
Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials which took
effect May 15, 2007), establishing the following disputable
presumptions
212
• Sec. 6. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions
are considered as facts, unless contradicted and overcome by
other evidence:
213
•
• (a) On the election procedure:
–a. The election of candidates was held on the date and time set
and in the polling place determined by the Comelec;
–b. The BEI were duly constituted and organized;
–c. Political parties and candidates were duly represented by
poll watchers;
–d. The Minutes of Voting and Counting contains all the
incidents that transpired before the BEI;
•
214
•
• (b) On election paraphernalia
•
–a. Ballots and ER that bear the security markings and features
prescribed by the Comelec are genuine;
–b. The data and information supplied by the members of the
BEI in the accountable forms are true and correst; and
–c. The allocation, packing and distribution of election
documents or paraphernalia were properly and timely done.
Xxxx xxx
•
215

51
 • 3/1/19
215

52