ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
impeachment (D-I-R-I). So if there is an end of term,
ROTATION PLAN
The commissioners serve for 7 years WITHOUT
reappointment under the staggered terms of ;
2 years interval of 7 commissioners first appointed,
So out of the 7 commissioners:
1. 3 holds office for 7 years
2. 2 for 5 years
3. Other 2 for 3 years
NOTE:
First appointee - staggered terms
Second appointee - full term, cannot be allowed
reappointment
If there is vacancy, the newly appointed one shall only
serve the unexpired portion
the staggering term makes the comelec a continuing
and self perpetuating body and consequently, its
members would have the benefit of experience and
expertise of older members in the performance of its
functions.
COMELEC COMMISSIONERS:
1. subjected to same limitations as Pres and VP
including prohibition against holding any office or
engaging in any other professions or business;
2. Removable by impeachment
NO REAPPOINTMENT BUT UPGRADING
ALLOWED
Nacionalista vs bautista provided that the term of
office during the previous appointment and the new
appointment will not be more than the term of office.
So,
Previous appointment+new appointment + not >7
years.
FUNA VS VILLAR,
“upgrading is not vioaltive of the no
reappointment rule and this applies to the appointment
to the same position.”
RULES
1. A sitting commissioner may resign from the
position as commissioner and be appointed as
chairperson of the same position if there is a remainder
of term becasue of death, incapacity, resignation or
1
there is no remainder of term. It is when an incumbent
commission can be upgraded to a chairperson.
2. The commissioner must resign in his position
as such commissioner to be eligible to appointment as
the chairperson.
3. The total of tenure of that commissioner who
resigned as the such and as chairperson shall not
exceed 7 years.
So, again old position + new position, not > 7 years
NO TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT OR
DESIGNATION
No commissioner shall be appointed by the president
in a temporary capacity. Appointments are all
supposed to be permanent. If the position of
chairperson has been vacant, until the president makes
a permanent reappointment, what the remaining
commissioners would do is to designate from among
themselves who shall act as OIC in the office of the
chairperson.
President cannot make the determination among
remaining commissioners as to who shall be the acting
chairperson. It must be permanent.
NO REAPPOINTMENT RULE
Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the
unexpired term. Even if one only served for 2 years,
that is considered a full term thus restriciting the
person to be reappointed to the same position again.
EXTENDED DISQUALIFICATION RULE
For commissions, they experience an extended
disqualification which is different from the doctrine of
political lame ducks (ban on reappointment of defeated
candidates)
What this provides is that they must not have been
candidates for any elective position immediately
preceding elections.
The resignation of the winning candidate will not make
him eligible for appointment.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019 2

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

Facts:

The 1987 constitution provides that Art IX-C

A majority of the members of the COMELEC,

including the Chariman shall be members of the bar
and engaged in the practice of law for 10 years

Black’s law distionary defiens practice of law as

Redition of services requiring the knowledge and

application of legal principles and technoque to serve
the inetrest of another with his consent. Not limited to
appearing in court or advising/assisting in the conduct
of litigation but embraces preparation of pleadings and
other papers and giving legal advice to clients.

So Chrsitian monsod was nominated by president

aquino to the position of chairman of Comelec by a
letter received by Com on App on april 1991. Cayetano
opposed this motion, sabi nya, Monsod does not have
the qualification to to a chairman because he has not
been engaged in the rpactice of law for 10 years.

What has monsod been doing pala?

1. Member of the philippines barsicne 1960

2. Worked in law office of his father

3. World bank group (1963-1970)

4. Operations officer (2 years) in costa rica and

panama (getting acquainted with laws of member
countries)

5. Wroked with meralco group (1970)

6. CEO of an ivnestment bank since 1986

7. Former sec gen and chairman of NAMFREL

8. worked with the under privileged sectors, such as

the farmer and urban poor groups

9. member of the Davide Commission, a quast judicial

body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and
as a member of the Constitutional Commission
(1986-1987)

10. Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of

Public Officers, for which he was cited by the
President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia
Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to
reconcile government functions with individual
freedoms and public accountability and the party-list
system for the House of Representative.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019 3

Issue? What is practice of law? A. Preserve and enforce order in its

immediate presence;
Has he been in practice of law for 10 years?

B. Enforce order in proceedings before it

Ruling: YES. or before any of its offices or officials
empowered to conduct investigation
Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a under its authority
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and C. Compel obedience to its judgments,
the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional orders and processes.
requirement — that he has been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
D. Control its ministerial officers and all
other persons in any manner connected
with a case before it, and in every
Practice of law, defined manner appertaining thereto;

Engaging in law practice is not only confined to

courtroom practice.
E. Compel the attendance of persons to
It includes any activity, in or out of court, which testify in a case pending before it;
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. In upholding
the confirmation of Monsod, the SC held that the more F. Administer or cause to be
than 10 years of work experience of Monsod as a administered oaths in a case pending
lawyer economist and other position requiring before it, and in all other cases where it
application of his legal knowledge constituted as may be necessary in the exercise of its
engaging in the practice of law as would qualify him powers;
with such work experience to be Chairman of the
COMELEC.
G. Amend and control its processes and
orders so as to make them conformable
to law and justice;

H. Authorize a copy of a lost or

destroyed pleading or other paper to be
NATURE OF POWERS filed and used instead of the original,
and to restore, and supply deficiencies in
its records and proceedings.
Under the constitution,

The COMELEC is an ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, as Implied express

such the powers it possesses are:
Not provided, you can read it Expressly provided in the
1. Executive in between the lines law. Duh
2. Quasi-judicial

3. Quasi legislative In connection with the

4. (to some extent) judicial implementation of their
express powers not clearly
provided but is required
upon the comelec to
It is the SOLE JUDGE of all contests relating to elections, exercise.
returns and qualifications of all elective local officials.

Example is when machines

GENERAL POWERS OF COMELEC (under rules of
procedure)
Express powers In the performance of its admin, quasi
judicial and judicial functions, the
commission shall exercise all such
powers and functions as are expressly
vested upon it by the constitution and by
law.
malfunction, comelec can
say manual count. That is
implied in their power in
connection with the
implementation of all laws
pertinent to an election.

Implied powers Commission shall likewise exercise

powers as are implied or necessary to the HOW THE COMMISSION TRANSACTS BUSINESS
effective exercise of its express powers.

Inherent powers When performing its constitutional or

Rule 3
statutory functions, the commission shall
have inherent power to: Comelec rules of procedure
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019 4

to the candidacy of Rodolfo Rivilla, and with grave abuse of

discretion have caused to appoint special policemen and
Section 1. How business is transacted - in the exercise of its agents to be paid from public funds and to be provided with
constitutional or statutory powers, functions and duties, the uniforms and firearms for the sole purpose of utilizing said
commission may sit: special policemen and agents to terrorize and arrest electors
sympathetic to Congressman Dominador Tan during the
1. en banc or
1965 Elections.
2. in divisions

It was contended that the municpal mayros acted without and

Section 2. The commission en banc
When commission sits en banc?
1. Cases specifically provided
2. Pre proclamation cases upon a vote of majority of the
members of the commission or in all other cases where a
division is not authorized to act,
3. Upon a unanimous vote of all members of a division, an
interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or
proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the
commission en banc
in excess of their powers as execiutives of their jurisdiction as
no authority or sanction was obtained from the exec scretary
and COMELEC. So what they were saying was that the acts
of these municipal mayors would frustrate the will of the
people to vote freely for the men of their choice during the
nov 1965 elections.
The judge of CFI of ormoc found that he had jurisdiction of
the case and saw to it that an order for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction was handed down.

4. motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling
of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc
except motions on interlocutory orders of the division
which shall be resolved by the division which issued the
order.
Section 3. Commission in divisions
Commission shall sit in 2 divisions.
Issue: did the CFI judge have jurisdiction of this case?
Ruling: NO, COMELEC has jurisdiction
On its face, the petition sought the avoidance of acts that
would be violative of the election code which is designed to
assure that the right to vote on the part of each and every
elector be respected and safeguarded to the fullest extent.

When do they sit in divisions?

Under the constitution, COMELEC has exclusive chrage of
Ans: to hear and decide protests or petitions in: the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions
1. Ordinary actions which may be conferred upon it by law.

2. Special actions

3. Special cases Pursuant to this prerogative, COMELEC is vested with the

DIRECT and IMMEDIATE supervision over the provincial
4. Provisional remedies municipal,and city officials designated by law to perform
duties relative to the conduct of elections.
5. Contempt

6. Special proceedings
It could even suspend "from the performance of said duties
any of said officials who shall fail to comply with its
Note: 2 divisions, each composed of three commissioners one instructions, orders, decisions, or rulings and appoint their
of whom will be presiding commissioner. temporary substitutes and, upon recommendation of the
Commission, the President of the Philippines may remove any
or all such officials who shall be found guilty of
non-feasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance in connection with
VOTES REQUIRED (section 5) the performance of their duties relative to the conduct of
elections."
En banc 4 members

Division 2 members
This civil action for prohibition before the judge was
If not obtained, essentially political in character.
automatically elevated to EN
BANC

The main allegation was that the alleged utilization of the

power of zaldivar as municipal mayor to avail himself of the
authority of his office to appoint special policemen to
terrorize voters so they would support the other congressional
candidate.

ZALDIVAR VS. ESTENZO

Both under the Constitution and the Revised Election Code, it
is not so much the power, but the duty of the Commission on
Elections to exercise supervision over municipal officials
precisely to enforce the Election Code
Facts: Geronimo Zaldivar was then incumbent municipal
mayor of Albuera, Leyte with the municipal mayor of another
city named Feliciano Larrazabal acting in their official
capacities as Municipal Mayors are known to be sympathetic
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
The Commission on Election is a constitutional body, it is
intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of
government in the discharge of its functions, it should not be
hampered with restriction that would be fully warranted in the
case of a less responsible organization..
No other agency is better suited to preclude abuse of authority
on the part of local officials, the sanction being that it could
recommend to the President their removal if found guilty
of "non-feasance, malfeasance or misfeasance in
connection with the performance of their duties relative to
the conduct of elections."
It would indeed be absurd to say that the Commission on
Elections has a legal duty to perform and at the same time it is
denied the necessary means to perform said duty.
Why not the judiciary?
The constitution provides that the COMELEC has the
EXCLUSIVE CHAGRE OF THE ENFORECEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF ALL LAWS RELATIVE TO THE
CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS.
Chaos would ensue if the Court of First Instance (RTC) of
each and every province were to arrogate unto itself the power
to disregard, suspend, or contradict any order of the
Commission on Elections; that constitutional body would be
speedily reduced to impotence.
So, COMELEC has jurisdiction and decision of the judge in
CFI was SET ASIDE BY THE SC.
CABALLERO vs. COMELEC
Facts: Caballero and private respodnent (Jonathan nanud)
were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the
municipality of uyugan (batanes) in may 2013 elections.
Nanud field a petition to deny due course or cancellation of
caballero’s certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter
made a false representation when he declared that her was
eligible to run for mayor of uyugan batanes when in fact, he
was a canadian citizen and a non resident. This was filed
before the comelec first division.
COMELEC FIRST DIVISION,
Issued a reso finding that Caballero made a material
misrepresentation in his COC when he delared that he was a
resident of uyugan within 1 yr prior to election. On May 3,
Comelec cancelled his COC
Elections were held may 13 2013 and returns showed that
Caballero won over Nanud. So nanud filed a motion to defer
the proclamation.
May 14 2013, Caballero was proclaimed as mayor of Uyugan
May 16 2013 caballero filed motion for reconsideration with
comelec en banc assailing the may 3 2013 reso of comelec 1 st
5
division cancelling his COC
Nov 2013 COMELEC en banc denied the motion for recon
In the meantime, Nanud filed a motion for execution of the
may 3 resolution as affirmed by en banc and prayed for
Caballero’s COC cancellation and for him to be proclaimed as
the winner
Dec 2013 Comelec chairman issued wrot of execution and
nanud was proclaimed as the winner and took his oath of
office.
Now before the SC, caballero raised the following:
1. That comelec erred in disregarding the import of
procedural rules under comelec reso 9523.
Because when Nanud filed a petition to deny due course ofr
cancel his COC, a copy was not served to him. Thus, since in
violation of the rules, the petition should have been denied
outright.
Issue: WON the peition should have been denied for failure
to follow to comelec rules of procedure.
Ruling: no.
COMELEC rules of procedure, subject to liberal
interpretation.
While private respondent failed to comply with the
above-mentioned requirements, the settled rule, however, is
that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction. Moreover, the COMELEC may exercise its
power to suspend its own rules as provided under Section 4,
Rule 1 of their Rules of Procedure.
Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. - In the interest of justice
and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters
pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion
thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
Under this authority, comelec is enabled to cope with all
situations without concerning itself about procedural niceties
that do nto square with the need of justice. Provided that the
right of the parties to a full day in court is not substantially
impaired.
HOW TO CONSTRUE COMELEC RULES AND
PROCEDURE
In Hayudini vs Comelec, court held that:
As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are
to be liberally construed in order that the will of the
people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated
by mere technical objections.
Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office, for an
indefinite period, one whose right to it is uncertain and under
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately
cleared, not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake
of public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing
aside technicalities of procedure that protract and delay the
trial of an ordinary action.
The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even
suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice,
including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matters
pending before it.
PURPOSE OF LIBERALITY
This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective
and efficient implementation of its objectives - ensuring the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections, as well as achieving just, expeditious, and
inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and
proceeding brought before the COMELEC.
Unlike an ordinary civil action, an election contest is imbued
with public interest and involves not only the adjusdication or
a private and pecuniary interest of rival candidates but the
need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real
choice of the electorate.
In thsi case, the issue raised pertains to the qualification and
eligibility of caballer ot orun for public office which therefore
is imbued iwth public interest and justifies the comelec’s
suspension of its own rules.
Moreover, In this case, respondent was given a copy of the
petition during the conference held on 10 December 2012 and
was ultimately accorded the occasion to rebut all the
allegations against him. He even filed a Memorandum
containing his defenses to petitioner's allegations. For all
intents and purposes, therefore, respondent was never
deprived of due process which is the very essence of this
Commission's Rules of Procedure.
So the gist of this case is : okay lang na dili ifollow strcitly
ang rules basta imbued with public inetrest and in the interest
of justice. Kay ang main purpose man sa comelec is to ensure
the holding of HOPEFRECRE elections.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not Caballero made false
representations in his Certificate of Candidacy concerning his
residency.
Ruling: Yes. His naturalization on becoming a Canadian
citizen revoked his domicile and he failed to reestablish the
required period to be eligible for the position of Mayor.
Naturalization in a Foreign Country May Result in an
Abandonment of the Domicile; Unable to Reestablish
CABALLERO’S ARGUMENT: He claims that he did not
abandon his Philippine domicile. He argues that he paid
CTCs; was born and baptized, returned from work abroad.
COURT REPLY: The court is not persuaded. RA 9225 treats
citizenship independently from residence. Since a
natural-born Filipino may hold, both Philippine and foreign
citizenship he may establish residence in either, but not when
6
he opts to run for public office.
Section 5(2) of RA 9225 provides:
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities – Those
who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under this Act
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of
the Philippines and the following conditions:
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as
required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time
of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
RA 7160, Section 39 provides:
Section 39. Qualifications – (a) An elective local official must
be
1. a citizen of the Philippines;
2. a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or
province, or in the case of a member of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panglungsod, or sangguniang
bayan, the district where he intends to be elected;
3. a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
Clearly, the LGC requires that the candidate must be a
resident of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one
year immediately preceding election day,
Residence is understood as domicile or legal residence is the
place where a 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).
Domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is
usually the place where the child’s parents reside and
continues to reside until the same is abandoned by acquisition
of new domicile or the domicile of choice. It consists not only
in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention.
IN THIS CASE: Caballero was a natural-born Filipino
who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. However,
he later worked in Canada and became a Canadian
citizen.
In Coquilla v. COMELEC, naturalization in a foreign country
may result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
This holds true in the case of Caballero as permanent resident
status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian
citizenship.
Hence Caballero effectively abandoned his domicile in the
Philippines, frequent visits cannot cure such abandonment.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
Q. What then is the effect of Caballero’s retention of his
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 on his residence or
domicile?
In Japzon v. COMELEC, the reacquisition of Caballero of
citizenship had no automatic impact or effect on his
residence/domicile. Hence, petitioner's retention of his
Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not
automatically make him regain his residence in Uyugan,
Batanes. He must still prove that after becoming a
Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had
reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of
choice which is reckoned from the time he made it as such.
COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent
evidence to prove that he was able to reestablish his residence
in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately preceding
the May 13, 2013 elections.
It found that it was only after reacquiring his Filipino
citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on September 13,
2012 that petitioner can rightfully claim that he
re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was
accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an
actual intent to reestablish his domicile there.
However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12,
2013 was even less than the one year residency required by
law.
So the gist is just because he retained his filipino
citizenship, doesnt mean na resident na sya. Not automatic
that his domicile was reverted to uyugan batanes. Also
anreacqurie ra niya citizenship september 2012 which is less
than 1 year residency requirement to may 2013.
So substantial ruling: the petition of Caballero was dismissed
and the resolution of comelec en banc was affirmed by SC
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VS.
COMELEC
Facts: June 7 1995 congress passed RA 8046 authorizing
comelec to conduct a nationwide demonstartion of a
computerized election system and allowed poll body to pilot
test the system in march 1996 elections in ARMM
Dec 1997 RA 8346 enacted authorizing comelec to use an
automated election system for process of voting, counting
votes and canvassing/consolidating results of natl and local
elections also mandated poll body to acquire automated
counting machines (ACMs)
In may 1998 elections comelec limited the automation to
7
ARMM but due to failure of the machines to read correctly
some automated ballots in one town, the poll body later
ordered their manual count for entire provicne of sulu.
May 2001, counting and canvassing were also done manually.
In 2002, comelec resolved to conduct biddigns for 3 phases of
its automated election system:
1. Phase I - voter registration
2. Phase II - Validation
3. Phase III - Electronic transmission.
Then 2.5 billion was allocated for the AES and then
additional 500 m was released upon comelec’s request.
An invitation to apply foreligibility and to bid was issued by
comelec outliging certain qualifications to bid:
a. Duly licensed Filipino citizens/proprietorships;
b. Partnerships duly organized under the laws of the
Philippines and of which at least sixty percent (60%) of the
interest belongs to citizens of the Philippines;
c. Corporations duly organized under the laws of the
Philippines, and of which at least sixty percent (60%) of the
outstanding capital stock belongs to citizens of the
Philippines;
d. Manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors forming
themselves into a joint venture, i.e., a group of two (2) or
more manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors that intend
to be jointly and severally responsible or liable for a particular
contract, provided that Filipino ownership thereof shall be at
least sixty percent (60%); and
e. Cooperatives duly registered with the Cooperatives
Development Authority.
In feb 2003 comelec issued a clarification on the eligibility
criteria -
February 17, 2003 released the Request for Proposal (RFP) to
procure the election automation machines. The Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC) convened a prebid conference and
gave bidders until March 10, 2003 to submit their respective
bids.
Basically, the public bidding was to be conducted under
a two-envelope/two stage system.
The bidder’s first envelope or the Eligibility Envelope should
establish the bidder’s eligibility to bid and its qualifications
to perform the acts if accepted.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
On the other hand, the second envelope would be the Bid
Envelope itself.
Out of 57 bidders, the BAC found Mega pacific consortium
(MPC) and Total Information and Management Corporation
(TIMC) eligible, they were referred to DOST for technical
evaluation.
DOST stated that both MPC and TIMC obtained failed
marks in the technical evaluation.
Notwithstanding these failures, COMELEC En Banc on
April 15, 2003 promulgated Resolution 6074 awarding the
project to MPC.
Issue: WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
awarding the contract to MPC for the 2nd phase of the AES.
Ruling: YES. Since MPC failed to satisfy its eligibility
requirement and failure in the technical tests. There was no
reason to award the contract to MPC.
Note here that the one who made the bid was Mega Pacific
esolutions but the award was given to MPC. Comelec
however averred that it was MPC who made the bid.
SC did not agree. The documents faield to prove that it was a
consortium (an association of several business companies)
who joined the bidding. In their eligibility envelope, the ydid
not adduce sufficient requirement proving that they are a
consortium as there was no consortium agreement which was
needed.
There was no documentary or other basis for Comelec to
conclude that a consortium had actually been formed amongst
MPEI, SK C&C and WeSolv, along with Election.com and
ePLDT. The president of MPEI signing for allegedly in
behalf of MPC without any further proof, did not by itself
prove the existence of the consortium. It did not show that
MPEI or its president have been duly pre-authorized by the
other members of the putative consortium to represent them,
to bid on their collective behalf and, more important, to
commit them jointly and severally to the bid undertakings.
It follows then that comelec had no basis at all for
determining that the alleged consortium really existed and
was eligible and qualified. the arrangements among the
memebers were satisfactory and sufficient to ensure delivery
on the contract and to protect the government’s interest.
Because if it was based on MPEI alone, it is not eligible.
Q: what about the 4 agreements presented?
A: Each of the four different and separate bilateral
Agreements is valid and binding only between MPEI and the
other contracting party, leaving the other "consortium"
members total strangers thereto. Under this setup, MPEI dealt
separately with each of the "members," and the latter
(WeSolv, SK C&C, Election.com, and ePLDT) in turn had
nothing to do with one another, each dealing only with MPEI.
8
Q: Did the automation contracts which
incorporated all the agreements cure the
deficiency?
A: no. First, the contract being referred to, entitled "The
Automated Counting and Canvassing Project Contract," is
between Comelec and MPEI, not the alleged consortium,
MPC. To repeat, it is MPEI -- not MPC -- that is a party to the
Contract. Nowhere in that Contract is there any mention of a
consortium or joint venture, of members thereof, much less of
joint and several liability.
This fact alone seems to contradict all the suppositions about
a joint undertaking that would normally apply to a joint
venture or consortium: it is a commercial enterprise involving
a community of interest, a sharing of risks, profits and losses,
and so on.
It will be noted that Agreements are very similar in wording.
Neither of them contains any specifics or details as to the
exact nature and scope of the parties’ respective undertakings,
performances and deliverables under the Agreement with
respect to the automation project.
Likewise, the Agreements are quite bereft of
pesos-and-centavos data as to the amount of investments each
party contributes, its respective share in the revenues and/or
profit from the Contract with Comelec, and so forth -- all of
which are normal for
agreements of this nature.
Yet, according to public and private respondents, the
participation of MPEI, WeSolv and SK C&C comprises fully
90 percent of the entire undertaking with respect to the
election automation project, which is worth about P1.3
billion.
It is difficult to imagine how these bare Agreements --
especially the first two -- could be implemented in practice;
and how a dispute between the parties or a claim by Comelec
against them, for instance, could be resolved without lengthy
and debilitating litigations.
Absent any clear-cut statement as to the exact nature and
scope of the parties’ respective undertakings, commitments,
deliverables and covenants, one party or another can easily
dodge its obligation and deny or contest its liability; or claim
that it is the other party that should have delivered but failed
to.
Likewise, in the absence of definite indicators as to the
amount of investments to be contributed by each party,
disbursements for expenses, the parties’ respective shares in
the profits and the like, it seems to the Court that this situation
could readily give rise to all kinds of misunderstandings and
disagreements over money
matters.
THE DOST technical test flunked by ACMs
The first of the key requirements was that the counting
machines were to have an accuracy rating of at least 99.9995
percent. The BAC Report indicates that both Mega Pacific
and TIM failed to meet this standard. On this basis alone, the
bid should have been disqualified outright.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
Failure of Software to Detect Previously Downloaded Data
Furthermore, on page 6 of the BAC Report, it appears that the
"consortium" as well as TIM failed to meet another key
requirement -- for the counting machine’s software program
to be able to detect previously downloaded precinct results
and to prevent these from being entered again into the
counting machine.
This should have been cause for grave concern. Come may
2004, unscrupulous persosn may take adavnatge of an exploit
such deficiency by repeatedly downloading and feeding into
computers results favorable to a particualr candidate
for the automation of the counting and canvassing of ballots
in the 2004 elections. COMELEC awarded the contract to
Mega Pacific consortium - an entity which had not
participated in the bidding.
Inability to Print the Audit Trail
This particular deficiency is significant, not only to this
bidding but to the cause of free and credible elections. The
purpose of requiring audit trails is to enable Comelec to trace
and verify the identities of the ACM operators responsible for
data entry and downloading, as well as the times when the
various data were downloaded into the canvassing system, in
order to forestall fraud and to identify the perpetrators.
Thsi requriement should not be lightly brushed aside. This
should be mandatory considering the wording of sec 7 RA
8436
Section 7 reads as follows: "The System shall contain the
following features:
(a) use of appropriate ballots;
(b) stand-alone machine which can count votes and an
automated system which can consolidate the results
immediately;
(c) with provisions for audit trails;
(d) minimum human intervention; and
(e) Adequate safeguard/security measures."
Considering that the nation’s furutre is at stake, COMELEC
should have taken a more prudent and judicious approach to
ensure delivery of tried and tested software with readied
alternative courses of action in case of failure.
Unfortunately, Comelec has failed to measure up to this
historic task. As stated at the start of this Decision, Comelec
has not merely gravely abused its discretion in awarding the
Contract for the automation of the counting and canvassing
of the ballots, It has also put at grave risk the holding of
credible and peaceful elections by shoddily accepting
electronic hardware and software that admittedly failed to
pass legally mandated technical requirements. Inadequate as
they are, the remedies it proffers post facto do not cure the
grave abuse of discretion it already committed
(1) on April 15, 2003, when it illegally made the award; and
(2) "sometime" in May 2003 when it executed the Contract
for the purchase of defective machines and non-existent
software from a non-eligible bidder.
9
For these reasons, the Court finds it totally unacceptable and
unconscionable to place its imprimatur on this void and illegal
transaction that seriously endangers the breakdown of our
electoral system.
For this Court to cop-out and to close its eyes to these illegal
transactions, while convenient, would be to abandon its
constitutional duty of safeguarding public interest.
LABAN NG DEMORATIKONG PILIPINO
VS COMELEC
Facts: Dec 2003 - Counsel of the Laban ng demokratikong
pilipino informed comelec that only the party chairmanr,
sneator angara or his tuhtorized representative may endorse
the certificate of candidacy of the party’s official candidates.
the same manifestation stated that sen angara placed the LDP
secretary on indefinite forced leave.
Mean time, zaldivar was designated as acting secretayr
general. the manifestation concluded with this prayer:
A. The Honorable Commission recognizes [sic] only those
Certificates of Candidacy to which are attached Certificates of
Nomination executed by LDP Party Chairman Edgardo J.
Angara or by such other officers of the LDP whom he may
authorize in writing, and whose written authorizations shall be
deposited with the Honorable Commission by the LDP
General Counsel.
B. The Honorable Commission declares [sic] as a nullity,
denies [sic] due course or cancels [sic] all Certificates of
Candidacy not endorsed by LDP Party Chairman Angara or
by such other LDP officials as may be authorized by him.
C. The Honorable Commission takes [sic] note of the
designation of Ambassador Enrique "Ike" A. Zaldivar as
Acting Secretary General of the LDP, and for the Honorable
Commission to honor and recognize the official acts, to the
exclusion of everyone, of Ambassador Zaldivar for and in
behalf of the LDP as Secretary General
Dec 16 2003- Aquino filed a comment contending that the
party chairman does nto have the authority to impose
disciplinary sanctions against the secretary general
December 26 2003 - COMELEC issued order requiring
parties to file a verified petition. Sen angara reiterated the
contents of the previous menifestattions.
Attached to the petition was a resolution of the LDP national
executive coincil stating that:
1. They convened and granted full authority to PArty
CHairman Angara to enter, negotiate, and conclude a
coalition agremement with other like minded opposition
parties so basically they are saying, they forged a coalition
(together with puwersa ng masang pilipino [PMP] and partido
demokratiko ng pilipinas [PDP-LABAN] to form the
Koalisyon ng nagkakaisang pilipino.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
Then, pending resolution, a certificate of nomination of sen
panfilo lacson as LDP candidate for president was filed with
comelec. The certitificate of nomination was signed by rep.
Aquino as LDP Secretary General.
Jan 2004- comelec came to a decision:
Comelec indetiifed the issue as who among the LDP officers
are auhtorized to authenticate before the commission that the
person filing the certificate of candidacy as party nominee for
a certain position is the official candidate of the party
the candidates for president down to last sangguniang bayan
kagawad nominated and endorsed by LDP chairman angara
are recognized by the commission as official candidates for
LDP “Angara wing”
while the candidates as nominated and endorsed by LDP
secreatry Agapito Aquino are recognized as official
candidates fro LDP “Aquino wing”
Thus, each faction or wing is entitled to a representative to
any election committee to which it may be entitled as created
by the commission for the may 10 2004 elections.
For the copies of the election returns, the Angara wing will be
enetiled to the copies corresponding to odd numbered
precincts while the Aquino wing to the even number of
precincts.
This is on the assumption that the LDP or a party within a
registered political coalition becomes a recognized and
denominated as a dormant minority party udner election laws.
The 2 LDP wings are further entitled to and be accorded the
rights and privilieges with corresponding legal obligations
under election laws.
Sen Angara filed a petition for certiorari before SC assailing
the COmelec reso.
Issues:
1. WON comelec has power to ascertain identity of a
political party and of its legitimate officers (YES)
2. Who between party chairman or sec gen has authority to
sign COCs of official party candidates? (PC)
Ruling:
the COMELEC has power to ascertain identity of party
and its legitimate officers: Section 2(1) Article IX-C
The ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its
legitimate officers is a matter that is well within its authority.
the source of this authority is the CONSITUTION. Which
vests upon the comelec the power and function to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election.
In the exercise of the power and in the discharge of such
function, the commission is endowed with ample wherwithal
and considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that
10
will ensure the accomplishement of HOPEFRECRE elections.
Palmares v. COMELEC
COMELEC has jurisdiction over the issue of leadership in a
political party. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is
empowered to register political parties [Sec. 2(5), Article
IX-C.] Necessarily, the power to act on behalf of a party and
the responsibility for the acts of such political party must be
fixed in certain persons acting as its officers.
In the exercise of the power to register political parties, the
COMELEC must determine who these officers are.
Consequently, if there is any controversy as to leadership, the
COMELEC may, in a proper case brought before it, resolve
the issue incidental to its power to register political parties.
Q: when can courts assume jurisdiction over intra party issues
and when can it not?
A: in the recent case of SInica vs. Mula, the rule is “where
there is no controlling statute or clear legal right involved, the
court will nto assume jurisdiction to determine factional
controversies within a political party but will leave the matter
for determination by the proper tribunals of the party itself or
by the electors of the polls.
In the absence of specific constitutional or legislative
regulations definign how nominations are to be made or
prohibiting nominations from being made in certain ways,
political parties may handle such affairs, including
nominations, in such manny as party rules may establish.
In sinica case, it did not involve the question of party identity
or leadership, hence it was not necessary for the comelec to
delve threin sicne none of the candidates involved in that case
were claiming to be the political party’s sole candidate.
In this case, the issue was that the aprty chairman purporting
to represent LDP tends that under the party consitution, only
he or his representative, to the exclusion of the secretary
general has the authority to endorse and sign party
nominations. The sec gen vigorously disputed the claims.
So, the question of party identity has to be resolved if the
comelec is to ascertain whether candidates are legitimate
party standard bearers or not.
Since the law grants a registered political party certain rights
and privileges which redound to the benefit of its candidates,
it is in the inetrest of every political party not to allow persons
it had not chosen to hold themselves out as representatives of
the party.
The right of a political party to identify people who constitute
the association and to select a standard bearer who best
represents the party’s ideologies and preference is the right to
exclude persons in its association and to not lend its name to
those which it deems undeserving to represent its ideals.
A candidates political party affiliation is printed following his
or her name. To misrepresnt himself as a party’s candidate
would necessarily foist a deception upon the electorate who
may unwittingly cast its ballot for him or her on the mistaken
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
belief that he or she stands for the party’s principles.
To prevent this occurrance, COMELEC has power and duty
to step in and enforce the law not only to protect the party but
to protect the electorate.
COMELEC misapplied equity: it should have looked at the
party constitution
Comelec should have turned to the party constitution because
it is hown there that THE SECRETARY GENERAL’s power
to sign documents is only delegated and the original of which
pertains to the chairman.
Rep Aquino was authorized however, this was clearly
revoked by the manifestations of the party chairman when
Rep aquino was palced in indefinite leave.
As the prerogative to sign docs devolves upon sen angara, he
may choose to withhold or revoke such power.
The Secretary general does not also have the power to
nominate official candidates because that power RESTS with
the NATIONAL CONGRESS, which is the highest
policymaking and governing body of the party.
Q: what about the complaint against sen
angara?
A: according to the party constitution, the authority to create
the investigating committee for actions such as
1. disloyalty to the Party;
2. gross violation of the Party Constitution, and
3. other divisive acts inimical to the interest of the party and
its members
Requires concurrence of the party chairman.
Evidently, just as Rep. Aquino has no power to sign and
nominate candidates in behalf of the LDP, neither does he
have the power to enforce Party discipline or, as an incident
thereto, to create an investigating committee, without the
Party Chairman’s concurrence. Much less does the
investigating committee so created have the power to place
the Party Chairman under preventive suspension since its
authority stems from a nullity.
Q: What now happens to the COCs of those not legitimate
standard bearers of the parties?
A: They become independent candidates. This is because the
basis for denial of due course to or cancellation of a certificate
of candidacy for any elective office is that any material
representation contained therein as required by law is false.
In this case, the signature of rep aquino was affixed prior to
the challenged reso recognizing his auhtority to sign on
LDP’s behalf. Thus, not a material representaion that is false.
11
These candidates are just considered not nominated by LDP
and thus independent candidates.
COMELEC’s wrongful application of equity
The comelec should have decided the case based on party
constitution and election laws. the resolution was just clear
indecision. Worse was that it divided the party into wings
where each may nominate candidates.
By doing so, the comelec diffused LDP’s strength and
lessened its chance to obtain commission’s nod as a dominant
minority party. It also planted seeds of confusion among the
electorate who are confoudned by 2 candidates from 1 party.
By splitting copies of the elections returns, the COMELEC
fractured both wings
The practical purpose of furnishing a party with a copy of the
election returns is to allow it to tally the results of the
elections at the precinct level. Ultimately, it is a guard against
fraud. Thus, resort to copies thereof may be had when the
election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed, or when they
appear to be tampered or falsified.
A split party without a complete set of election returns cannot
successfully help preserve the sanctity of the ballot. Political
parties perform an "essential function in the management of
succession to power, as well as in the process of obtaining
popular consent to the course of public policy. They amass
sufficient support to buttress the authority of governments; or,
on the contrary, they attract or organize discontent and
dissatisfaction sufficient to oust the government.
Q: on the open party system
A: when the constitution sepaks of a multi party system, it
does not contemplate the COMELEC splitting parties into
two.
Decision: COMELEC Resolution is annulled and the petition
is granted in part. Respondent Commission on Elections is
directed to recognize as official candidates of the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino only those whose Certificates of
Candidacy are signed by LDP Party Chairman Senator
Edgardo J. Angara or his duly authorized representative/s.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019
JEFFREY SANTOS vs. MACARIO ASISTIO IV
Facts: Jeffrey sanots and macario asistio were candidates for
the position of councilor for 2nd district of caloocan in may 10
2004 elections.
May 18 2004 - city baord of canvassers proclaimed asistio as
the councilor elect garnering 45k compared to santos with
44.5k
May 28 2004 santos filed with comelec a petition for
annulment of proclamation on basis of erroneous
canvass/tallies of votes alleging that:
1. he was a victim of dagdag bawas and that his votes were
reduced in the statement of votes.
2. Based on the certified true copies of NAMFREL’s election
returns, he obtained 46k votes while asistio only 45k
Comelec first division
Dismissed hte petition for lack of merit.
(1) Santos’ lack of watchers and counsel during the early
stages of the canvassing proceedings is not a proper
ground for the annulment of Asistio’s proclamation;
(2) the documents submitted by Santos, consisting of a
compilation and tabulation of votes which he himself
prepared, and which he based on certified true
copies of NAMFREL’s election returns and the
originals of various Certificates of Votes submitted
by the poll watchers, are not admissible in evidence;
and
(3) Santos should have assailed the proceedings via a
pre-proclamation controversy, or through an election
protest within ten days after the proclamation of
Asistio, instead of a petition for annulment of
proclamation.
On same date, COMELEC EN BANC promulgated reso
7257 which provided 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 board of canvassers concerned shall be deemed
affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a regular
election protest by the aggrieved party.
12
However, proceedings may continue when on the basis
of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission
determines that the petition appears meritorious and
accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to
continue or when appropriate order has been issued by
the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."
Annexed to Resolution No. 7257 is a list of cases that shall
remain active before the COMELEC until their final
resolution. SPC No. 04- 233 (Santos petition) is not included
in the list.
July 9 2004/aug 30 2004 - Santos then filed before the
COMELEC EN BAC a motion for recon assailing the
comelec’s reso and reso 7257 on en banc
Issue:
1. Forum shopping?
2. WON comelec committed GAD for dismissing sanots’
petition
3. WON Comelec EB committed GAD in excluding Santos’
petition from the list of cases to remain active
Ruling:
1. Santos is guilty of forum shopping
Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse
judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking
and possibly securing a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari.
It may also be the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition.
IN THE CASE: Santos filed the petition for certiorari before
this Court during the pendency of his motion for
reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. The petition
clearly states that he is questioning the two Resolutions issued
by the COMELEC: the 29 June 2004 Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division in SPC No. 04-233 and the
COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 7257.
It was only when Asistio, in his Comment, called the Court’s
attention that Santos now belatedly asserts that he only seeks
to challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 7257 and not the
Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.
Santos stated in his petition before this Court that on 9 July
2004, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC
First Division’s Resolution. However, he did not disclose that
at the time of the filing of his petition, his motion for
reconsideration was still pending before the COMELEC En
Banc.
Santos did not also bother to inform the Court of the denial of
his motion for reconsideration by the COMELEC En Banc.
ELECTION LAWS LESSON FOR WEEK ENDING JULY 12 2019 13

Had Asistio not called this Court’s attention, we would have 8. Declare a postponement, suspension, annulment or failure
ruled on whether the COMELEC First Division committed of elections (P-S-A-F)
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SPC No. 04-233,
which is one of the issues raised by Santos in this petition. 9. Regulate the use of franchise or permits to operate media of
This act of Santos alone constitutes a ground for this Court’s communications and information.
summary dismissal of his petition. The Resolution of the
10. Require compliance with the rules for the filing of
COMELEC First Division has attained Finality Had this
certificates of candidacy.
Court been appraised at the outset of the pendency of Santos’
motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, it 11. Proclamation of winners
would have dismissed the petition outright for premature
filing. 12. Registration of Political Parties and Accredit Citizens
Arms

When the COMELEC En Banc finally resolved the motion

for reconsideration, Santos no longer elevated the denial of FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP vs.
his motion before this Court. He could no longer do that FERRER
without exposing his act of forum shopping. Thus, by Santos’
inaction, the Order of the COMELEC En Banc is now final
and executory.

2. The Exclusion of SPC No. 04-233 in the List of Cases

Annexed To Resolution No. 7257 has become Moot

Contrary to Santos’ claim, the COMELEC En Banc did

not dismiss outright SPC No. 04-233 even though the case
was excluded in the list annexed to Resolution No. 7257.

The COMELEC First Division in fact resolved SPC No.

04-233. When Santos filed a motion for reconsideration, the
COMELEC En Banc accepted, considered and disposed of
the motion.

Hence, the issue of whether the COMELEC En Banc

committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding SPC No.
04-233 in the list of cases annexed to Resolution No. 7257 is
now moot since the COMELEC in fact accepted,
considered and disposed of SPC No. 04-233.

EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS

Article IX-C, Sec 2. the commission on Elections shall

exercise the following powers and functions:

1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to

the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum
and recall.

Executive and admin powers pertains to the power to enforce

all laws and regulations relative to governing the elections.
This is EXCLUSIVE to comelec with the set purpose of
ensuring HOPEFRECRE elections.

Other executive and admin powers cover:

1. The determination of the number and location of polling

places.

2. Deputization/appointment of election officials and

inspectors

3. Supervise registration of voters

4. Award of bid contracts

5. Regulate the use of firearms

6. Call special elections

7. Investigation and prosecution of election offenses