QUIZ # 4
Cardinal primary requirements of due process:
1. The right to a hearing which includes the right to presents one’s case &
submit evidence in support thereof
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. The decision must have something to support it
4. The evidence must be substantial
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
7. The board or body should in all controversial question, render its decision
in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
8. The officer of tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested w/
competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guaranty of honesty and impartial trial.
QUIZ # 5
I.
A. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of COMELEC
 Over all contests relating to elections, returns, qualification, of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
 Municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction
 Elective brgy officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction
II.
A. ) Ben Tang should flie his election protest before the RTC .
Settled is the rule that the exclusive original jurisdiction over all election contests
involving elective municipal officials is vested in RTC.
B.) Tang should bring his appeal before the COMELEC. Law provides that COMELEC
is vested by law to exercise appellate jurisdiction over election protests decided by
the trial courts of general jurisdiction.
III. ABAD v. COMELEC
No. COMELEC En Banc has no power to decide the instant case.
COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide
election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the
Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases
decided by it in the first instance is null and void.
IV. As a general rule, COMELEC en banc does not have authority to hear and decide
election cases and pre proclamation controversies at the 1st instance. Any decision
rendered by COMELEC en banc as regards to election cases in the 1st instance is
null and void. However, there are instances that the COMELEC en Banc may validly
hear in the 1st instance, among of such, is petition for postponement.
V. GARCES v. CA
No. Empeynado’s contention is wrong. The case is cognizable by the RTC.
The “case” or “matter” referred to by the constitution must be something within
the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain to an election dispute. The
settled rule is that “decision, rulings, order” of the COMELEC that may be brought
to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate to the
COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving “elective
regional, provincial and city officials.”
In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELEC’s choice of an appointee to
occupy the Gutalac Post which is an administrative duty done for the operational
set-up of an agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective,
official. Hardly can this matter call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.
VI. JAMIL v. COMELEC
B is the winner. COMELEC Rules of Procedures provides, that when the Commission
en banc is equally divided in opinion, in appealed cases, the judgment or order
appealed from shall stand affirmed.
VII. GUEVARRA v. COMELEC
Commission on Elections has no power nor authority to submit Rappler to
contempt proceedings if its purpose is to discipline because of the publication of
the subject article.
COMELEC can have the authority to punish for contempt only when it is exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions in nature and does not have such power when it
is exercising administrative or ministerial functions.
Thus, COMELEC has no power to cite for a contempt a person who published a
newspaper article critical of its conduct in letting contracts for the purchase of
ballot boxes to be used in elections because it does not involves judicial, but only
administrative functions.
VIII.
I will dismiss the case. COMELEC has no jurisdiction in the subject case.
It is the MeTC and MTC which are vested with jurisdiction over petitions for
disqualification involving barangay election.
IX. CAYAT v. COMELEC
Contention of the Vice-Mayor is wrong.
The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an
election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. As such,
Palileng is the only candidate and the duly elected mayor.
X. DIZON v. MORALES
The Local Government Code provides that, No local elective official shall serve for
more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation
of the 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.
There should be a concurrence of two conditions for the application of the the
three-bar rule: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same local government post and (2) that he has fully
served three consecutive terms
Morales cannot be deemed to have served the full term of 2004-2007 because he
was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term, thus the same
cannot be counted as a term for purposes of computing the three-term limit.
Morales’ involuntary severance from office with respect to the 2004-2007 term is
an Involuntary severance from office which amounts to an interruption of
continuity of service.
QUIZ 6.
I.
a.)
Natural Born Citizen are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
b.)
The following are Natural born citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
and
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. (Section
1, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)
 Case of Bengzon. NBC kaso nag serve sa US army. Bumalik sa pinas reaquired
phil cit thru repatriation. Tumakbong mayor.
Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen
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.
 Mercado v. Manzano. Si edu ay pinanganak sa tate. Tumakbong mayor. Pet
sought for the disqualification of Edu on the ground sec 40 LGC— proscription
to run of person w/ dual citizenship.
 "Dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be  Voluntary renunciation of term, does not cancel the renounced term in the
understood as referring to dual allegiance. While dual citizenship is involuntary, computation of the three term limit
dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5 of the
Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national  Lonzanida Case. Elected thrice as mayor. Before the expiration of her 3rd term,
interest and shall be dealt with by law." COMELEC declared such as term as null and void. On the ff election, pet filed
cc. Prr assailed the cc, on the ground of 3 term bar rule.
The filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce his
American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as Lonzanida’s assumption of office as mayor from May 1995 to 1998 cannot be
a dual citizen considered as service of one full term for the purpose of applying the three-
term limit for elective local government officials.
II. “Residence” means “domicile” (election laws)
 Individual’s permanent home
Two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: 1) that
 A place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to
the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the
return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they
same local government post and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive
disclose intent.
terms.
 Twin Requisites:
 Animus Manendi – Intent of returning permanently
His assumption of office in 1995 cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a
 Actual habitual residence/presence
valid election. Also, he did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term by
 Substantial tie – work, school, business, family
reason of involuntary relinquishment of office as he was ordered to vacate his
Change of Residence
post before the expiration of the term. Although he served the greater portion
Requisites:
of said term, he should not be considered disqualified because he did not serve
1. Residence or bodily presence in new locality;
three full consecutive terms.
2. Intention to remain there(animus manendi); and
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile(animus non revertendi).

IV. Fugitive from justice

III. 3 Term Disqualification RODRIGUEZ v. COMELEC

Three term disqualification Fugitive from justice is disqualified

Sec. 8, Art X, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 43, Loc Gov – No local elective official shall  Those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment
serve more than three consecutive terms.  Those who, after being charged (Philippines or abroad), flee to avoid
prosecution
Requisites: NOTE: Intent to evade must be established by proof of conviction or at least a
1. Official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the charge has been filed at time of flight
same local government post; and
2. He has fully served three consecutive terms
V.
 A person who has been elected but lost in election protest deemed not
having served a term.
Substitution of Candidates – if after the last day for filing of the CC, an official
candidate of a registered political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any
cause:
1.) He may be substituted by a candidate belonging to and nominated by the
same political party;
2.) No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate;
3.) The substitute must file his certificate of candidacy not later than mid-day
of election day.
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should happen between the day before
election and mid-day of the election day, CC may be filed with:
1.) Any Board of Election Inspectors in the political subdivision he is a
candidate; or
2.) With COMELEC if it is a national position
Withdrawal of certificate
 GR: To be effective, withdrawal should be under oath or in the form of a
sworn declaration that he is withdrawing his CC.
 XPN: if accepted by election registrar, as a result of which a substitute files
his CC in his place and receives the winning number of votes.
 Attempt to withdraw the withdrawal is equivalent to filing anew a CC and
is too late if filed beyond period.
 Case of Vivero.
To be validly considered as withdrawal, there must be an under oath or the
form of a sworn declaration that he is withdrawing his Certificate of Candidacy.
Hence there was no withdrawal of candidacy for the position of mayor where
the candidate, before the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy,
personally appeared in the COMELEC office, asked for his certificate of
candidacy and intercalated the word “vice” before the word mayor and the
following day wrote the election registrar saying that his name be included in
the list of official candidates for mayor.
VI.
a.) Grounds for disqualification (Sec. 68, OEC)
 Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is
declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the
Commission of having:
a) Given money or other materials consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
b) Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
c) Spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this
Code;
d) Solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89,
95, 96, 97 and 104; or
e) Violated any of sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, pars. D, e, k, v and cc, sub
par 6
 Sec. 80 – political activity outside campaign period
 Sec. 83 – removal or destruction of lawful election propaganda
 Sec. 85 – prohibited forms of election propaganda (RA 9006,
amend)
 Sec. 86 – regulation of election propaganda through mass media
 Sec. 261 – (d)coercion of subordinates, (e) threat, intimidation or
other forms of coercion, (k) unlawful electioneering, (v)
prohibition against release or expenditure of public funds, (cc, sub
par. 6) solicitation of votes or undertaking any propaganda on the
day of the election.
f) Permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country.
b.) Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from
running for any elective local position. (LGC)
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non political cases here or abroad;
 6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the
effectivity of this Code; and
7. The insane or feeble-minded.
C.) Effect of disqualification
Any candidate who has 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 he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
Court or Commission 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 his guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms
Law of 1987)
d.) Nuisance Candidate
Nuisance Candidates
 Petition to declare a duly registered candidate as a nuisance candidate.
(Sec 5, RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms Law of 1987)
 Who may file: any registered candidate for the same office
 When to file: within 5 days from last day for filing of CC
 How: personally or through duly authorized representative with COMELEC
 GROUNDS: CC has been filed:
 To put the election process in mockery or disrepute;
 To cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered candidates; or
 Clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention
to run for the office for which the CC has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
(Sec, 69, BP 881)
QUIZ 7
I.) Gwen Garcia pending case.
Yes.
. VI. CODILLA V. DE VENECIA
II. Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from
running for any elective local position. (LGC)
III.
a.) Yes. Dina Tuwa may validly file the subject petition. The law provides, among
others, that a citizen of voting age may validly file a pet for disqualification. Given
that Dina tuwa is a registered voter then she is also qualified to petition a
disqualification case against Te.
Tuwa may file the subject petition on any day after the last day for filing of CoC but
not later than the date of proclamation
b.) Petition for Disqualification must be filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court of
COMELEC.
c.) Yes. The law provides that it is only candidate who has been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall
not be counted.
Absence of a final judgement declaring a candidate as disqualified, Te is deemed a
valid candidate for the mayoralty post. Hence, votes cast for Te should be counted.
d.) No. The law provides that, if for any reason a candidate is not declared by final
judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission 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 his
guilt is strong.
From the foregoing, COMELEC should proceed with the disqualification case
instituted against Te, and shall suspend the proclamation upon motion of the
plaintiff or any intervenor.
IV.
V. Nuisance candidate.
The respondent’s proclamation was premature given that the case against
petitioner had not yet been disposed of with finality. Settled is the rule that
COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction over motions for reconsiderations of the
resolution/ decision of COMELEC in division.
In the intant case, the issue on the validity of the Resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division has not yet been resolved by the COMELEC en banc. The HRET
cannot assume jurisdiction over the matter. HRET has no jurisdiction to review
resolutions or decisions of the COMELEC, whether issued by a division or en banc
VI. Carpio-Morales v. Binay
Binay invoked the condonation doctrine when he asked the CA to stop the
preventive suspension order against him over the alleged overpricing of the Makati
city hall parking building II.
Condonation doctrine provides that a public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his reelection to
office operates as a condonation to the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent
of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.
SC decided that the said doctrine is now “bereft of legal basis” based on the 1987
Constitution and the Local Government Code.
The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of
accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution,
is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official’s administrative
liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact
that he was elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post.
QUIZ 8
I. Yes. The LGC provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, requires the right to run for elective post after two (2) years after
serving sentence. Thus, Hood having his sentence completed May 2016 may validly
run for an elective post in May 2018.
II. No.
The residency requirement for voter registration provides that such person must
have been a resident in the place wherein she intends to vote for atleast 6 months
immediately preceeding the election.
III. No. The law provides, that the application for registration of a physically
disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited
citizen’s arm using the data supplied by the applicant.
“Girlfriend” is not one of those allowed by law to prepare the application of a
disabled person.
IV.
A. If Dimapigilan is a candidate without any political party and without
support from any political party he may spend P15,000. Otherwise,
Dimapigilan may spend P9,000.
The law provides that candidates, except for president and vice-president,
may spend P3 for every voter currently registered in the constituency
where he filed his CoC. Provided, that a candidate w/o pol party and w/o
any support from pol party may be allowed to spend P5 for every such
voter.
B. No. One of those who are prohibited from making any contributions to a
candidate on an elective post is a foreigner. Thus, the proscription applies
to the Chinese friend of Dimapigilan.
C. The Board of canvassers, upon 5 days notice to all the tied candidates, hold
a special public meeting to conduct a drawing of lots candidates who tied.
The declared winner is the candidate who will be favored by luck in draw
lots.
V. The ff are the grounds in pre proclamation proceedings:
1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
2. Material defects in the election returns
3. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
4. When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the
aggrieved candidate or candidates.

VI. No. Case should have been filed before the Board of Canvassers.

Direct resort to COMELEC involving pre proclamation cases is limited to pre

proclamation cases involving the elections for regional, provincial, city and
municipal officials relating to composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers.

VII.

ELECTION PROTEST QUO WARRANTO

Strictly a contest between the It is a proceeding purpose is to

defeated and winning candidate. If unseat the ineligible person form
the protestee be ousted, the office, but not to install the
protestant seats in the office vacated. protestant in his place. Thus, while
respondent may be unseated the
petitioner will not be seated.
Based on the grounds of election Questions of disloyalty or
frauds or irregularities, as to who ineligibility of the winning
actually obtained the majority of the candidate
legal votes and entitled to hold the
office.

Can only be filed by a candidate who It can be filed by any voter.

has duly filed a cert of candidacy and
has been voted for to the same office