REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES VS.

Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Order.
(COMELEC) AND JOSEPH SOCORRO B.
TAN Issues:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the
Facts: Petitioner filed her Certificate of
jurisdiction over the petitioner who is a duly
Candidacy (COC) for the position of
proclaimed winner and who has already taken
Representative of the lone district of
her oath of office for the position of member of
Marinduque. Respondent, a registered voter and
the House of Representative.
resident of the Municipality of Torrijos,
Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a 2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its
petition for the cancellation of petitioner’s COC. ruling that the petitioner is illegible to run for
On October 31, 2012, the respondent filed the office
amended petition on the ground that the Discussion:
petitioner’s COC contained material
misrepresentations regarding the petitioner’s 1. Pursuant to Section 17, Article 6 of the 1987
marital status, residency, date of birth and Constitution, the House of Representative
citizenship. Respondent alleged that the Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction
petitioner is an American citizen and filed in to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
February 8, 2013 a manifestation with motion to election returns and qualification of the
admit newly discovered evidence and amended members of House of Representative.
last exhibit. 2. In R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire
Filipino citizenship and become eligible for
On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First public office, the law requires that she must have
Division issued a Resolution cancelling the accomplished the following 1) take the oath of
petitioner’s COC on the basis that petitioner is allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
not a citizen of the Philippines because of her before the consul-general of the Philippine
failure to comply with the requirements of Consulate in the USA, and 2) make a personal
Republic Act (RA) No. 9225. and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship before any public officer authorized
The petitioner filed a Motion for to administer an oath. In the case at bar, there is
Reconsideration on April 8, 2013. But on May no showing that petitioner complied with the
14, 2013 the COMELEC en banc promulgated a requirements. Petitioner’s oath of office as
Resolution denying the petitioner’s Motion for Provincial Administrator cannot be considered
Reconsideration for lack of merit. as the oath of allegiance in compliance with RA
9225.
On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed As to the issue of residency, the court approved
winner of the May 13, 2013 elections and on the ruling if the COMELEC that a Filipino
June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before the citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere
Speaker of House of Representatives. She has effectively abandons his domicile of origin.
yet to assume office at noon of June 30, 2013. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, he
must still show that he chose to establish his
On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued domicile in the Philippines through positive acts,
a Certificate of Finality declaring the May 14, and the period of his residency shall be counted
2013 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final from the time he made it his domicile of choice.
and executory. In this case, there is no showing that the
petitioner reacquired her Filipino citizenship
pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that the
Petitioner then filed before the court Petition for petitioner renounced her American citizenship, it
Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary
follows that she has not abandoned her domicile the election results in North and South Cotabato;
of choice in the USA. Petitioner claim that she that GMA and Abalos be subjected to another
served as Provincial Administrator of the preliminary investigation for manipulating the
province of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 election results in Maguindanao; and, that Mike
to July 13, 2011 is not sufficient to prove her Arroyo be subjected to further investigation.The
one-year residency for she has never recognized case was docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No.
her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be 001-2011.
an American citizen. No amount of her stay in
the said locality can substitute the fact that she Senator Pimentel filed a Complaint Affidavit for
has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the Electoral Sabotage against petitioners and
USA. twelve others, and several John Does and Jane
Does. The case was docketed as DOJ-Comelec
Held:
Case No. 002-2011. Thereafter, petitioners filed
The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding
before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
COMELEC.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the
G.R. No. 199082 : July 23, 2013 creation of the Joint Panel.

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,v. The Joint Committee promulgated a Joint

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Resolution which was later indorsed to the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. Comelec. The Comelec en banc issued a
LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as Resolution approving and adopting the Joint
Secretary of the Department of Justice; HON. Resolution subject to modifications. The
SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity as Comelec resolved, among others, that an
Chairperson of the Commission on Elections; information for electoral sabotage be filed
and the JOINT DOJ-COMELEC against GMA and Abalos, while the charges
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION against Mike Arroyo be dismissed for
COMMITTEE and FACT-FINDING TEAM, insufficiency of evidence.
Respondents.
The RTC issued a Warrant for GMAs arrest
PERALTA, J.: which was duly served. GMA was later
arraigned and she entered a plea of "not guilty."
FACTS: She was, for some time, on hospital arrest but
was able to obtain temporary liberty when her
On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ motion for bail was granted. At present, she is
issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and again on hospital arrest by virtue of a warrant
constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding issued in another criminal case.
Team (referred to as Joint Panel) on the 2004
and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and The Court denied the petitions and supplemental
manipulation cases. petitions of herein petitioners. Hence, this
motion for reconsideration. Mike Arroyo
In its Initial Report, the Fact-Finding Team reiterates his arguments on the independence of
concluded that manipulation of the results in the the Comelec as basis in nullifying the subject
May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the joint DOJ-Comelec resolutions. Mike Arroyo
provinces of North and South Cotabato, and also maintains that the DOJ should conduct
Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated.The Fact- preliminary investigation only when deputized
Finding Team recommended, among others, that by the Comelec but not exercise concurrent
petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. (Abalos) be jurisdiction. Finally, as has been repeatedly
subjected to preliminary investigation for pointed out in his earlier pleadings before the
electoral sabotage for conspiring to manipulate Court, Mike Arroyo claims that the proceedings
involving the electoral sabotage case were assailed decision but missed out by GMA in her
rushed because of pressures from the executive motion, were issued during the effectivity of
branch of the government. Section 43 of RA 9369, giving the Comelec and
other prosecuting arms of the government the
ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of Joint concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and
Panel is valid prosecute election offenses. This amendment
paved the way for the discrepancy.
HELD: Yes.
In Comelec Resolution No. 3467, the Comelec
Political Law- Power of the COMELEC to maintained the continuing deputation of
investigate and prosecute cases prosecutors and the Comelec Law Department
was tasked to supervise the investigatory and
This is not the first time that the Court is prosecutory functions of the task force pursuant
confronted with the issue of whether the to the mandate of the Omnibus Election Code.
Comelec has the exclusive power to investigate However, with the amendment, the Comelec
and prosecute cases of violations of election likewise changed the tenor of the later
laws. In Barangay Association for National resolutions to reflect the new mandate of the
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the
Party-List v. Commission on Elections, the government now exercising concurrent
constitutionality of Section 43of RA 9369 had jurisdiction. Thus, the Comelec Law Department
already been raised by petitioners therein and and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor of
addressed by the Court. While recognizing the the DOJ were tasked to jointly supervise the
Comelecs exclusive power to investigate and investigatory and prosecutory functions of the
prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa Bilang Comelec-DOJ Task Force.
881 or the Omnibus Election Code, the Court
pointed out that the framers of the 1987 Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent
Constitution did not have such intention. This jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ
exclusivity is thus a legislative enactment that nevertheless included a provision in the assailed
can very well be amended by Section 43 of RA Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint
9369. Therefore, under the present law, the Committee finding probable cause for election
Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec
government, such as the DOJ, now exercise in accordance with the Comelec Rules of
concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and Procedure. With more reason, therefore, that we
prosecution of election offenses. cannot consider the creation of the Joint
Committee as an abdication of the Comelecs
Indeed, as aptly pointed out by GMA, there is a independence enshrined in the 1987
discrepancy between Comelec Resolution No. Constitution.
3467 dated January 12, 2001 and Joint Order
No. 001-2011, dated August 15, 2011, creating Motion for Reconsideration DENIED.
and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-
Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS v.
Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
However, GMA seemed to miss the date when represented by its CHAIRMAN ATTY.
these two resolutions were promulgated by the SIXTO BRILLANTES JR. and the
Comelec. PROVINCIAL ELECTION OFFICER OF
DAVAO DEL SUR, represented by ATTY.
It is noteworthy that Comelec Resolution No. MA. FEBES BARLAAN. (G.R. No. 209185;
3467 was issued when Section 265 of the October 25, 2013).
Omnibus Election Code was still effective, while
Joint Order No. 001-2011 as well as Comelec FACTS: Cagas, while he was representative of
Resolution Nos. 8733and 9057mentioned in the the first legislative district of Davao del Sur,
filed with Hon. Franklin Bautista, then elections. The text and intent of Section 2(1) of
representative of the second legislative district Article IX(C) is to give COMELEC "all the
of the same province, House Bill No. 4451 (H.B. necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve
No. 4451), a bill creating the province of Davao the objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
Occidental. H.B. No. 4451 was signed into law peaceful and credible elections."
as Republic Act No. 10360 (R.A. No. 10360),
the Charter of the Province of Davao Occidental. The right of suffrage should prevail over
mere scheduling mishaps in holding elections
Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 provides for the or plebiscites.
date of the holding of a plebiscite.
The tight time frame in the enactment, signing
Sec. 46. Plebiscite. The Province of Davao into law, and effectivity of R.A. No. 10360 on 5
Occidental shall be created, as provided for in February 2013, coupled with the subsequent
this Charter, upon approval by the majority of conduct of the National and Local Elections on
the votes cast by the voters of the affected areas 13 May 2013 as mandated by the Constitution,
in a plebiscite to be conducted and supervised by rendered impossible the holding of a plebiscite
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for the creation of the province of Davao
within sixty (60) days from the date of the Occidental on or before 6 April 2013 as
effectivity of this Charter. scheduled in R.A. No. 10360. We also take
judicial notice of the COMELEC's burden in the
As early as 27 November 2012, prior to the accreditation and registration of candidates for
effectivity of R.A. No. 10360, the COMELEC the Party-List Elections. The logistic and
suspended the conduct of all plebiscites as a financial impossibility of holding a plebiscite so
matter of policy and in view of the preparations close to the National and Local Elections is
for the 13 May 2013 National and Local unforeseen and unexpected, a cause analogous to
Elections. During a meeting held on 31 July force majeure and administrative mishaps
2013, the COMELEC decided to hold the covered in Section 5 of B.P. Blg. 881. The
plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental COMELEC is justified, and did not act with
simultaneously with the 28 October 2013 grave abuse of discretion, in postponing the
Barangay Elections to save on expenses. holding of the plebiscite for the creation of the
province of Davao Occidental to 28 October
Cagas filed a petition for prohibition, contending 2013 to synchronize it with the Barangay
that the COMELEC is without authority to Elections.
amend or modify section 46 of RA 10360 by
mere resolution because it is only Congress who To comply with the 60-day period to conduct the
can do so thus, COMELEC's act of suspending plebiscite then, as insisted, petitioner would
the plebiscite is unconstitutional. have the COMELEC hold off all of its tasks for
the National and Local Elections. If COMELEC
ISSUE: Was COMELEC's act abandoned any of its tasks or did not strictly
unconstitutional? follow the timetable for the accomplishment of
these tasks then it could have put in serious
HELD: The Constitution grants the COMELEC jeopardy the conduct of the May 2013 National
the power to "enforce and administer all laws and Local Elections. The COMELEC had to
and regulations relative to the conduct of an focus all its attention and concentrate all its
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and manpower and other resources on its preparation
recall." for the May 2013 National and Local Elections,
and to ensure that it would not be derailed, it had
The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the to defer the conduct of all plebiscites including
enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections for the that of R.A. No. 10360. DENIED.
purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest
SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS secretary. Nevertheless, in a CoC, an error in the
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EDWIN declaration of the place of birth is not a material
ELIM TUMPAG and RODOLFO Y. misrepresentation that would lead to
ESTRELLADA disqualification, because it is not one of the
qualifications provided by law.
SERENO, J.:
On 04 June 2010, the COMELEC Second
Svetlana P. Jalosjos (petitioner) comes before Division rendered a Resolution, the dispositive
this Court on a Petition for Review under Rule portion of which reads:cralawlibrary
64 with an extremely urgent application for the
issuance of a status quo order and for the WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent
conduct of a special raffle,1 assailing the 04 June is DISQUALIFIED from running for the
20102 and 19 August 20103 Resolutions in SPA position of mayor in the Municipality of
No. 09-161 (DC) of the Commission on Baliangao, Misamis Occidental for this coming
Elections (respondent COMELEC). These May 10, 2010 elections.28?r?l1
Resolutions granted the Petition to Deny Due
Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy The COMELEC En Banc promulgated a
filed by Edwin Elim Tumpag and Rodolfo Y. Resolution on 19 August 2010 denying the
Estrellada (private respondents) against Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner for lack
petitioner. At the heart of this controversy is of merit and affirming the Resolution of the
whether petitioner complied with the one-year Second Division denying due course to or
residency requirement for local elective cancelling her CoC.
officials.
COMELEC Ruling
On 20 November 2009, petitioner filed her
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor of Respondent COMELEC ruled in its 04 June
Baliangao, Misamis Occidental for the 10 May 2010 Resolution that misrepresentation as to
2010 elections. She indicated therein her place ones place of birth is not a ground for the
of birth and residence asBarangay Tugas, cancellation of a CoC. Petitioner merely
Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental committed an oversight when she declared that
(Brgy. Tugas). she was born in Baliangao when she was
actually born in San Juan. However, the
Asserting otherwise, private respondents filed COMELEC ruled that based on the evidence
against petitioner a Petition to Deny Due Course presented, petitioner never acquired a new
to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy, in domicile in Baliangao, because she failed to
which they argued that she had falsely prove her bodily presence at that place, her
represented her place of birth and residence, intention to remain there, and her intention never
because she was in fact born in San Juan, Metro to return to her domicile of origin. Hence,
Manila, and had not totally abandoned her respondent COMELEC disqualified her from
previous domicile, Dapitan City. running for the position of mayor of
Baliangao29 pursuant to Section 78 in relation to
On the other hand, petitioner averred that she Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.30?r?l1
had established her residence in the
said barangay since December 2008 when she In response to this adverse ruling, petitioner
purchased two parcels of land there, and that she elevated her case through a Motion for
had been staying in the house of a certain Mrs. Reconsideration before the COMELEC En
Lourdes Yap (Yap) while the former was Banc, arguing that the evidence she presented
overseeing the construction of her house. proved that she had established her domicile in
Furthermore, petitioner asserted that the error in the said municipality.31?r?l1
her place of birth was committed by her
Nonetheless, in its 19 August 2010 Resolution, I. Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse
respondent COMELEC affirmed the earlier of discretion when it failed to promulgate its 04
ruling of the Second Division. In upholding the June 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions in
latters ruling, COMELEC En Banc said that (1) accordance with its own Rules of Procedure; and
the Extrajudicial Partition with Simultaneous
Sale was not sufficient proof that petitioner had II. Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse
purchased two parcels of land, because she was of discretion in holding that petitioner had failed
never a party to the agreement, and it was quite to prove compliance with the one-year residency
unusual that she never acquired a deed of sale or requirement for local elective officials.
title to protect her interests; (2) the sketch plans
were not signed by the corporate engineer who Our Ruling
purportedly prepared them, nor was there an
affidavit from the engineer to authenticate the COMELECs failure to serve
plans; (3) the application of petitioner for voter advance notice of the promulgation
registration only proved that she had met the of the 04 June 2010 and 19 August
minimum six-month residency requirement and 2010 Resolutions does not invalidate
nothing more; and (4) the affiants of the Sworn them.
Statements were all partial, because they either
worked for her or were members of Petitioner assails the validity of the 04 June
organizations that received financial assistance 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions, because
from her.32?r?l1 she was not served an advance notice that these
Resolutions were going to be promulgated. This
Hence, the instant Petition arguing that failure was allegedly a violation of COMELEC
respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse Resolution No. 8696. Hence, she argues that her
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of right to due process was violated. In response,
jurisdiction in holding that petitioner was not a respondent COMELEC asserts that it suspended
resident of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental and COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 through an En
in thus justifying the cancellation of her CoC. Banc Order dated 04 May 2010.34 Furthermore,
She also asserts that the 04 June 2010 and 19 the suspension was in accordance with its power
August 2010 COMELEC Resolutions are null to promulgate its own rules as provided by the
and void, being violative of her right to due Constitution. Nevertheless, petitioner was
process, because there was no promulgation or afforded the opportunity to be heard and to
prior notice as required by Sec. 6 of COMELEC submit evidence in support of her defense.
Resolution No. 8696 or by the Rules on
Disqualification of Cases Filed in Connection We agree with respondent COMELEC.
with the 10 May 2010 Automated National and
Local Elections.
As stated by respondent COMELEC, Resolution
No. 8696 was suspended through an Order dated
In a Resolution dated 07 September 2010, we 04 May 2010. However, assuming that this
issued a Status Quo Ante Order, which required Resolution was still in effect, the failure to serve
the parties to observe the status quo prevailing notice of the promulgation under Section 6
before the issuance of the assailed COMELEC thereof did not make the 04 June 2010 and 19
Resolutions.33Thereafter, the parties filed their August 2010 COMELEC Resolutions invalid.
respective pleadings. The Court held thus in Sabili v.
COMELEC:35?r?l1
Issues
In Lindo v. Commission on Elections,[49]
The issues before us can be summarized as petitioner claimed that there was no valid
follows:cralawlibrary promulgation of a Decision in an election protest
case when a copy thereof was merely furnished
the parties, instead of first notifying the parties What was wanting and what the petitioner
of a set date for the promulgation thereof, in apparently objected to was not the
accordance with Section 20 of Rule 35 of the promulgation of the decision but the failure
COMELECs own Rules of Procedure, as of the trial court to serve notice in advance of
follows:cralawlibrary the promulgation of its decision as required
by the COMELEC rules. The failure to serve
Sec. 20. Promulgation and Finality of Decision. such notice in advance of the promulgation
The decision of the court shall be promulgated may be considered a procedural lapse on the
on a date set by it of which due notice must be part of the trial court which did not prejudice
given the parties. It shall become final five (5) the rights of the parties and did not vitiate the
days after promulgation. No motion for validity of the decision of the trial court nor
reconsideration shall be [sic] of the promulgation of said
entertained. ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ decision. ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ

Rejecting petitioners argument, we held Moreover, quoting Pimping v. COMELEC,[50]

therein that the additional rule requiring citing Macabingkil v. Yatco,[51] we further held
notice to the parties prior to promulgation of in the same case that failure to receive advance
a decision is not part of the process of notice of the promulgation of a decision is not
promulgation. Since lack of such notice does sufficient to set aside the COMELECs judgment,
not prejudice the rights of the parties, as long as the parties have been afforded an
noncompliance with this rule is a procedural opportunity to be heard before judgment is
lapse that does not vitiate the validity of the rendered, viz:cralawlibrary
decision. Thus:cralawlibrary
The fact that petitioners were not served
This contention is untenable. Promulgation is the notice in advance of the promulgation of the
process by which a decision is published, decision in the election protest cases, in Our
officially announced, made known to the public view, does not constitute reversible error or a
or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, reason sufficient enough to compel and
coupled with notice to the parties or their warrant the setting aside of the judgment
counsel (Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration, rendered by the Comelec. Petitioners anchor
L-24800, May 27, 1968, 23 SCRA 812). It is the their argument on an alleged denial to them
delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court [sic] due process to the deviation by the
for filing and publication (Araneta v. Dinglasan, Comelec from its own made rules. However,
84 Phil. 433). It is the filing of the signed the essence of due process is that, the parties
decision with the clerk of court (Sumbing v. in the case were afforded an opportunity to
Davide, G.R. Nos. 86850-51, July 20, 1989, En be heard. ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ
Banc Minute Resolution). The additional
requirement imposed by the COMELEC rules of In the present case, we read from the
notice in advance of promulgation is not part of COMELEC Order that the exigencies attendant
the process of promulgation. Hence, We do not to the holding of the countrys first automated
agree with petitioners contention that there was national elections had necessitated that the
no promulgation of the trial court's decision. The COMELEC suspend the rule on notice prior to
trial court did not deny that it had officially promulgation, and that it instead direct the
made the decision public. From the recital of delivery of all resolutions to the Clerk of the
facts of both parties, copies of the decision were Commission for immediate promulgation.
sent to petitioner's counsel of record and Notably, we see no prejudice to the parties
petitioners [sic] himself. Another copy was sent caused thereby. The COMELECs Order did not
to private respondent. affect the right of the parties to due process.
They were still furnished a copy of the
COMELEC Decision and were able to reckon
the period for perfecting an appeal. In fact, Marcos v. COMELEC39 and subsequently
petitioner was able to timely lodge a Petition in Dumpit- Michelena v. Boado:40?r?l1
with this Court.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based
Clearly, the COMELEC validly exercised its on these criteria, the residence of origin should
constitutionally granted power to make its own be deemed to continue. Only with evidence
rules of procedure when it issued the 4 May showing concurrence of all three requirements
2010 Order suspending Section 6 of COMELEC can the presumption of continuity or residence
Resolution No. 8696. Consequently, the second be rebutted, for a change of residence requires
assailed Resolution of the COMELEC cannot be an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one
set aside on the ground of COMELECs failure to cannot have two legal residences at the same
issue to petitioner a notice setting the date of the time.41?r?l1 ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ
promulgation thereto. (Emphases supplied)
Moreover, even if these requisites are
Thus, even if COMELEC failed to give advance established by clear and positive proof, the date
notice of the promulgation of the 04 June 2010 of acquisition of the domicile of choice, or
and 19 August 2010 Resolutions, its failure to the critical date, must also be established to be
do so did not invalidate them. within at least one year prior to the elections
using the same standard of evidence.
Petitioner failed to comply with the
one-year residency requirement for In the instant case, we find that petitioner failed
local elective officials. to establish by clear and positive proof that she
had resided in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental,
Petitioners uncontroverted domicile of origin is one year prior to the 10 May 2010 elections.
Dapitan City. The question is whether she was
able to establish, through clear and positive There were inconsistencies in the Affidavits of
proof, that she had acquired a domicile of choice Acas-Yap, Yap III, Villanueva, Duhaylungsod,
in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, prior to the Estrellada, Jumawan, Medija, Bagundol,
May 2010 elections. Colaljo, Tenorio, Analasan, Bation, Maghilum
and Javier.
When it comes to the qualifications for running
for public office, residence is synonymous with First, they stated that they personally knew
domicile. Accordingly, Nuval v. Guray36 held as petitioner to be an actual and physical resident
follows:cralawlibrary of Brgy.Tugas since 2008. However, they
declared in the same Affidavits that she stayed
The term residence as so used, is synonymous in Brgy. Punta Miray while her house was being
with domicile which imports not only intention constructed in Brgy. Tugas.
to reside in a fixed place, but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct Second, construction workers Yap III,
indicative of such intention.37?r?l1 Villanueva, Duhaylungsod and Estrellada
asserted that in December 2009, construction
There are three requisites for a person to acquire was still ongoing. By their assertion, they were
a new domicile by choice. First, residence or implying that six months before the 10 May
bodily presence in the new locality. Second, an 2010 elections, petitioner had not yet moved into
intention to remain there. Third, an intention to her house at Brgy. Tugas.
abandon the old
domicile.38?r?l1 ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ Third, the same construction workers admitted
that petitioner only visited Baliangao
These circumstances must be established by occasionally when they stated that "at
clear and positive proof, as held in Romualdez- times when she (petitioner) was in Baliangao,
she used to stay at the house of Lourdes Yap 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions that she
while her residential house was being had failed to meet the one-year residency
constructed."42?r?l1 requirement.

These discrepancies bolster the statement of During the pendency of the case, we deemed it
the Brgy. Tugas officials that petitioner was not proper to issue an Order dated 07 September
and neverhad been a resident of their barangay. 2010 directing the parties to observe the status
At most, the Affidavits of all the witnesses only quo before the issuance of these COMELEC
show that petitioner was building and Resolutions disqualifying petitioner from the
developing a beach resort and a house mayoralty race in Baliangao. We issued the
in Brgy. Tugas, and that she only stayed Order, considering that petitioner, having
in Brgy. Punta Miray whenever she wanted to garnered the highest number of votes in the 10
oversee the construction of the resort and the May 2010 elections, had assumed office as
house. municipal mayor. However, with this final
determination of her ineligibility to run for
Assuming that the claim of property ownership office, there is now a permanent vacancy in the
of petitioner is true, Fernandez v. office of the mayor of Baliangao. Hence, the
COMELEC43 has established that the ownership vice-mayor of Baliangao shall become its mayor
of a house or some other property does not in accordance with Section 44 of the Local
establish domicile. This principle is especially Government Code.
true in this case as petitioner has failed to
establish her bodily presence in the locality and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
her intent to stay there at least a year before the Petition is DENIED. The Status Quo Ante Order
elections, to wit:cralawlibrary issued by this Court on 07 September 2010 is
hereby LIFTED.
To use ownership of property in the district as
the determinative indicium of permanence of
domicile or residence implies that the landed can G.R. No. 195649 : July 2, 2013
establish compliance with the residency
requirement. This Court would be, in effect, CASAN MACODE MACQUILING,
imposing a property requirement to the right to Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
hold public office, which property requirement ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y
would be unconstitutional. CAGOCO, AND LINOG G. BALUA.
Respondents.
Finally, the approval of the application for
registration of petitioner as a voter only shows, SERENO, J.:
at most, that she had met the minimum residency
requirement as a voter.44 This minimum FACTS:
requirement is different from that for acquiring a
new domicile of choice for the purpose of This Resolution resolves the Motion for
running for public office. Reconsideration filed by respondent on May 10,
2013 and the Supplemental Motion for
Accordingly, in the CoC of petitioner, her Reconsideration filed on May 20, 2013.
statement of her eligibility to run for office
constitutes a material misrepresentation that We are not unaware that the term of office of the
warrants its cancellation.45 She contends that local officials elected in the May 2010 elections
respondent COMELEC never made a finding has already ended on June 30, 2010. Arnado,
that she had committed material therefore, has successfully finished his term of
misrepresentation. Her contention, however, is office. While the relief sought can no longer be
belied by its factual determination in its 04 June granted, ruling on the motion for reconsideration
is important as it will either affirm the validity of citizenship by using a US Passport issued prior
Arnados election or affirm that Arnado never to expatriation."
qualified to run for public office.
American law does not govern in this
Respondent failed to advance any argument to jurisdiction. Instead, Section 40(d) of the Local
support his plea for the reversal of this Courts Government Code calls for application in the
Decision dated April 16, 2013. Instead, he case before us, given the fact that at the time
presented his accomplishments as the Mayor of Arnado filed his certificate of candidacy, he was
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and reiterated that not only a Filipino citizen but, by his own
he has taken the Oath of Allegiance not only declaration, also an American citizen. It is the
twice but six times. It must be stressed, however, application of this law and not of any foreign
that the relevant question is the efficacy of his law that serves as the basis for Arnados
renunciation of his foreign citizenship and not disqualification to run for any local elective
the taking of the Oath of Allegiance to the position.
Republic of the Philippines. Neither do his
accomplishments as mayor affect the question With all due respect to the dissent, the declared
before this Court. policy of Republic Act No. (RA) 9225 is that
"all Philippine citizens who become citizens of
ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen can run another country shall be deemed not to have lost
for a local elective position? their Philippine citizenship under the conditions
of this Act."This policy pertains to the
HELD: Motion for Reconsideration denied. reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Section
5(2)requires those who have re-acquired
REMEDIAL LAW: judicial notice of foreign Philippine citizenship and who seek elective
laws public office, to renounce any and all foreign
citizenship.
Respondent cites Section 349 of the Immigration
and Naturalization Act of the United States as This requirement of renunciation of any and all
having the effect of expatriation when he foreign citizenship, when read together with
executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of Section 40(d) of the Local Government
American Citizenship on April 3, 2009 and thus Codewhich disqualifies those with dual
claims that he was divested of his American citizenship from running for any elective local
citizenship. If indeed, respondent was divested position, indicates a policy that anyone who
of all the rights of an American citizen, the fact seeks to run for public office must be solely and
that he was still able to use his US passport after exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former
executing his Affidavit of Renunciation Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship to
repudiates this claim. continue using a foreign passport which
indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the
The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign individual as its national even after the Filipino
laws,which must be presented as public has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to allow
documentsof a foreign country and must be a complete disregard of this policy.
"evidenced by an official publication
thereof."Mere reference to a foreign law in a Further, we respectfully disagree that the
pleading does not suffice for it to be considered majority decision rules on a situation of doubt.
in deciding a case.
POLITICAL LAW: dual citizens ineligible
Respondent likewise contends that this Court for local public office
failed to cite any law of the United States
"providing that a person who is divested of Indeed, there is no doubt that Section 40(d) of
American citizenship thru an Affidavit of the Local Government Code disqualifies those
Renunciation will re-acquire such American with dual citizenship from running for local
elective positions. the administrative body had arbitrarily
disregarded or misapprehended evidence before
There is likewise no doubt that the use of a it to such an extent as to compel a contrary
passport is a positive declaration that one is a conclusion had such evidence been properly
citizen of the country which issued the passport, appreciated.
or that a passport proves that the country which
issued it recognizes the person named therein as Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that
its national. COMELEC First Division found that Arnado
used his U.S. Passport at least six times after he
It is unquestioned that Arnado is a natural born renounced his American citizenship. This was
Filipino citizen, or that he acquired American debunked by the COMELEC En Banc, which
citizenship by naturalization. There is no doubt found that Arnado only used his U.S. passport
that he reacquired his Filipino citizenship by four times, and which agreed with Arnados
taking his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines claim that he only used his U.S. passport on
and that he renounced his American citizenship. those occasions because his Philippine passport
It is also indubitable that after renouncing his was not yet issued. The COMELEC En Banc
American citizenship, Arnado used his U.S. argued that Arnado was able to prove that he
passport at least six times. used his Philippine passport for his travels on
the following dates: 12 January 2010, 31
If there is any remaining doubt, it is regarding January 2010, 31 March 2010, 16 April 2010, 20
the efficacy of Arnados renunciation of his May 2010, and 4 June 2010.
American citizenship when he subsequently
used his U.S. passport. The renunciation of None of these dates coincide with the two other
foreign citizenship must be complete and dates indicated in the certification issued by the
unequivocal. The requirement that the Bureau of Immigration showing that on 21
renunciation must be made through an oath January 2010 and on 23 March 2010, Arnado
emphasizes the solemn duty of the one making arrived in the Philippines using his U.S. Passport
the oath of renunciation to remain true to what No. 057782700 which also indicated therein that
he has sworn to. Allowing the subsequent use of his nationality is USA-American. Adding these
a foreign passport because it is convenient for two travel dates to the travel record provided by
the person to do so is rendering the oath a the Bureau of Immigration showing that Arnado
hollow act. It devalues the act of taking of an also presented his U.S. passport four times (upon
oath, reducing it to a mere ceremonial formality. departure on 14 April 2009, upon arrival on 25
June 2009, upon departure on 29 July 2009 and
The dissent states that the Court has effectively upon arrival on 24 November 2009), these
left Arnado "a man without a country".On the incidents sum up to six.
contrary, this Court has, in fact, found Arnado to
have more than one. Nowhere in the decision The COMELEC En Banc concluded that "the
does it say that Arnado is not a Filipino citizen. use of the US passport was because to his
What the decision merely points out is that he knowledge, his Philippine passport was not yet
also possessed another citizenship at the time he issued to him for his use."This conclusion,
filed his certificate of candidacy. however, is not supported by the facts. Arnado
claims that his Philippine passport was issued on
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of 18 June 2009. The records show that he
administrative bodies will not be interfered with continued to use his U.S. passport even after he
by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of already received his Philippine passport.
discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless Arnados travel records show that he presented
the aforementioned findings are not supported his U.S. passport on 24 November 2009, on 21
by substantial evidence.They are accorded not January 2010, and on 23 March 2010. These
only great respect but even finality, and are facts were never refuted by Arnado.
binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that
Thus, the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc is ISSUE: Whether or not respondents COC should
based on a misapprehension of the facts that the be cancelled
use of the U.S. passport was discontinued when
Arnado obtained his Philippine passport. HELD: No. Decision of COMELEC en banc
Arnados continued use of his U.S. passport affirmed.
cannot be considered as isolated acts contrary to
what the dissent wants us to believe. POLITICAL LAW: Material
misrepresentation contemplated by Sec. 78 of
It must be stressed that what is at stake here the Omnibus Election Code refer to
is the principle that only those who are qualifications for elective office
exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for
public office. If we allow dual citizens who In order to justify the cancellation of the
wish to run for public office to renounce their certificate of candidacy under Section 78, it is
foreign citizenship and afterwards continue essential that the false representation mentioned
using their foreign passports, we are creating therein pertains to a material matter for the
a special privilege for these dual citizens, sanction imposed by this provision would affect
thereby effectively junking the prohibition in the substantive rights ofa candidate the right to
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. run for the elective post for which he filed the
certificate of candidacy.
G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a
LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, Petitioner, v. false representation under Section 78 must
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
MIGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE, Respondents. misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible. In other words, it
FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were both must be made with an intention to deceive the
candidates for the Gubernatorial position of the electorate as to ones qualifications for public
province of CamarinesSur in the May 2013 local office. The use of surname, when not intended to
elections. Petitioner file a with the COMELEC a mislead, or deceive the public as to ones identity
verified Petition to deny due course or cancel the is not within the scope of the provision.
certificate of candidacy of respondent alleging Respondents nickname is not considered a
that the latter intentionally misrepresented a material fact, and there is no substantial
false and deceptive name/ nickname that would evidence showing that in writing the nickname
mislead the voters when he declared under oath LRAY JR. MIGZ in his COC, respondent had
in his COC that LRAY JR.MIGZ was his the intention to deceive the voters as to his
nickname or stage name and that the name he identity which has an effect on his eligibility or
intended to appear on the official ballot was qualification for the office he seeks to assume.
VILLAFUERTE, LRAY JR.MIGZ NP; that
respondent deliberately omitted his first name Notably, respondent is known to the voters of
MIGUEL and inserted, instead LRAY JR., the Province of Camarines Sur as the son of the
which is the nickname of his father, the then incumbent Governor of the province,
incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur,LRay popularly known as LRay. Their relationship is
Villafuerte, Jr. shown by the posters, streamers and billboards
displayed in the province with the faces of both
COMELECs First Division and COMELEC en the father and son on them. Thus, the voters of
banc ruled that there is no reason to cancel the the Province of Camarines Sur know who
COC of respondent as matters of material respondent is. Moreover, it was established by
misrepresentation in the COC pertains only to the affidavits of respondents witnesses that as
qualifications of a candidate and nothing is the father and son have striking similarities, such
mentioned about a candidates name. as their looks and mannerisms, which remained
unrebutted, the appellation of LRAY JR. has
been used to refer torespondent. Hence, the RICHARD I. GOMEZ is DISQUALIFIED as a
appellation LRAY JR., accompanied by the candidate for the Office of Congressman, Fourth
name MIGZ16written as respondents nickname District of Leyte, for lack of residency
in his COC, is not at all misleading to the voters, requirement.
as in fact, such name distinguishes respondent
from his father, the then incumbent Governor SO ORDERED.
LRAY, who was running for a Congressional
seat in the 2ndDistrict of Camarines Sur. Aggrieved, Richard moved for reconsideration
but the same was denied by the COMELEC En
Banc through a Resolution dated May 4, 2010.7
Tagolino v. House of Representatives Thereafter, in a Manifestation of even date,
Electoral Tribunal Richard accepted the said resolution with
finality “in order to enable his substitute to
G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013 facilitate the filing of the necessary documents
for substitution.”
J. Perlas-Bernabe
On May 5, 2010, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez
Facts: On November 30, 2009, Richard Gomez (private respondent) filed her CoC together with
(Richard) filed his certificate of candidacy a Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance10
(CoC) with the Commission on Elections from the Liberal Party endorsing her as the
(COMELEC), seeking congressional office as party’s official substitute candidate vice her
Representative for the Fourth Legislative husband, Richard, for the same congressional
District of Leyte under the ticket of the Liberal post. In response to various letter-requests
Party. Subsequently, on December 6, 2009, one submitted to the COMELEC’s Law Department
of the opposing candidates, Buenaventura (Law Department), the COMELEC En Banc, in
Juntilla (Juntilla), filed a Verified Petition, the exercise of its administrative functions,
alleging that Richard, who was actually a issued Resolution No. 889011 on May 8, 2010,
resident of College Street, East Greenhills, San approving, among others, the recommendation
Juan City, Metro Manila, misrepresented in his of the said department to allow the substitution
CoC that he resided in 910 Carlota Hills, of private respondent.
Canadieng, Ormoc City. In this regard, Juntilla
asserted that Richard failed to meet the one (1) The substitution complied with the requirements
year residency requirement under Section 6, provided under Section 12 in relation to Section
Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution 13 of Comelec Resolution No. 8678 dated
(Constitution) and thus should be declared October 6, 2009.
disqualified/ineligible to run for the said office.
In addition, Juntilla prayed that Richard’s CoC xxxx
be denied due course and/or cancelled.
In view of the foregoing, the Law Department
On February 17, 2010, the COMELEC First RECOMMENDS the following:
Division rendered a Resolution6 granting
Juntilla’s petition without any qualification. The xxxx
dispositive portion of which reads:
2. TO ALLOW CANDIDATE LUCY MARIE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the TORRES GOMEZ AS A SUBSTITUTE
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby CANDIDATE FOR RICHARD GOMEZ:
RESOLVE, to GRANT the Petition to (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Disqualify Candidate for Lack of Qualification
filed by BUENAVENTURA O. JUNTILLA Issue: Whether or not there is valid substitution.
against RICHARD I. GOMEZ. Accordingly,
Held: No. A. Distinction between a petition for the candidate’s compliance with the eligibility
disqualification and a petition to deny due requirements as prescribed by law, such as age,
course to/cancel a certificate of candidacy. residency, and citizenship, is not in question, he
or she is, however, ordered to discontinue such
The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides for candidacy as a form of penal sanction brought
certain remedies to assail a candidate’s bid for by the commission of the above-mentioned
public office. Among these which obtain election offenses.
particular significance to this case are: (1) a
petition for disqualification under Section 68; On the other hand, a denial of due course to
and (2) a petition to deny due course to and/or and/or cancellation of a CoC proceeding under
cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section Section 78 of the OEC is premised on a person’s
78. The distinctions between the two are well- misrepresentation of any of the material
perceived. qualifications required for the elective office
aspired for. It is not enough that a person lacks
Primarily, a disqualification case under Section the relevant qualification; he or she must have
68 of the OEC is hinged on either: (a) a also made a false representation of the same in
candidate’s possession of a permanent resident the CoC. The nature of a Section 78 petition was
status in a foreign country; or (b) his or her discussed in the case of Fermin v. COMELEC,
commission of certain acts of disqualification. where the Court illumined:
Anent the latter, the prohibited acts under
Section 68 refer to election offenses under the Let it be misunderstood, the denial of due course
OEC, and not to violations of other penal laws. to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on
In particular, these are: (1) giving money or the lack of qualifications but on a finding that
other material consideration to influence, induce the candidate made a material representation that
or corrupt the voters or public officials is false, which may relate to the qualifications
performing electoral functions; (2) committing required of the public office he/she is running
acts of terrorism to enhance one’s candidacy; (3) for. It is noted that the candidates states in
spending in one’s election campaign an amount his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office
in excess of that allowed by the OEC; (4) he/she seeks. Section 78 of the OEC, therefore,
soliciting, receiving or making any contribution is to be read in relation to the constitutional and
prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104 statutory provisions on qualifications or
of the OEC; and (5) violating Sections 80, 83, eligibility for public office. If the candidate
85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subsequently states a material representation in
subparagraph 634 of the OEC. Accordingly, the the CoC that is false, the COMELEC, following
same provision (Section 68) states that any the law, is empowered to deny due course to or
candidate who, in an action or protest in which cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has
he or she is a party, is declared by final decision already likened a proceeding under Section 78 to
of a competent court guilty of, or found by the a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of
COMELEC to have committed any of the the OEC since they both deal with the eligibility
foregoing acts shall be disqualified from or qualification of a candidate, with the
continuing as a candidate for public office, or distinction mainly in the fact that a “Section 78”
disallowed from holding the same, if he or she petition is filed before proclamation, while a
had already been elected. petition for quo warranto is filed after
proclamation of the winning candidate.
It must be stressed that one who is disqualified (Emphasis supplied)
under Section 68 is still technically considered
to have been a candidate, albeit proscribed to Corollary thereto, it must be noted that the
continue as such only because of supervening deliberateness of the misrepresentation, much
infractions which do not, however, deny his or less one’s intent to defraud, is of bare
her statutory eligibility. In other words, while significance in a Section 78 petition as it is
enough that the person’s declaration of a disqualification pursuant to Article 41 of the
material qualification in the CoC be false. In this Revised Penal Code. On April 30, 2007, then
relation, jurisprudence holds that an express President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued an
finding that the person committed any deliberate order commuting his prison term to sixteen (16)
misrepresentation is of little consequence in the years, three (3) months and three (3) days.
determination of whether one’s CoC should be
deemed cancelled or not. What remains material On April 26, 2012, petitioner applied to register
is that the petition essentially seeks to deny due as a voter in Zamboanga City. However, because
course to and/or cancel the CoC on the basis of of his previous conviction, his application was
one’s ineligibility and that the same be granted denied by the Acting City Election Officer of the
without any qualification. Election Registration Board (ERB), prompting
him to file a Petition for Inclusion in the
Pertinently, while a disqualified candidate under Permanent List of Voters before the Municipal
Section 68 is still considered to have been a Trial Court in Cities of Zamboanga City.
candidate for all intents and purposes, on the Pending resolution of the same, he filed a
other hand, a person whose CoC had been CoCon October 5, 2012, seeking to run as mayor
denied due course to and/or cancelled under for Zamboanga City in the upcoming local
Section 78 is deemed to have not been a elections scheduled on May 13, 2013. In his
candidate at all. The reason being is that a CoC, petitioner stated,inter alia,that he is eligible
cancelled CoC is considered void ab initio and for the said office and that he is a registered
thus, cannot give rise to a valid candidacy and voter of Barangay Tetuan, Zamboanga City.
necessarily, to valid votes. In Talaga v.
COMELEC (Talaga), the Court ruled that: On October 18, 2012,the MTCC denied his
Petition for Inclusion on account of his perpetual
xxxx absolute disqualification which in effect,
deprived him of the right to vote in any election.
While a person who is disqualified under Such denial was affirmed by the Regional Trial
Section 68 is merely prohibited to continue as a Court in its Order which, pursuant to Section
candidate, a person who certificate is cancelled 138 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended,
or denied due course under Section 78 is not otherwise known as the "Omnibus Election
treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never Code" (OEC), was immediately final and
filed a CoC. executory.

The COMELEC En Banc issued motu proprio

Resolution No. 9613 on January 15, 2013,
ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, Petitioner, vs. THE
resolving "to CANCEL and DENY due course
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIA
the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Romeo G.
ISABELLE G. CLIMACO-SALAZAR,
Jalosjos as Mayor of Zamboanga City in the
ROEL B. NATIVIDAD, ARTURO N.
May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections" due
ONRUBIA, AHMAD NARZAD K.
to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well
SAMPANG, JOSE L. LOBREGAT,
as his failure to comply with the voter
ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND
registration requirement.
ELBERT C. ATILANO, Respondents.

FACTS: On November 16, 2001, the Court ISSUES: [1] Did the COMELEC En Banc act
promulgated its Decision convicting petitioner beyond its jurisdiction when it issued motu
by final judgment.Consequently, he was proprio Resolution No. 9613 and in so doing,
sentenced to suffer the principal penalties of violated petitioner's right to due process?
reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal for
each count, respectively, which carried the [2] Had petitioner's perpetual absolute
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification to run for elective office
already been removed by Section 40 (a) of the
LGC? mayor for Zamboanga City.

HELD: The COMELEC En Banc did not It is well to note that the use of the word
exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it "perpetual" in the aforementioned accessory
issued Resolution No. 9613 as it did not assume penalty connotes a lifetime restriction and in this
jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve respect, does not depend on the length of the
any election case before it or any of its prison term, which is imposed as its principal
divisions.Rather, it merely performed its duty to penalty. Instructive on this point is the Court's
enforce and administer election laws in ruling in Lacuna v. Abes,where the Court
cancelling petitioner's CoC on the basis of his explained the meaning of the term "perpetual" as
perpetual absolute disqualification, the fact of applied to the penalty of disqualification to run
which had already been established by his final for public office.
conviction.In this regard, the COMELEC En
Banc was exercising its administrative functions, The accessory penalty of temporary absolute
dispensing with the need for a motion for disqualification disqualified the convict for
reconsideration of a division ruling under public office and for the right to vote, such
Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the disqualification to last only during the term of
same being required only in quasi-judicial the sentence (Article 27, paragraph 3, & Article
proceedings. 30, Revised Penal Code) that, in the case of
Abes, would have expired on 13 October 1961.
The denial of due course to and/or cancellation
of one's CoC generally necessitates the exercise But this does not hold true with respect to the
of the COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions other accessory penalty of perpetual special
commenced through a petition based on either disqualification for the exercise of the right of
Sections 12 or 78of the OEC, or Section 40 of suffrage.This accessory penalty deprives the
the LGC, when the grounds therefor are convict of the right to vote or to be elected to or
rendered conclusive on account of final and hold public office perpetually, as distinguished
executory judgments as when a candidate's from temporary special disqualification, which
disqualification to run for public office is based lasts during the term of the
on a final conviction. sentence. DISMISSED.

There is also no violation of procedural due

process since the COMELEC En Banc would be
acting in a purely administrative manner.
JAIME C. REGIO v. COMELEC
The petitioner was sentenced to suffer the
principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and G.R. No. 204828
reclusion temporal which, pursuant to Article 41
of the RPC, carried with it the accessory penalty
of perpetual absolute disqualification and in VELASCO JR., J.:
turn, pursuant to Article 30 of the RPC, The Case
disqualified him to run for elective office. As
discussed, Section 40 (a) of the LGC would not This Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64,
apply to cases wherein a penal provision such as in relation to Rule 65, seeks to nullify and set
Article 41 in this case directly and specifically aside the Resolution dated December 7, 2012 of
prohibits the convict from running for elective the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En
office. Hence, despite the lapse of two (2) years Banc in EAC (BRGY-SK) No. 161-2011. The
from petitioner's service of his commuted prison assailed Resolution reversed and set aside the
term, he remains bound to suffer the accessory Resolution of the COMELEC First Division
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification dated August 23, 2011, which, in turn, affirmed
which consequently, disqualifies him to run as
the May 4, 2011 Decision in Election Case No. his offer to the revision committee report,
02480-EC of the Metropolitan Trial Court showing that he garnered the highest number of
(MeTC), Branch 4 in Manila. votes.

The Facts Regio, on the other hand, denied that the

elections were tainted with irregularities. He
Petitioner Jaime C. Regio (Regio) and private claimed that the results of the revision are
respondent Ronnie C. Co (Co), among other products of post-elections operations, as the
candidates, ran in the October 25, ballots were tampered with, switched, and
2010 barangay elections in Barangay 296, Zone altered drastically to change the results of the
28, District III of the City of Manila for the elections. He presented as witnesses the
position of punong barangay. following: poll watchers Evangeline Garcia,
Cezar Regio, and Ruben Merilles, who all
Immediately following the counting and testified that there were no instances of electoral
canvassing of the votes from seven clustered fraud, irregularities, and anomalies during the
precincts in the adverted barangay, Regio, who day of the elections. Presented too were
garnered four hundred seventy-eight (478) votes, volunteers Love Agpaoa and Romy Que, who
as against the three hundred thirty-six (336) belied allegations of miscounting, misreading,
votes obtained by Co, was proclaimed winner and misappreciation of the ballots during the
for the contested post of punong barangay. The counting, and Dominador Dela Cruz,
detailed tally of the votes per precinct, as Chairperson of the BET for CP Nos.
reflected in the Statement of Votes, is as 1302A/1303A, as well as Erlina Hernandez,
follows:[1] Chairperson of the BET for CP No. 1306A, who
both testified that they followed the rules and
On November 4, 2010, Co filed an election regulations in conducting the elections
protest before the MeTC. He claimed, among in Barangay 296, and that each ballot was
other things, that the Board of Election Tellers correctly tabulated.[4]
(BET) did not follow COMELEC Resolution
No. 9030, as it: (1) did not permit his supporters The results of the revision notwithstanding, the
to vote; (2) allowed "flying voters" to cast votes; trial court, in its Decision of May 4, 2011,
and (3) ignored the rules on appreciation of dismissed Co's protest and declared Regio as the
ballots, resulting in misreading, miscounting, duly-elected punong barangay of Barangay 296.
and misappreciation of ballots. Additionally, he It disposed of the case, as follows:
alleged that Regio committed vote-buying, and
engaged in distribution of sample ballots inside WHEREFORE, the proclamation of protestee
the polling centers during the day of the Jaime C. Regio as the duly elected "Punong
elections.[2] Barangay" or "Barangay Chairman" of Barangay
296, District III, Manila by the Barangay Board
Of the seven clustered precincts (CPs) initially of Canvassers is affirmed by this court. The
protested, Co would later exclude CP Nos. election protest filed by the protestant Ronnie C.
1304A and 1305A from the protest. During the Co is dismissed for lack of merit.
preliminary conference, the trial court allowed
the revision of ballots. The revision of ballots According to the trial court, before it can accord
occurred on January 13-14, 2011.[3] Per the credence to the results of the revision, it should
report of the revision committee, the number of first be ascertained that the ballots found in the
votes obtained by both candidates in the box during the revision are the same ballots
contested precincts, as shown below, indicated a deposited by the voters. In fine, the court
substantial recovery on the part of Co: "should first be convinced that the ballots
counted during the revision have not been
tampered with before it can declare the ballots a)
During his turn to present evidence, Co limited as superior evidence of how the electorate voted,
and b) as sufficient evidence to set aside the anomalies during the casting and counting of
election returns. For the ballots to be considered votes.
the best evidence of how the voters voted, their
integrity should be satisfactorily established."[6] Aggrieved, Co filed an appeal before the
COMELECIn a Resolution dated August 23,
Invoking Rosal v. COMELEC,[7] the trial court 2011, the COMELEC First
ruled that Co failed to sufficiently show that the Division[12] dismissed the appeal, noting, as the
integrity of the contested ballots had been MeTC did, that Co failed to show that the
preserved. It then cited the presumption that integrity of the ballots in question was in fact
election returns are genuine, and that the data preserved. Echoing the trial court, the
and information supplied by the board of COMELEC First Division ruled that the absence
election inspectors are true and correct.[8] The of any report or record of tampering of the ballot
trial court said: boxes does not preclude the possibility of ballot
tampering.[13] It also affirmed the rejection of
A closer scrutiny of the premise made by the Co's reliance on the revision committee report as
protestant will reveal that he is trying to prove proof that no post-election tampering occurred.
the misreading, miscounting, and The COMELEC First Division observed:
misappreciation of ballots by introducing as
evidence the marked difference of the results of We note that protestant-appellant did not offer
the revision and of the results in the election any evidence to prove his claims of misreading,
returns. This premise is too presumptuous. The miscounting, and misappreciation of the ballots;
marked difference cannot be used to prove the he posits that the variance between the election
misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of results according to the election documents and
ballots because the misreading, miscounting, and the revision of the ballots is in itself enough to
misappreciation of ballots is precisely what the prove his allegations of misreading,
protestant needs to prove to justify the marked miscounting, and misappreciation of the ballots
difference in the results. Prudence dictates that by the Board of Election Tellers. Protestant-
the protestant should first explain where this appellant begs the question instead of laying
huge discrepancy is coming from before using it support to his claims.
as evidence. In other words, the misreading,
miscounting, and misappreciation of ballots
should be proven by other independent evidence.
Since it could not divine the will of the
Without any evidence, the allegation of electorate from the ballots, the trial court had no
misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of other recourse other than to rely on the available
ballots remains a mere allegation without any election documents. And, We cannot fault the
probative value.[9] trial court for doing so when there was no
Traversing the allegations of post-elections question as to the election documents'
tampering, the trial court rejected Co's allegation authenticity and validity.
that the ballot boxes were properly locked and
sealed. In fact, the trial court said, the envelope Protestant-appellant harps that the election
containing the ballots for CP Nos. 1302A/1303A documents are "mere by-products of the
was glued on both sides, prompting protestee's electoral fraud committed to benefit (protestee-
revisor to comment that the envelope appears to appellee) including but not limited
be re-pasted and tampered. In CP No. 1306A, to misreading, miscounting, and
the report stated that the ballots were not placed misappreciation of ballots by the
in a sealed envelope.[10] Chairpersons of the Board of Election Tellers
in order to increase the votes of the Protestee-
Corollarily, the trial court stated the observation Appellee and decrease the votes that should
that Regio has presented credible witnesses to have been properly credited to Protestant-
prove that there were no irregularities or Appellant Co." (emphasis in the original)
 of the Board of Election Tellers or from the time
As previously mentioned, protestant-appellant's the custody of the ballot boxes is transferred
assertion is specious x x x. The records of the from the BET to the City Treasurer and finally
case is bereft of any evidence supporting to the trial court. Protestee who cried post-
protestant-appellant's claims of electoral fraud election fraud is duty-bound to establish that the
and, thus, We concur with the trial court stating, genuine ballots found inside the boxes were
"(w)ithout any evidence, the allegation of compromised and tampered at any time during
misreading, miscounting, and misappreciation of that period and before the revision. However, no
ballots remains a mere allegation without such proof has been adduced by protestee except
probative value."[14] the discrepancy between the figures in the ERs
The COMELEC First Division noted that Co and the physical count on revision. But then,
could have, but did not, presented testimonies of said discrepancy could have been caused by
witnesses to substantiate his claims of electoral errors in the transposition of the numbers from
fraud, albeit he attached affidavits of various the ballots to the ERs during the canvassing and
witnesses in his protest. The affidavits, the not due to tampering.
COMELEC First Division said, asserted, in one
form or another, the electoral malfeasance or As earlier intimated, the discrepancy could be
misfeasance allegedly committed by the BET. In attributed to ER manipulation during the
dismissing the arguments of Co for his failure to canvassing and not because of the tampering of
present evidence, the COMELEC commented, the ballots which were already found by an
"[I]t appears that protestant-appellant [Co] expert and independent body to be genuine and
rested on laurels after seeing the result of the authentic.
physical count of the revised ballots and the
conclusion of the Technical Examination. In WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
fine, protestant-appellant proverbially lost the Commission RESOLVED as it hereby
war for want of a nail."[15] The fallo of the RESOLVES to reconsider its Resolution dated
COMELEC First Division Resolution reads: August 23, 2011 and proclaim protestant-
appellant as the duly elected Punong Barangay
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the of Barangay 296, District III, Manila.
Commission (First Division) RESOLVED, as it
hereby RESOLVES, to DENY the protestant's Thus, the present recourse, on the argument that
Appeal for LACK OF MERIT. The Decision the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse
dated 04 May 2011 by Metropolitan Trial Court of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Branch 04 City of Manila is jurisdiction when it arbitrarily set aside the
hereby AFFIRMED. Decision of the MeTC and the Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division, in the choice
Co then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In between the revision results in the protested
its assailed December 7, 2012 Resolution, the precincts and the official vote count recorded in
COMELEC En Banc[17] reconsidered the August the election returns. Petitioner further argues that
23, 2011 Resolution of the First Division, and the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
accordingly declared Co as the duly when it demanded from protestee direct proof of
elected punong barangay. Vital to the En Banc's actual tampering of ballots to justify
disposition is its finding that the ballots consideration of the use of the election returns in
subjected to revision were genuine. The En determining the winning candidate in the
Banc found: elections. In fine, petitioner questions the ruling
of the COMELEC giving precedence to the
x x x [W]e find merit in appellant's motion for results of the revision over the official
reconsideration. For, protestant [Co] has canvassing results.
sufficiently established that no untoward
incident had attended the preservation of the The Issues
ballots after the termination of the proceedings
I. kabataan officials elected under this Act shall
commence on August 15, 2002, next following
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT their elections. The term of office of
COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE the barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO elected in the October 2007 election and
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN subsequent elections shall commence at noon
RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT CO of November 30 next following their election.
HAD SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE (emphasis added)
BURDEN OF PROVING THE INTEGRITY The court takes judicial notice of the holding
OF THE BALLOTS SUBJECTED TO of barangay elections last October 28, 2013.
REVISION. Following the elections, the new set
of barangay officials already assumed office as
II. of noon of November 30, 2013. It goes without
saying, then, that the term of office of those who
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT were elected during the October
COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE 2010 barangay elections also expired by noon
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO on November 30, 2013. In fine, with the election
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN of a new punong barangay during the October
REVERSING THE RULING OF THE 28, 2013 elections, the issue of who the rightful
COMELEC FIRST DIVISION, TO THE winner of the 2010 barangay elections has
EFFECT THAT PETITIONER REGIO IS THE already been rendered moot and academic.
DULY-ELECTED PUNONG BARANGAY.
The Court's Ruling Notwithstanding the mootness of the case, We
find the need to decide the petition on its merits,
At the outset, it must be noted that the protest in view of the finding of the COMELEC En
case is dismissible for being moot and academic. Banc that protestant Co should have been
A case becomes moot when there is no more declared the winner for the post of
actual controversy between the parties or no punong barangay for the term 2010-2013. We
useful purpose can be served in passing upon the find that the grave abuse of discretion committed
merits. Generally, courts will not determine a by the COMELEC En Banc, specifically in
moot question in a case in which no practical ignoring the rules on evidence, merits
relief can be granted.[20] In Malaluan v. consideration. Still in line with the Court's
COMELEC,[21] this Court settled the matter on decision in Malaluan[22] to the effect that the
when an election protest case becomes moot and Court can decide on the merits a moot protest if
academic: there is practical value in so doing, We find that
the nullification of the COMELEC En Banc's
When the appeal from a decision in an election Resolution is in order, due to its gross
case has already become moot, the case being an contravention of established rules on evidence in
election protest involving the office of election protest cases.
mayor the term of which had expired, the
appeal is dismissible on that ground, unless the We shall discuss the issues jointly, related as
rendering of a decision on the merits would be they are to the finding of the COMELEC En
of practical value. (emphasis added) Banc giving primacy to the results of the
In the case now before the Court, the position revision proceedings over the results of the
involved is that of a punong barangay. The canvassing as reflected in the election returns.
governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No.
(RA) 9164, as amended by RA 9340. Sec. 4 of The doctrine in Rosal v. COMELEC[23] and
the law states: considering the results of the revision vis-à-
vis the results reflected in the official
Sec. 4. Assumption of Office. - The term of canvassing
office of the barangay and sangguniang
In Rosal, this Court summarized the standards to results of the canvassing, even in cases where
be observed in an election contest predicated on there is a discrepancy between such results and
the theory that the election returns do not the results of the revision proceedings. It is only
accurately reflect the will of the voters due to when the protestant has successfully discharged
alleged irregularities in the appreciation and the burden of proving that the re-counted ballots
counting of ballots. These guiding standards are: are the very same ones counted during the
revision proceedings, will the court or the
(1) The ballots cannot be used to overturn the Commission, as the case may be, even consider
official count as reflected in the election returns the revision results.
unless it is first shown affirmatively that the
ballots have been preserved with a care which Even then, the results of the revision will not
precludes the opportunity of tampering and automatically be given more weight over the
suspicion of change, abstraction or substitution; official canvassing results or the election returns.
What happens in the event of discrepancy
(2) The burden of proving that the integrity of between the revision results and the election
the ballots has been preserved in such a manner returns is that the burden of proof shifts to the
is on the protestant; protestee to provide evidence of actual
tampering of the ballots, or at least a likelihood
(3) Where a mode of preserving the ballots is of tampering. It is only when the court or the
enjoined by law, proof must be made of such COMELEC is fully satisfied that the ballots
substantial compliance with the requirements of have been well preserved, and that there had
that mode as would provide assurance that the been no tampering of the ballots, that it will
ballots have been kept inviolate notwithstanding accord credibility to the results of the revision.
slight deviations from the precise mode of
achieving that end; In Varias v. COMELEC, the Court said:

(4) It is only when the protestant has shown The Rosal ruling, to be sure, does not involve
substantial compliance with the provisions of issues merely related to the appreciation or
law on the preservation of ballots that the burden calibration of evidence; its critical ruling is on
of proving actual tampering or likelihood thereof the propriety of relying on the revision of ballot
shifts to the protestee; and results instead of the election returns in the
proclamation of a winning candidate. In
(5) Only if it appears to the satisfaction of the deciding this issue, what it notably established
court of COMELEC that the integrity of the was a critical guide in arriving at its conclusion
ballots has been preserved should it adopt the the need to determine whether the court or the
result as shown by the recount and not as COMELEC looked at the correct considerations
reflected in the election returns. in making its ruling.[24]
This Court had long stated that "[u]pholding the
In the same case, the Court referred to various sovereignty of the people is what democracy is
provisions in the Omnibus Election Code all about. When the sovereignty of the people
providing for the safe-keeping and preservation expressed thru the ballot is at stake, it is not
of the ballots, more specifically Secs. 160, 217, enough for this Court to make a statement but it
219, and 220 of the Code. should do everything to have that sovereignty
obeyed by all. Well done is always better than
Rosal was promulgated precisely to honor the well said."[25] This is really what
presumption of regularity in the performance of the Rosal doctrine is all about.
official functions. Following Rosal, it is The Rosal doctrine ensures that in election
presumed that the BET and Board of Canvassers protest cases, the supreme mandate of the people
had faithfully performed the solemn duty is ultimately determined. In laying down the
reposed unto them during the day of the rules in appreciating the conflicting results of the
elections. Thus, primacy is given to the official canvassing and the results of a revision later
made, the Court has no other intention but to
determine the will of the electorate. (3) The ballot is properly accomplished;

The Rosal doctrine is also supplemented by (4) A voter personally prepared one ballot,
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,[26] establishing the except in the case of assistors; and
following disputable presumptions:
(5) The exercise of one's right to vote was
SEC. 6. Disputable presumptions. - The voluntary and free.
following presumptions are considered as facts, Private respondent Co has not proved that
unless contradicted and overcome by other the integrity of the ballots has been
evidence: preserved

(a) On the election procedure: Applying Rosal, viewed in conjunction with

A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, this Court rules that the
(1) The election of candidates was held on the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of
date and time set and in the polling place discretion in ruling that private respondent had
determined by the Commission on Elections; successfully discharged the burden of proving
that the ballots counted during the revision
(2) The Boards of Election Inspectors were duly proceedings are the same ballots cast and
constituted and organized; counted during the day of the elections. That is
the essence of the second paragraph in
(3) Political parties and candidates were duly the Rosal doctrine.
represented by pollwatchers;
It is well to note that the respondent Co did not
(4) Pollwatchers were able to perform their present any testimonial evidence to prove that
functions; and the election paraphernalia inside the protested
ballot boxes had been preserved. He mainly
(5) The Minutes of Voting and Counting relied on the report of the revision committee.
contains all the incidents that transpired before There was no independent, direct or indirect,
the Board of Election Inspectors. evidence to prove the preservation of the ballots
and other election paraphernalia.
(b) On election paraphernalia:
This leads Us to no other conclusion but that
(1) Ballots and election returns that bear the respondent Co failed to discharge his burden
security markings and features prescribed by the under the Rosal doctrine. With no independent
Commission on Elections are genuine; evidence to speak of, respondent Co cannot
simply rely on the report of the revision
(2) The data and information supplied by the committee, and from there conclude that the
members of the Boards of Election Inspectors in report itself is proof of the preservation of the
the accountable forms are true and correct; and ballots. What he needs to provide is evidence
independent of the revision proceedings.
(3) The allocation, packing and distribution of Without any such evidence, the Court or the
election documents or paraphernalia were COMELEC, as the case may be, will be
properly and timely done. constrained to honor the presumption established
in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, that the data and
(c) On appreciation of ballots: information supplied by the members of the
Boards of Election Inspectors in the accountable
(1) A ballot with appropriate security markings forms are true and correct.
is valid;
Respondent Co admits having, under
(2) The ballot reflects the intent of the voter; the Rosal doctrine, the burden of proving the
preservation of the ballots, and corollarily, that simply claim that the ballot boxes themselves
their integrity have not been compromised are the proof that they were properly preserved.
before the revision proceedings. He, however, This goes contrary to the doctrine in Rosal.
argues that he had successfully discharged that
burden. And how? First, he pointed out that The respective custodians of the ballot boxes,
from the moment the various BETs placed the from the time they were used in the elections
counted official ballots inside the ballot boxes until they were delivered to the court, were not,
until they were transported for canvassing, and to stress, presented in court. They could have
until they were transmitted to the Election testified as to the security afforded the ballot
Officer/City Treasurer of Manila for storage and boxes while in their custody. Moreover, no
custody, no irregularities or ballot-box snatching witness at all was presented by respondent Co
were reported; neither was there any news or during the proceedings in the trial court. The
record of ballot box tampering in the protested Court reminds respondent Co that the trial
precincts. Second, no untoward incident or court's consideration of the case is confined to
irregularity which may taint or affect the whatever evidence is presented before it. This is
integrity of the ballot boxes was ever reported amply stated in Rule 13, Sec. 2 of A.M. No. 07-
when they were transported to the storage area 4-15-SC:
of the trial court. Third, the storage place of the
ballot boxes was at all times tightly secured, Sec. 2. Offer of evidence. The court shall
properly protected, and well consider no evidence that has not been formally
safeguarded. Fourth, all the protested ballot offered. Offer of evidence shall be done orally
boxes were properly locked and sealed. Fifth, on the last day of hearing allowed for each party
the petitioner never questioned or raised any after the presentation of the last witness. The
issue on the preservation of the integrity of the opposing party shall be required to immediately
protested ballot boxes. And sixth, the Technical interpose objections thereto. The court shall rule
Examination Report signed by the COMELEC on the offer of evidence in open court. However,
representative confirmed the genuineness, the court may, at its discretion, allow the party to
authenticity, and integrity of all the ballots found make an offer of evidence in writing, which
during the revision.[27] shall be submitted within three days. If the court
rejects any evidence offered, the party may
We hold, however, that the foregoing statements make a tender of excluded evidence.
do not, by themselves, constitute sufficient Unfortunately for respondent Co, the witnesses
evidence that the ballots have been preserved. whose affidavits he attached to his Protest were
Respondent Co cannot simply rely on the never presented during trial. While he again
alleged absence of evidence of reports of raised the tenor of these affidavits in his
untoward incidents, and from there immediately Comment filed before Us, those cannot be
conclude that the ballots have been preserved. considered anymore due to his failure to present
What he should have presented are concrete them before the trial court. Respondent cannot
pieces of evidence, independent of the revision simplistically insist on the consideration of said
proceedings that will tend to show that the affidavits, the trial court not having been given
ballots counted during the revision proceedings the opportunity to observe their testimonies, and
were the very same ones counted by the BETs petitioner not having been accorded the
during the elections, and the very same ones cast opportunity to cross-examine them. The fact that
by the public. He cannot evade his duty by respondent attached the affidavits in his Protest
simply relying on the absence of reports of does not mean that the trial court is bound to
untoward incidents that happened to the ballot consider them, precisely because they have not
boxes. At best, this reliance on the condition of been formally offered before the court. The
the ballot boxes themselves is speculative; at attachments to the Protest will not be considered
worst, it is self-serving. Without presenting to unless formally offered.
the court any evidence outside of the
proceedings, respondent Co as protestant may The Court notes that respondent Co has offered
no explanation whatsoever why he failed to contrary, that there is utter lack of evidence to
present his witnesses. Nevertheless, he would that effect.
have this Court consider as evidence their
purported testimonies. This would be Petitioner need not prove actual tampering of
incongruously unfair to petitioner, who the ballots
endeavored to prove his case by presenting
evidence before the trial court. Corollarily, the COMELEC En Banc had ruled
that petitioner, as protestee, failed to adduce
Neither can respondent Co disclaim evidence that the ballots found inside the ballot
responsibility on the argument that the petitioner boxes were compromised and tampered. This
never raised as an issue the preservation of the strikes us as baseless and a clear departure from
ballot boxes. Inherent in all election protest the teachings of Rosal.
cases is the duty of the protestant to provide
evidence of such preservation. The failure of the The duty of the protestee in an election contest
protestee to raise that as an issue will not ipso to provide evidence of actual tampering or any
facto mean that protestant need not present likelihood arises only when the protestant has
evidence to that effect. first successfully discharged the burden of
proving that the ballots have been secured to
Moreover, the Technical Examination Report, is prevent tampering or susceptibility of change,
not, without more, evidence of preservation. The abstraction or substitution. Such need to present
Report merely states that the ballots are genuine. proof of tampering did not arise since protestant
What the protestant should endeavor to prove, himself failed to provide evidence of the
however, in presenting evidence of preservation, integrity of the ballots.
is not that the ballots themselves are genuine or
official, but that they are the very same ones cast A candidate for a public elective position ought
by the electorate. The Report cannot possibly to familiarize himself with election laws,
determine that. While it may be that the ballots pertinent jurisprudence, and COMELEC
themselves are official ballots, there is still a resolutions, rules and regulations. Alternatively,
dearth of evidence on whether or not they were he should have an experienced and
the same official ballots cast by the public knowledgeable election lawyer to guide him on
during the elections. The Report, therefore, the different aspects of elections. Sans
cannot be considered as evidence of the competent legal advice and representation, a
preservation, as required by Rosal. victory in the elections may turn out to be a
crushing defeat for the candidate who actually
The fact of preservation is not, as respondent Co got the nod of the electorate. Unfortunately for
claims, "incontrovertible." In fact, there is total respondent Co, he committed several miscues
absence of evidence to that effect. The that eventually led to his debacle in the instant
incontrovertible fact is that private respondent, election protest.
during the proceedings before the trial court, did
not present any independent evidence to prove WHEREFORE, premises considered, this
his claim. Without any independent evidence, Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The
the trial court, the COMELEC, as well as this Resolution dated December 7, 2012 of the
Court, is constrained to affirm as a fact the COMELEC En Banc in EAC (BRGY-SK) No.
disputable presumption that the ballots were 161-2011 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET
properly counted during the counting and ASIDE. The Resolution of the COMELEC First
canvassing of votes. Division dated August 23, 2011, affirming the
Decision in Election Case No. 02480-EC of the
In sum, We find that the COMELEC gravely MeTC, Branch 4 in Manila is
abused its discretion in ruling that private hereby REINSTATED.
respondent had discharged the burden of proving
the integrity of the ballots. We rule, on the
G.R. No. 199149 : January 22, 2013 ballots. Chato filed a motion for reconsideration
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, but the HRET denied the same.
v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Chato then moved for the revision of the ballots
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ELMER E. in all of the protested clustered precincts arguing
PANOTES,Respondents. that the results of the revision of twenty-five
percent (25%) of the precincts indicate a
reasonable recovery of votes in her favor. She
G.R. No. 201350 : January 22, 2013 filed a second motion reiterating her prayer for
the continuance of the revision. The HRET
ELMER E. PANOTES, Petitioner, v. HOUSE denied the motion.
OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL However, on March 22, 2012, the HRET issued
TRIBUNAL and LIWAYWAY VINZONS- the assailed Resolution No. 12-079 directing the
CHATO,Respondents. continuation of the revision of ballots in the
PERLAS -BERNABE, J.: remaining seventy-five percent (75%) protested
FACTS: clustered precincts, or a total of 120 precincts.
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (Chato) renewed her Panotes moved for reconsideration but the
bid in the May 10, 2010 elections as HRET denied the same.
representative of the Second Legislative District Hence, Panotes filed a petition for certiorari and
of Camarines Norte, composed of the seven (7) prohibition before the Supreme Court.
Municipalities of Daet, Vinzons, Basud, ISSUE: Whether or not HRET gravely abused
Mercedes, Talisay, San Vicente, and San its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Lorenzo, with a total of 205 clustered precincts. jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 12-079?
She lost to Elmer E. Panotes (Panotes) who was HELD: The HRET did not gravely abuse its
proclaimed the winner on May 12, 2010 having discretion when it issued Resolution No. 12-079.
garnered a total of 51,707 votes as against POLITICAL LAW: HRET as the sole judge
Chato's 47,822 votes, or a plurality of 3,885 of all contests relating to the election, returns
votes. and qualifications of its members
Chato filed an electoral protest before the House It is hornbook principle that the jurisdiction of
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) the Supreme Court to review decisions and
assailing the results in four (4) municipalities, orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only
namely: Daet, Vinzons, Basud and Mercedes. upon showing of grave abuse of discretion
Panotes moved for the suspension of the committed by the tribunal; otherwise, the Court
proceedings and prayed that a preliminary shall not interfere with the electoral tribunals
hearing be set in order to determine the integrity exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. Grave
of the ballots and the ballot boxes used in the abuse of discretion has been defined as the
elections. In its resolution, the HRET directed capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment,
the copying of the picture image files of ballots or the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner,
relative to the protest. Chato then filed an Urgent where the abuse is so patent and gross as to
Motion to Prohibit the Use by Protestee of the amount to an evasion of positive duty.
Decrypted and Copied Ballot Images reiterating To substitute our own judgment to the findings
the lack of legal basis for the decryption and of the HRET will doubtless constitute an
copying of ballot images inasmuch as no intrusion into its domain and a curtailment of its
preliminary hearing had been conducted power to act of its own accord on its evaluation
showing that the integrity of the ballots and of the evidentiary weight of testimonies
ballot boxes was not preserved. The HRET presented before it.
denied Chatos motion. HRET declared that, In the main, Panotes ascribes grave abuse of
although the actual ballots used in the May 10, discretion on the part of the HRET in ordering
2010 elections are the best evidence of the will the continuation of the revision of ballots in the
of the voters, the picture images of the ballots remaining 75% of the protested clustered
are regarded as the equivalent of the original precincts.
The Constitution mandates that the HRET shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of its
members. By employing the word sole, the
Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of
the HRET in the adjudication of election
contests involving its members is intended to be
its own full, complete and unimpaired.
There can be no challenge, therefore, to such
exclusive control absent any clear showing, as in
this case, of arbitrary and improvident use by the
Tribunal of its power that constitutes a denial of
due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a
very clear unmitigated error, manifestly
constituting such grave abuse of discretion that
there has to be a remedy therefor.
Petition is DISMISSED.