Election Law Cases

ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty.
Valencia)
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
FIRST 3 CASES – ADDED BY ATTY. October 9, 2008. Hence, this Petition for
VALENCIA* Certiorari
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC

JONAS TAGUIAM v. COMELEC and committed grave abuse of discretion
ANTHONY C. TUDDAO (G.R. No. 184801, July amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
30, 2009) when it took cognizance of private
respondent’s petition for correction of
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: manifest errors in the Election Returns and
Statement of Votes despite its late filing.
FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent were RULING: No.
candidates for the position of Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City in Cagayan While the petition was indeed filed beyond the 5-
during the 2007 National and Local Elections. day reglementary period, the COMELEC
On May 19, 2007, petitioner was proclaimed by however has the discretion to suspend its rules
the City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) as the of procedure or any portion thereof. Sections 3
th and 4 of Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of
12 ranking and winning candidate for the said
position with 10,981 votes. Private respondent Procedure state, to wit:
obtained 10,971 votes and was ranked no. 13.
Sec. 3. Construction. – These rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote the
On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed with effective and efficient implementation of the
the COMELEC a petition for correction of objectives of ensuring the holding of free,
manifest errors in the Election Returns and orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
Statement of Votes for 27 clustered precinct and to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive
and for the annulment of the proclamation of determination and disposition of every action
the affected winning candidate in and proceeding brought before the Commission.
Tuguegarao City. He alleged that he was
credited with less votes in several Statements of Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. – In the
Votes by Precincts (SOVP) as compared with interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy
the tally of his votes in the election returns disposition of all matters pending before the
(ERs), whereas petitioner was credited with Commission, these rules or any portion thereof
more votes. Private respondent offered evidence may be suspended by the Commission.
in the following nine precincts: 0035A/0036A,
0061A/0063A, 69A/69B, 87A/87B, 192A/192B, Certainly, such rule of suspension is in
264A/265A, 324A/325B, 326A, and 328B. accordance with the spirit of Section 6, Article
IX-A of the Constitution which bestows upon the
On December 20, 2007, the Second Division of COMELEC the power to "promulgate its own
the COMELEC granted instant Petition filed by rules concerning pleadings and practice before it
Anthony Tuddao for Correction of Manifest Error or before any of its offices" to attain justice and
and Annulment of Proclamation of Jonas the noble purpose of determining the true will of
Taguiam. the electorate.
The COMELEC concluded that nine votes In Jaramilla v. Commission on

should be added to the total number of votes Elections and Dela Llana v. Commission on
garnered by private respondent; while 24 votes Elections, the Court affirmed the COMELECs
should be deducted from the total number of suspension of its rules of procedure regarding
votes obtained by petitioner. Thus, the total the late filing of a petition for correction of
number of votes obtained by private respondent manifest error and annulment of proclamation in
was 10,980, while the total number of votes view of its paramount duty to determine the real
received by petitioner was 10,957. As such,
th will of the electorate. The Court has consistently
private respondent was rightfully the 12 employed liberal construction of procedural rules
winning candidate for the Sangguniang in election cases to the end that the will of the
Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. people in the choice of public officers may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on
COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 1
For acting pursuant to its Constitutional mandate ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
of determining the true will of the electorate with Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
substantiated evidence, the Court finds no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in of Procedure within the five-(5)-day
annulling the proclamation of petitioner. Said reglementary period.
proclamation is flawed from the beginning
because it did not reflect the true and legitimate On March 28, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion for
will of the electorate. Having been based on a Reconsideration which the Comelec En Banc
faulty tabulation, there can be no valid denied in the Resolution dated January 21,
proclamation to speak of. 2009, declaring that the appeal was not
perfected on time for non-payment of the
complete amount of appeal fee and for late
CONSTANCIO D. PACANAN JR. v. COMELEC payment as well. The Comelec En Banc held
and FRANCISCO M. LANGI, SR., (G.R. No. that the Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over
186224, August 25, 2009) the appeal because of the non-payment of the
appeal fee on time. Thus, the Comelec First
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Division correctly dismissed the appeal. Hence,
the instant petition for certiorari.
FACTS: Petitioner Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr. Petitioner invokes liberality in the application of
and private respondent Francisco M. Langi, Sr. the election law. He asserts that the popular will
were candidates for mayor in the municipality of of the people expressed in the election of public
Motiong, Samar during the May 14, 2007 officers should not be defeated by reason of
elections. After the canvassing of votes, the sheer technicalities. Petitioner argues that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of true will of the people of Motiong in the May 14,
Motiong, Samar proclaimed petitioner as the 2007 elections should be determined by ordering
duly elected mayor, having garnered a total of the Comelec to give due course to his appeal
3,069 votes against private respondents 3,066 and to resolve the same on the merits.
votes.
ISSUE: Whether the Order of Comelec First
Thereafter, private respondent filed with the Division and the Resolution of the Comelec
RTC a Protest dated May 25, 2007 which was En Banc dismissing petitioner’s appeal be
docketed as Election Case No. 07-1, contesting set aside, applying the mandated liberal
the results of the elections in 10 of the 49 construction of election laws with regards to
precincts in Motiong, Samar, and alleging acts of non-payment or the insufficient payment of
violence and intimidation and other election appeal fees.
irregularities in the appreciation of the votes by
the MBC. RULING: The Court granted the petition.
On January 7, 2008, the RTC rendered a Section 3, Rule 22 (Appeals from Decisions of
decision in Election Case 07-1, which declared Courts in Election Protest Cases) of the
private respondent as the winner in the May 14, Comelec Rules of Procedure mandates that the
2007 mayoralty race for Motiong, Samar with a notice of appeal must be filed within five (5) days
plurality of six (6) votes and annulled the after promulgation of the decision.
proclamation as mayor of the petitioner. Private
respondent was awarded the amount of P Moreover, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the
32,510 as actual damages. Comelec rules require the payment of appeal
fees in appealed election protest cases, the
On January 10, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of amended amount of which was set at P3,200.00
appeal and before the RTC, Branch 27, in Comelec Minute Resolution No. 02-0130,[11]
Catbalogan, Samar. He also appealed the RTC to wit:
decision dated January 7, 2008 to the Comelec
which docketed the case as EAC No. A-13-2008. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-
SC also provide the procedure for instituting an
On March 17, 2008, the Comelec First Division appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid
issued an Order dismissing the appeal for for the appeal to be given due course.
Protestee-Appellants failure to pay the correct
appeal fee as prescribed by the Comelec Rules With the promulgation of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,
the previous rule that the appeal is perfected
only upon the full payment of the appeal fee,
now pegged at P3,200.00, to the COMELEC
Cash Division within the period to appeal, as
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
stated in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as and disposition of every action and proceeding
amended, no longer applies. brought before the Comelec.
To clarify the procedural rules on the payment of The petition is granted. The case was
appeal fees, the COMELEC issued on July 15, REMANDED to the Comelec First Division for
2008, Resolution No. 8486, which the Court further proceedings, in accordance with the rules
takes judicial notice of. The resolution pertinently and with this disposition.
reads:
xxx The non-payment or the insufficient SULIGUIN VS COMELEC (sa net ko lang to
payment of the additional appeal fee of kinuha)
P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division, in
accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the Promulgate rules and regulations The
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, COMELEC has the discretion to liberally
does not affect the perfection of the appeal and construe its rules and, at the same time,
does not result in outright or ipso facto suspend the rules, or any portion thereof, in the
dismissal of the appeal. Following, Rule 22, interest of justice. Disputes in the outcome of
Section 9 (a) of the COMELEC Rules, the elections involve public interest; as such,
appeal may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule technicalities and procedural barriers should not
40, Section 18 of the same rules, if the fees are be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle
not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take to the determination of the true will of the
action thereon until they are paid and may electorate in the choice of their elective officials.
dismiss the action or the proceeding. In such a Laws governing such disputes must be liberally
situation, the COMELEC is merely given the construed to the end that the will of the people in
discretion to dismiss the appeal or not. the choice of public officials may not be defeated
by mere technical objections .
The COMELEC First Division should have been
more cautious in dismissing petitioners appeal PART 1
on the mere technicality of non-payment of the PRELIMINARIES
additional P3,200.00 appeal fee given the public
interest involved in election cases. This is
especially true in this case where only one vote I.1. General Provisions
separates the contending parties. The Court
stresses once more that election law and rules I.2. Suffrage, Objectives, Underlying
are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal Philosophy: Constitutional Provision,
manner so as to give effect, not to frustrate, the Definition, Nature and Basis: Article
will of the electorate. 2, Section1; Article V
Applying the mandated liberal construction of
election laws, the Comelec should have initially EN BANC
directed the petitioner to pay the correct appeal G.R. No. 122250 & 122258. July 21, 1997
fee with the Comelec Cash Division, and should
not have dismissed outright petitioners appeal. EDGARDO C. NOLASCO, petitioner, vs.
This would have been more in consonance with COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL
the intent of the said resolution which sought to BOARD OF CANVASSERS, MEYCAUAYAN,
clarify the rules on compliance with the required BULACAN, and EDUARDO A. ALARILLA,
appeal fees. respondents.
FLORENTINO P. BLANCO, petitioner, vs.
Moreover, the Comelec Rules of Procedure are COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
subject to a liberal construction. This liberality is EDUARDO A. ALARILLA, respondents.
for the purpose of promoting the effective and
efficient implementation of the objectives of FACTS: The election for mayor of Meycauayan,
ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, Bulacan was held on May 8, 1995. Blanco
peaceful and credible elections and for achieving received 29,753 votes, while Alarilla got 23,038
just, expeditious and inexpensive determination votes. Edgardo Nolasco was elected Vice-Mayor
with 37,240 votes. On May 9, 1995, Alarilla filed
with the COMELEC a petition to disqualify
Blanco. He alleged:
xxxx
allowed to withdraw (10) large plastic bags from
4. Based on intelligence reports that respondent the vault.
was maintaining his own `private army' at his
residence at Bancal, Meycauayan, Bulacan. 13. When the said PNP composite team
P/Insp. Ronaldo O. Lee of the Philippine examined the (10) black plastic bags, they found
National Police applied for and was granted out that each bag contained ten (10) shoe boxes
search warrant no. 95-147. which contained 200 pay envelopes. Each pay
envelope contained the amount of P1,000.00.
5. In compliance with said search warrant, an The total amount of money in the (10) plastic
elite composite team of the PNP Intelligence bags is P10,000,000.00.
Command, Criminal Investigation Service (CIS),
and Bulacan Provincial Command, backed up by 14. The labels found in the envelope shows that
the Philippine National Police Special Action the money were intended as respondent's bribe
Force, accompanied by mediamen who money to the teachers of Meycauayan.
witnessed and recorded the search by video and
still cameras, raided the house of respondent 15. On election day 8 May 1995, respondent
Florentino Blanco. perpetrated the most massive vote-buying
activity ever in the history of Meycauayan
6. A video tape was taken of the proceedings politics. This P10,000,000.00 was placed in 100
during the raid. peso denominations totalling one thousand
pesos per envelope with the inscription `VOTE!!!
7. The composite team was able to enter the TINOY.'
said premises of respondent Florentino Blanco
where they conducted a search of the subject This massive vote-buying activity through
firearms and ammunition. respondent's organization called `MTB' or
`MOVEMENT FOR TINOY BLANCO
8. The search resulted in the arrest of (6) men VOLUNTEERS.' The chairman of this movement
who were found carrying various high powered is respondent's brother, Mariano P. Blanco, who
firearms without any license or authority to use admitted to the police during the raid that these
or possess such long arms. money were for the teachers and watchers of
Meycauayan, Bulacan.
9. During the search, members of the composite
team saw through a large clear glass window, An MTB ID issued to one Armando Bulan of
respondent's Galil assault rifle on a sofa inside a
Precinct 77-A, Brgy. Jasmin, Bancal,
closed room of the subject premises.
Meycauayan, Bulacan shows that the ID is
perforated in the middle. The purpose is for the
10. Not allowed entry thereto by respondent and voter to tear the office copy and return it to
his wife, the members of the composite police- respondent's headquarters to receive the
military team applied for the issuance of a balance of the P500.00 of the bribe money after
second search warrant so that they could enter
voting for respondent during the elections. The
the said room to seize the said firearm.
voter will initially be given a down-payment of
P500.00.
11. While waiting for the issuance of the second
search warrant, respondent's wife and
16. This massive vote-buying was also
respondent's brother, Mariano Blanco, claiming
perpetrated by respondent thru the familiar use
to be the campaign manager of respondent in
of flying voters. (6) flying voters were caught in
the Nationalist People's Coalition Party, asked
different precincts of Meycauayan, Bulacan, who
permission to enter the locked room so they
admitted after being caught and arrested that
could withdraw money in a vault inside the
they were paid P200.00 to P300.00 by
locked room to pay their watchers, and the
respondent and his followers, to vote for other
teachers of Meycauayan in the 8 May 1995
voters in the voter's list.
elections.
17. Respondent's paid voter will identify his
12. For reasons not known to petitioner, Mrs.
target from the list of voter and will impersonate
Florentino Blanco and Mariano Blanco, were
said voter in the list and falsify his signature.
One ne Ma. Luisa de los Reyes Cruz stated that
when she went to her precinct to vote, her name
was already voted upon by another person.
18. Earlier before the election, respondent used
his tremendous money to get in the good graces 17, 1995 order suspending proclamation of
of the local Comelec Registrar, who was Petitioner Blanco herein as the winning
replaced by this Office upon the petition of the candidate for Mayor of Meycauayan without the
people of Meycauayan. benefit of any notice or hearing in gross and
palpable violation of Blanco's constitutional right
19. The second search warrant on respondent's to due process of law; violating Blanco's right to
residence yielded to more firearms and equal protection of the laws by setting him apart
thousands of rounds of ammunition. These guns from other respondents facing similar
were used by respondent to terrorize the disqualification suits whose case were referred
population and make the people afraid to by COMELEC to the Law Department pursuant
complain against respondent's massive vote to Com. Res. No. 2050 and ordering their
buying and cheating in today's elections. proclamation -- an act which evidently
discriminated against Petitioner Blanco; in
20. The above acts committed by respondent holding that questions of VOTE-BUYING,
are clear grounds for disqualification under Sec. terrorism and similar such acts should be
68 of the Omnibus Election Code for giving resolve in a formal election protest where the
money to influence, induce or corrupt the voters issue of vote buying is subjected to a full-dress
or public officials performing election functions; hearing instead of disposing of the issue in a
for committing acts of terrorism to enhance his summary proceeding; and ordering the
candidacy; and for spending in his election proclamation of a SECOND PLACER as the duly
campaign an amount in excess of that allowed elected Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, in gross
by the Election Code. There are only 97,000 violation and utter disregard of the doctrine laid
registered voters in Meycauayan versus down by in the case of LABO vs. COMELEC.
respondent's expenses of at least
P10,000,000.00 as admitted above. On the other hand, Nolasco contends that he
should be declared as Mayor in view of the
On May 15, 1995, Alarilla filed a Very Urgent Ex disqualification of Blanco. He cites section 44 of
Parte Motion to Suspend Proclamation. The R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
COMELEC granted the motion after finding that Government Code of 1991 and our decision in
there was a "probable commission of election Labo vs. COMELEC.
offenses which are grounds for disqualification
pursuant to section 68 of the Omnibus Election ISSUES:
Code (BP 881), and the evidence in support of
disqualification is strong." 1. WON Blanco was denied due process and
equal protection of laws
On May 25, 1995, Blanco filed a Motion to Lift or 2. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse
Set Aside the Order suspending his of discretion in proclaiming Alarilla as the duly
proclamation. On May 29, 1995, he filed his elected mayor
Answer to the petition to disqualify him.
HELD:
On August 15, 1995, the COMELEC disqualified
Blanco on the ground of vote-buying, viz. Blanco 1. Blanco was not denied due process and equal
moved for reconsideration in the COMELEC en protection of the laws and his contention that the
banc. Nolasco, as vice mayor, intervened in the minimum quantum of evidence was not met is
proceedings. He urged that as vice-mayor he untenable. What RA 6646 and the COMELEC
should be declared mayor in the event Blanco Rules of Procedure require is a mere evidence
was finally disqualified. The motions were heard of guilt that should be strong to justify the
and the parties were allowed to file their COMELEC in suspending a winning candidate’s
memoranda with right of reply. However, the proclamation.
COMELEC en banc denied the motions for
reconsideration. In any event, Blanco was given all the
opportunity to prove that the evidence on his
In this petition for certiorari, Blanco contends disqualification was not strong. On May 25,
that COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse 1995, he filed a Motion to Lift or Set Aside the
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Order suspending his proclamation. On May 29,
jurisdiction in upholding the validity of the May 1995, he filed his Answer to the petition to
disqualify him. The COMELEC heard the
petition. Blanco thereafter submitted his position
paper and reply to Alarilla's position paper. The ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
COMELEC considered the evidence of the Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
parties and their arguments and thereafter
affirmed his disqualification. The hoary rule is assert this sovereign will, that abiding credo of
that due process does not mean prior hearing republicanism is translated into living reality. If
but only an opportunity to be heard. The that will must remain undefiled at the starting
COMELEC gave Blanco all the opportunity to be level of its expression and application, every
heard. assumption must be indulged in and every
guarantee adopted to assure the unmolested
It cannot be denied that the COMELEC has exercise of the citizen's free choice. For to
jurisdiction over proclamation and impede, without authority valid in law, the free
disqualification cases. Article IX-C, section 2 of and orderly exercise of the right of suffrage, is to
the Constitution endows the COMELEC the all inflict the ultimate indignity on the democratic
encompassing power to "enforce and administer process."
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election x x x." We have long ruled that this
broad power includes the power to cancel
proclamations. Our laws are no less explicit on G.R. No. L-46863, November 18, 1939 IRINEO
the matter as provided in Section 68 of B.P. Blg. MOYA, petitioner, vs. AGRIPINO GA. DEL
881 and Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646. FIERO, respondent.
Blanco's contention that he was denied equal FACTS: This is a petition for review by certiorari
protection of the law is off-line. He was not the of the judgment of the Court of Appeals
object of any invidious discrimination. declaring the respondent, Agripino Ga. del
COMELEC assumed direct jurisdiction over his Fierro, the candidate-elect for the office of mayor
disqualification case not to favor anybody but to of the municipality of Paracale, Province of
discharge its constitutional duty of disposing the Camarines Norte, with a majority of three votes
case in a fair and as fast a manner as possible. over his rival, Irineo Moya. In the general
elections held on December 14, 1937, the
parties were contending candidates for mayor.
2. Nolasco, not Alarilla, is adjudged as the After canvass of the returns the municipal
Mayor of Meycauayan. It is already a settled council of Paracale, Del Fierro was proclaimed
principle in the case of Reyes v COMELEC that as the elected mayor of said municipality with a
the candidate with the second highest number of majority of 102 votes. Moya field a motion of
votes cannot be proclaimed winner in case the protest in the Court of First Instance of
winning candidate be disqualified. There cannot Camarines Norte. The Court of Appeals
be an assumption that the second placer would rendered the judgment in favor of del Fierro
have received the other votes otherwise it is a which is sought by Moya to be reviewed and
judgment substituting the mind of a voter. It reversed upon the alleged errors committed:
cannot be assumed that the second placer
would have won the elections because in the 1. In admitting and counting in favor of the
situation where the disqualified candidate is respondent, 8 ballots either inadvertently or
excluded, the condition would have substantially contrary to the controlling decisions of this
changed. Honorable Court.
2. In admitting and counting in favor of the
Consequently, respondent COMELEC respondent, 3 ballots marked "R. del Fierro."
committed grave abuse of discretion insofar as it 3. In admitting and counting in favor of the
failed to follow the above doctrine, a descendant respondent, 7 ballots marked "Rufino del Firro."
of our ruling in Labo v. COMELEC. The dispute 4. In admitting and counting in favor of the
at bar involves more than the mayoralty of the respondent, 72 ballots marked "P. del Fierro."
municipality of Meycauyan, Bulacan. It concerns
the right of suffrage which is the bedrock of ISSUE: Whether or not the ballots were
republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which erroneously admitted in favor of del Fierro.
our people express their sovereign judgment. Its
free exercise must be protected especially HELD: The SC dismissed the petition because
against the purchasing power of the peso. As in result even if the ballots contested are
succinctly held in People v. San Juan, "each counted in favor of Moya, del Fierro still wins by
time the enfranchised citizen goes to the polls to one vote.
First assignment of error:

(1) With reference to ballot Exhibit F-175 in ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
precinct No. 2, ballot clearly appears admissible Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
for the respondent because the name written on
the space for mayor is "Primo del Fierro" or was written on the proper space for mayor with
"Pimo de Fierro", the error is technical and no other accompanying name or names.
deserves but scanty consideration.
(8) Ballot F-44 in precinct No. 2 wherein
(2) Ballot Exhibit F-26 in precinct No. 3 was "Agripino F. Garcia" appears written on the
erroneously admitted for the respondent; the proper space, is valid for the respondent. In his
name written on the space for mayor being "G.T. certificate of candidacy the respondent gave his
Krandes." It is true that on the fourth line for the name as "Agripino Ga. del Fierro." The
councilor "Alcalde Pinong del Fierro": appears; conclusion of the trial court, upheld by the Court
but the intention of the elector is rendered vague of Appeals, that the letter "F" stands for "Fierro"
and incapable of ascertaining and the ballot was and "Garcia" for the contraction "Ga." is not
improperly counted for the respondent. As to this without justification and, by liberal construction,
ballot, the contention of the petitioner is the ballot in question was properly admitted for
sustained. the respondent.
(3) Ballot Exhibit F-77 in precinct No. 2 should
also have been rejected by the Court of Appeals. The second error assigned by the petitioner
The ballot bears the distinguishing mark "O. K." refers to three ballots, namely, Exhibit F-119 in
placed after the name "M. Lopis" written on precinct No. 1 Exhibit F-24 in precinct No. 2, and
space for vice-mayor. The contention of the Exhibit F-6 in precinct No. 4. These three ballots
petitioner in this respect is likewise sustained. appear to be among the 75 ballots found by the
Court of Appeals as acceptable for the
(4) Ballot Exhibit F-9 in precinct No. 2 was respondent on the ground that the initial letter
properly admitted for respondent. The elector "P" stands for "Pino" in "Pino del Fierro" which is
wrote within the space for mayor the name of a name mentioned in the certificate of candidacy
Regino Guinto, a candidate for the provincial of the respondent.
board and wrote the respondent's name
immediately below the line for mayor but Upon the third assignment of error, the petitioner
immediately above the name "M. Lopez" voted questions the seven ballots wherein "Rufino del
by him for vice-mayor. The intention of the Fierro" was voted for the office of mayor. There
elector to vote for the respondent for the office of was no other candidate for the office of mayor
the mayor is clear under the circumstances. with the name of "Rufino" or similar name and,
as the respondent was districtly identified by his
(5) Ballot F-131 in precinct No. 1 was also surname on these ballots, the intention of the
properly counted for the respondent. The elector voters in preparing the same was undoubtedly to
wrote the respondent's name on the space for vote for the respondent of the office for which he
vice-mayor, but, apparently realizing his mistake, was a candidate.
he placed an arrow connecting the name of the
respondent to the word "Mayor" (Alcalde) printed The fourth assignment of error deals with the 72
on the left side of the ballot. ballots wherein "P. del Fierro" was voted for the
office of mayor. Indicated under the discussion
(6) Ballot F-7 in precinct No. 5 is admissible for of petitioner's second assignment of error,
the respondent. Although the name of the namely, that "P" stands for "Pino" in "Pino del
respondent is written on the first space for Fierro" which is a name mentioned in the
member of the provincial board, said name is certificate of candidacy of the respondent, we
followed in the next line by "Bice" Culastico hold that there was no error in the action of the
Palma, which latter name is followed in the next Court of Appeals in awarding the said ballots to
line by word "consehal" and the name of a the respondent.
candidate for this position. The intention of the
elector to vote for the respondent for the office of With the exception of ballot marked as Exhibit F-
mayor being manifest. 26 in precinct No. 3 and ballot marked as Exhibit
F-77 in precinct No. 2, SC accepted the rest of
(7) Ballot F-1 in precinct No. 2 is valid for the the disputed ballots for the respondent not only
respondent. The Christian name of the for the specific reasons already given but also
respondent was written on the second space for for the more fundamental reason that as long as
member of the provincial board, but his surname popular government is an end to be achieved
and safeguarded, suffrage must continue to be
the manes by which the great reservoir of power
must be emptied into the receptacular agencies
wrought by the people through their Constitution ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
in the interest of good government and the Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
common weal.
allegedly voted as the basis for the holding that
Republicanism, in so far as it implies the no election in act did ta e p ace
adoption of a representative type of government,
necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as ISSUE: WON the Commission exceeded its
a particle of popular sovereignty and as the constitutional power by encroaching on terrain
ultimate source of the established authority. He properly judicial, the right to vote being involved.
has a voice in his Government and whenever
HELD: There is no merit to the contention that
called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it
respondent Commission is devoid of power to
efficacy and not to stifle it. This, fundamentally,
disregard and annul the alleged returns for being
is the reason for the rule that ballots should be
spurious or manufactured. The COMELEC has a
read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with
clear duty to stigmatize the alleged returns. In
reasonable, liberality.
the discharge of its functions, it should be
allowed considerable latitude in devising means
No technical rule or rules should be permitted to
and methods that will insure the accomplishment
defeat the intention of the voter, if that intention
of the great objective for which it was created --
is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from
free, orderly and honest elections.
evidence aliunde. This rule of interpretation goes
to the very root of the system. Rationally, also, If pursuant to Administrative Law, the findings of
this must be the justification for the suggested fact of administrative organs created by ordinary
liberalization of the rules on appreciation of legislation will not be disturbed by courts of
ballots which are now incorporated in section justice, except when there is absolutely no
144 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act evidence or no substantial evidence in support
No. 357). of such findings ... there is no reason to believe
that the framers of our Constitution intended to
It results that, crediting the petitioner with the place the Commission on Elections — created
two ballots herein held to have been erroneously and explicitly made 'independent' by the
admitted by the Court of Appeals for the Constitution itself — on a lower level than said
respondent, the latter still wins by one vote. statuory administrative organs.
How the right to vote is to be exercised is

B petitioner vs. regulated by the Election Code. Its enforcement
BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, COMMISSION ON under the Constitution is, as noted, vested in
ELECTIONS, and THE COMELEC. Such a power, however, is purely
B E executive or administrative. Thus, although
respondents independent of the President — to which the
Constitution has given the 'exclusive charge' of
FACTS: COMELEC excluded from the canvass the 'enforcement and administration of all laws
for the election of delegates in the lone district of relative to the conduct of elections,' the power of
the province of Sulu the returns from Siasi, decision of the Commission is limited to purely
Tapul, Parang and Luuk for being spurious or 'administrative questions.
manufactured returns and therefore considered
as no returns at all. That was the effect of The question of inclusion or exclusion from the
massive violence, terrorism and fraud. Unless list of voters is properly judicial. As to whether or
set aside then, petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan, not an election has been held is a question of a
who otherwise would have been entitled to the different type. It is properly within the
last remaining seat for de egates t t e C nstituti administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC.
na C n enti n w u d se ut t
esp ndent en a in u aa The rejection by the COMELEC of the returns in
etiti ne c ntended t at suc e c usi n question would result in the disfranchisement of
etu ns wi esu t t the disfranchisement of a a large number of voters, but this is merely
large number of legitimate voters. Petitioner thus provisional, subject to the final determination of
dispute the power of respondent Commission to the validity of the votes at the protest that may
exclude such returns as a result of oral be filed with the Constitutional Convention.
testimony as well as the examination of the
fingerprints and signatures of those who
BADELLES VS. CABILI, 27 SCRA 11,

February 27, 1969 ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
FACTS: names included in the list of voters, they could

Two election protests against the duly not avail themselves of their right of suffrage as
proclaimed Mayor and Councilors of Iligan City, their applications for registration could not be
after the elections, based on the allegations of found. Mention was also made of the fact that
flagrant violations of certain mandatory the final lists of voters and the applications for
provisions of the Election Code, to be more registration were delivered to their respective
specifically set forth hereafter, were dismissed in precincts late on election day itself thus
a single order by the Court of First instance of preventing them from voting.
Lanao del Norte. In one of them, the election of
Honorable Camilo P. Cabili to the Office of City Moreover, confusion, so it was alleged, was
Mayor of Iligan City, was contested by caused by the excessive number of voters being
protestant, Mariano Badelles. In the other, the listed and many having been assigned to
protestants are the now appellants, Bonifacio P. precincts other than the correct ones. What was
Legaspi and Cecilio T. Barazon, who along with thus objected to is the fact that illegal votes were
the five protestees were among those who were cast by those not qualified to do so, numbering
registered candidates voted for in such election 8,300 or more and that an approximately equal
for councilors in the City of Iligan, with the number, who were duly registered with the
protestees being credited with the five highest Commission on Elections, Iligan City, were
number of votes, with protestants Legaspi and unable to vote due to the above circumstances.
Barazon obtaining sixth and seventh places The proclamation then could not have reflected
respectively. the true will of the electorate as to who was the
mayor elected, as the majority of protestee
In the petition of protestant Badelles, it was Cabili over the protestant consisted of only 2,344
stated that both he and protestee Camilo P. votes. The prayer was for the proclamation of
Cabili were the duly registered candidates for protestee as well as other candidates for elective
the Office of City Mayor of Iligan City, both positions being set aside and declared null and
having filed their respective certificates of void, protestant pleading further that he be
candidacy in accordance with law and as such granted other such relief as may be warranted in
candidates voted for in the November 14, 1967 law and equity. The protest of the candidates for
election. It was then alleged that the Board of councilor Legaspi and Barazon, in the other
Canvassers, on November 25, 1967, proclaimed case against protestees was in substance
as elected protestee. similarly worded.
Protestant would impugn the election of Cabili
on the ground that there were "flagrant violations In the first case, protestee Cabili moved to
of mandatory provisions of law relating to or dismiss the petition on the following grounds:
governing elections . . ." in that more than 200
voters were registered per precinct contrary to 1. That the protest was filed beyond the
the provision limiting such number of 200 only reglementary period;
and that no publication of the list of voters for 2. That the lower court has no jurisdiction over
each precinct was made up to the election day the subject matter, the COMELEC being the
itself, enabling persons who under the law could proper body to hear the same;
not vote being allowed to do so. As a result of 3. That the complaint states no cause of action.
such alleged "flagrant violations of the laws
relative to or governing elections" around 8,300 The single order of dismissal in both cases as
individuals were allowed to vote illegally. indicated was based on the lack of a cause of
action. The reasoning followed by the lower
It was likewise asserted that not less than 8,000 court in reaching the above conclusion that there
qualified voters were unable to exercise their was no cause of action proceeded along these
right of suffrage in view of their failure, without lines:
any fault on their part, to have the proper
identification cards or the non-listing of their "Mere irregularities or misconduct on the part of
names in the list of voters. It was stated further election officers which do not tend to affect the
that even in the case of those individuals result of the elections are not of themselves
provided with identification cards with their either ground for contest or for proper matters of
inquiry. . . .There is no allegation in the protest
that the alleged irregularities committed by the
election officers would tend to change the result

of the election in favor of the protestants and ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
against t e p testees ” Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal issued by was sought to be thus utilized in these two
COMELEC on March 23, 1968 is valid. cases, perhaps in a rather awkward and far from
entirely satisfactory manner. That in itself is no
HELD: NO. Without the lower court having so reason for the courts to slam the door against
intended, the dismissal would amount to judicial any opportunity for redress. Yet, that is what
abnegation of a sworn duty to inquire into and would happen if the order of dismissal
pass upon in an appropriate proceeding complained of were not set aside. Hence the
allegations of misconduct and misdeeds of such inevitability of its reversal.
character. Accordingly, we reverse.
The scope of our decision must not be
Why an election protest is more fitly and misinterpreted however. All that it directs is that
appropriately the procedure for determining the protestees in both cases be required to
whether irregularities or serious violations of the answer. Thereafter, if, as is not unlikely, there be
electoral law vitiated the conduct of elections a denial of the serious imputations made as to
was clearly and succinctly explained in the the alleged irregularities, the lower court could
Moscoso decision, the opinion coming from properly inquire into what actually transpired.
Justice Makalintal. After the facts are thus ascertained in
accordance with the accepted procedural rules,
Thus: "The question of whether or not there had then the appropriate law could be applied. It
been terrorism, vote-buying and other must be clearly emphasized that we do not at
irregularities in the 1959 elections in Tacloban this stage intimate any view as to the merit, or
City should be ventilated in a regular election lack of it, of either protest. That would be
protest, pursuant to Section 174 of the Election premature to say the least.
Code, and not in a petition to enjoin the city
board of canvassers from canvassing the All we do is to set aside the order of dismissal.
election returns and proclaiming the winning The order of dismissal of March 23, 1968, is
candidates for municipal offices." reversed and the two cases remanded to the
lower court for proceeding and trial in
It would follow then that if the grievance relied accordance with this opinion and the law.
upon is the widespread irregularities and the
flagrant violations of the election law, the proper
remedy is the one availed of here, the protest.
That such should be the case should occasion
no surprise. If that right be disregarded or ROMUALDEZ VS RTC TACLOBAN
frittered away, then popular sovereignty 226 SCRA 408
becomes a myth. A republic then to be true to its FACTS:
name requires that the government rests on the Petitioner Philip Romuadez is a natural born
consent of the people, consent freely given, citizen of the Philippines, also the son of the
intelligently arrived at, honestly recorded, and former Governor of Leyte and nephew of then
thereafter counted. Only thus can they be really First Lady Imelda Marcos.
looked upon as the ultimate sources of
established authority. It is their undeniable right In the early 1980s, he established his legal
to have officials of their unfettered choice. The residence in Brgy. Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte by
election law has no justification except as a causing the cinstruction of his residential house
means for assuring a free, honest and orderly therein. He also served as Brgy. Captain in the
expression of their views. It is of the essence 1980s and had also acted as Campaign
that corruption and irregularities should not be Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in
permitted to taint the electoral process. It may Leyte, where he voted in the 1984 Batasan
not always be thus unfortunately. That should be Election and in the 1986 Snap Presidential
the ideal however. If there be a failure to Election.
observe the mandates of the Election Code, the
aggrieved parties should not be left remediless. During the People Power Revolution in 1986,
petitioner and his immediate family fled to the
Under the law as it stands, it is precisely an US, and on December 23, 1991, he was able to
election protest that fitly serves that purpose. It return to the Philippines and immediately went
back to his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
On February 1, 1992, petitioner registered
himself anew as a voter of Precinct #9 of said
place. The Chairman of the BOI, who had known ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
him to be a resident of the place, allowed his Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
registration.
residence, in the case of the petitioner, was
On February 21, 1992, respondent Donato established during the early 1980's to be at
Advincula filed a petition with the MTC of Tolosa Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Residence
praying that Romualdez be excluded from the thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting
list of voters in Precinct #9 alleging that: another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to
a. Romualdez was a resident of acquire a new domicile by choice, there must
Massachusetts, USA; concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the
new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and
b. R ua dez’s p essi n & ccupati n was in the
(3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In
USA; and
other words, there must basically be animus
c. Romualdez does not have the required 1- manendi coupled with animus non revertendi.
year residence in the Philippines and the The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of
6 months residence in the choice must be for an indefinite period of time;
city/municipality to qualify as registered the change of residence must be voluntary; and
voter. the residence at the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual.
Romualdez contended that he has been a
resident of Tolosa since early 1980s and that he
has not abandoned his residence from his The political situation brought about by the
physical absence from 1986-1991. "People's Power Revolution" must have truly
caused great apprehension to the Romualdezes,
as well as a serious concern over the safety and
After hearing, the court decided in favor of
welfare of the members of their families. Their
Romualdez. Thus, Advincual appealed to the
going into self-exile until conditions favorable to
RTC which reversed the decision of the lower
them would have somehow stabilized is
court thereby ordering the COMELEC of Tolosa,
understandable. Certainly, their sudden
Leyte to delete and cancel the name of petitioner
departure from the country cannot be described
from the list of qualified voters.
as "voluntary," or as "abandonment of
residence" at least in the context that these
ISSUES:
terms are used in applying the concept of
W/N The MTC or RTC acquired jurisdiction
"domicile by choice."
over the petitions. YES
We have closely examined the records, and we
W/N Romualdez is qualified to be registered
find not that much to convince us that the
as a voter. YES
petitioner had, in fact, abandoned his residence
in the Philippines and established his domicile
HELD:
elsewhere.
Section 142 of the Omnibus Election Coe
provides that any registered voter in the city or
It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a
municipality may petition for the exclusion of
most precious political right, as well as a
voter from the list. However, in the case at bar,
bounden duty of every citizen, enabling and
Romualdez was estopped from assailing lack of
requiring him to participate in the process of
jurisdiction by reason of his active participation
government so as to ensure that the government
in the proceedings before a court without
can truly be said to derive its power solely from
jurisdiction. Romualdez has sought an
the consent of the governed.
affirmative relief when the appeal was made to
the RTC whose jurisdiction, he, in effect invoked.
I.3. Suffrage as a right and privilege:
In election cases, the Court treats domicile and
residence as synonymous terms, thus: "(t)he
term "residence" as used in the election law is
LACSON VS POSADAS
synonymous with "domicile", which imports not
72 SCRA 168
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but
FACTS:
also personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention." Municipal Judge Ramon Posadas of Talisay,
"Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence Negros Occidental is charged in a complaint
filed by Lacson for ignorance of the law, partiality
to which when absent for business or pleasure,
and violation of Lection Code 1971.
or for like reasons, one intends to return. That

Judge Posadas was found to have failed to ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
comply with the requirements of Sec. 136 of the Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
Election Code of 1971 which states:
Any person who has been refused I.4: Suffrage as a duty:
registration or whose name has been
stricken out from the permanent list of
voters may at any time except sixty (60) G.R. No. L-47243 June 17, 1940
days before a regular election or twenty- CIPRIANO ABAÑIL, ET AL., vs. JUSTICE OF
five (25) days before a special election, THE PEACE COURT OF BACOLOD, NEGROS
apply to the proper court for an order OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.
directing the election registration board or
the board of inspectors as the case may FACTS:
be, to include or reinstate his name in the In the year 1937 the total number of registered
permanent list of voters, attaching to his voters in the municipality of Talisay, Negros
application for inclusion the certificate Occidental, was 3,658. In 1938, the electoral
of the Electron registration board or census of the place showed that the number of
the board of inspectors regarding his registered voters had increased to 18,288.
case and proof of service of a copy of his
application and of the notice of hearing A few days before the election for Assemblymen,
thereof upon a member of the said board. there were 17,344 petitions filed in the justice of
the peace court of Bacolod for the exclusion of the
ISSUE: W/N Judge Posadas violated the right names of an equal number of persons from the
to Suffrage of Lacson. YES permanent list of registered voters on the grounds
that (1) they were not residents of Talisay in
HELD: accordance with the Election Code, (2) that they
In our republican system of government, the could not prepare their ballots themselves, and
exercise by the people of their right of suffrage is that (3) their registration as voters was not done in
the expression of their sovereign will. It is, accordance with law.
therefore, absolutely essential that the free and The hearing of the petitions for exclusion was
voluntary use of this right be effectively held and attorneys Hilado, Parreño, Remitio and
protected by the law and by governmental Severino entered their appearance for the
authority. As stated in an earlier case: challenged voters. The justice of the peace of
* * * The people in clothing a citizen with Bacolod ascertained who of the challenged
the elective franchise for the purpose of securing a voters were present in court and who were
consistent and perpetual administration of the absent. Thereafter the said justice of the peace
government they ordain, charge him with the declared those who were absent in default.
performance of a duty in the nature of a public
trust, and in that respect constitute him a Failing to obtain a reconsideration, the attorneys
representative of the whole people. This duty for the challenged voters moved for all the
requires that the privilege thus bestowed should be petitions to be forwarded to the CFI of Negros
exercise, not exclusively for the benefit of the Occidental which was then presided over by two
citizen or class of citizens professing it, but in good Judges.
faith and with an intelligent zeal for the general
benefit and welfare of the state. In the last The attorneys for the petitioners in the said
analysis, therefore, the inclusion in or exclusion 17,344 exclusion cases objected on the ground
from the permanent electoral list of any voter that the aforesaid attorneys had no authority to
concerns not only the latter in his individual represent those who were absent. Whereupon
capacity but the public in general. the justice of the peace of Bacolod ruled that
said attorneys could represent only the 87
challenged voters who were present in the court
room and at the same time the justice of the
peace dismissed 253 of the petitions upon
motion of the petition upon motion of the
petitioners themselves.
Although no evidence was presented by the
petitioners in support of their petition against
those who, were declared in default, the justice
of the peace of Bacolod ordered their exclusion
from the list of voters on the ground that it was
the duty of the challenged voters to appear in
court in order to be personally examined in
accordance with section 118 (f) of the Election ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
Code. Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
ISSUE: state. (U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 588.) In the

last analysis, therefore, the inclusion from the
Whether or not the justice of the peace of permanent electoral list of any voter concerns
Bacolod erred when it did not grant the motion to not only the latter in his individual capacity but
remand all the exclusion cases to the Court of the public in general.
First Instance of Negros Occidental.
RULING:
The SC held that the judgment appealed from I.5. Role of the Judiciary:
will accordingly be reversed and in the exercise
of their discretionary power, the case remanded
to the CFI of Negros Occidental with instruction G.R. No. L-46863, November 18, 1939 IRINEO
to hear and decide the petitions for exclusion of MOYA, petitioner, vs. AGRIPINO GA. DEL
the merits, giving the parties every opportunity to FIERO, respondent.
present their respective evidence so that it may
thereafter make such corrections in the electoral FACTS: This is a petition for review by certiorari
census of Talisay, Negros Occidental. of the judgment of the Court of Appeals
declaring the respondent, Agripino Ga. del
Section 113 of the Election Code provides that if Fierro, the candidate-elect for the office of mayor
the Judge of the CFI is in the province, the of the municipality of Paracale, Province of
proceedings for the inclusion from the list of Camarines Norte, with a majority of three votes
voters shall, upon petition of any interested party over his rival, Irineo Moya. In the general
filed before the presentation of evidence, be elections held on December 14, 1937, the
remanded to the said Judge who shall hear and parties were contending candidates for mayor.
decide the same in the first and last instance. After canvass of the returns the municipal
When, therefore, the attorneys for the council of Paracale, Del Fierro was proclaimed
challenged voters moved the justice of the as the elected mayor of said municipality with a
peace of Bacolod to remand all the exclusion majority of 102 votes. Moya field a motion of
cases to the Court of First Instance of Negros protest in the Court of First Instance of
Occidental, then presided over by two Judges, it Camarines Norte. The Court of Appeals
was mandatory on said justice of the peace to rendered the judgment in favor of del Fierro
grant the motion. In view of the nature of the which is sought by Moya to be reviewed and
proceedings which affect public interest, it was reversed upon the alleged errors committed:
error for the aforesaid justice of the peace not to
have remanded all the petitions for exclusion to 1. In admitting and counting in favor of the
the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. respondent, 8 ballots either inadvertently or
contrary to the controlling decisions of this
In the scheme of our present republican Honorable Court.
government, the people are allowed to have a 2. In admitting and counting in favor of the
voice therein through the instrumentality of respondent, 3 ballots marked "R. del Fierro."
suffrage to be availed of by those possessing 3. In admitting and counting in favor of the
certain prescribe qualifications (Article V, respondent, 7 ballots marked "Rufino del Firro."
Constitution of the Philippines; sections 93 and 4. In admitting and counting in favor of the
94, Election Code). The people in clothing a respondent, 72 ballots marked "P. del Fierro."
citizen with the elective franchise for the purpose
of securing a consistent and perpetual ISSUE: Whether or not the ballots were
administration of the government they ordain, erroneously admitted in favor of del Fierro.
charge him with the performance of a duty in the
nature of a public trust, and in that respect HELD: The SC dismissed the petition because
constitute him a representative of the whole in result even if the ballots contested are
people. This duty requires that the privilege thus counted in favor of Moya, del Fierro still wins by
bestowed should be exercised, not exclusively one vote.
for the benefit of the citizen or class of citizens
professing it, but in good faith and with an First assignment of error:
intelligent zeal for the general benefit of the (1) With reference to ballot Exhibit F-175 in
precinct No. 2, ballot clearly appears admissible
for the respondent because the name written on
the space for mayor is "Primo del Fierro" or
"Pimo de Fierro", the error is technical and ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
deserves but scanty consideration. Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
(2) Ballot Exhibit F-26 in precinct No. 3 was (8) Ballot F-44 in precinct No. 2 wherein
erroneously admitted for the respondent; the "Agripino F. Garcia" appears written on the
name written on the space for mayor being "G.T. proper space, is valid for the respondent. In his
Krandes." It is true that on the fourth line for the certificate of candidacy the respondent gave his
councilor "Alcalde Pinong del Fierro": appears; name as "Agripino Ga. del Fierro." The
but the intention of the elector is rendered vague conclusion of the trial court, upheld by the Court
and incapable of ascertaining and the ballot was of Appeals, that the letter "F" stands for "Fierro"
improperly counted for the respondent. As to this and "Garcia" for the contraction "Ga." is not
ballot, the contention of the petitioner is without justification and, by liberal construction,
sustained. the ballot in question was properly admitted for
(3) Ballot Exhibit F-77 in precinct No. 2 should the respondent.
also have been rejected by the Court of Appeals.
The ballot bears the distinguishing mark "O. K." The second error assigned by the petitioner
placed after the name "M. Lopis" written on refers to three ballots, namely, Exhibit F-119 in
space for vice-mayor. The contention of the precinct No. 1 Exhibit F-24 in precinct No. 2, and
petitioner in this respect is likewise sustained. Exhibit F-6 in precinct No. 4. These three ballots
appear to be among the 75 ballots found by the
(4) Ballot Exhibit F-9 in precinct No. 2 was Court of Appeals as acceptable for the
properly admitted for respondent. The elector respondent on the ground that the initial letter
wrote within the space for mayor the name of "P" stands for "Pino" in "Pino del Fierro" which is
Regino Guinto, a candidate for the provincial a name mentioned in the certificate of candidacy
board and wrote the respondent's name of the respondent.
immediately below the line for mayor but
immediately above the name "M. Lopez" voted Upon the third assignment of error, the petitioner
by him for vice-mayor. The intention of the questions the seven ballots wherein "Rufino del
elector to vote for the respondent for the office of Fierro" was voted for the office of mayor. There
the mayor is clear under the circumstances. was no other candidate for the office of mayor
with the name of "Rufino" or similar name and,
(5) Ballot F-131 in precinct No. 1 was also as the respondent was districtly identified by his
properly counted for the respondent. The elector surname on these ballots, the intention of the
wrote the respondent's name on the space for voters in preparing the same was undoubtedly to
vice-mayor, but, apparently realizing his mistake, vote for the respondent of the office for which he
he placed an arrow connecting the name of the was a candidate.
respondent to the word "Mayor" (Alcalde) printed The fourth assignment of error deals with the 72
on the left side of the ballot. ballots wherein "P. del Fierro" was voted for the
office of mayor. Indicated under the discussion
(6) Ballot F-7 in precinct No. 5 is admissible for of petitioner's second assignment of error,
the respondent. Although the name of the namely, that "P" stands for "Pino" in "Pino del
respondent is written on the first space for Fierro" which is a name mentioned in the
member of the provincial board, said name is certificate of candidacy of the respondent, we
followed in the next line by "Bice" Culastico hold that there was no error in the action of the
Palma, which latter name is followed in the next Court of Appeals in awarding the said ballots to
line by word "consehal" and the name of a the respondent.
candidate for this position. The intention of the
elector to vote for the respondent for the office of With the exception of ballot marked as Exhibit F-
mayor being manifest. 26 in precinct No. 3 and ballot marked as Exhibit
F-77 in precinct No. 2, SC accepted the rest of
(7) Ballot F-1 in precinct No. 2 is valid for the the disputed ballots for the respondent not only
respondent. The Christian name of the for the specific reasons already given but also
respondent was written on the second space for for the more fundamental reason that as long as
member of the provincial board, but his surname popular government is an end to be achieved
was written on the proper space for mayor with and safeguarded, suffrage must continue to be
no other accompanying name or names. the manes by which the great reservoir of power
must be emptied into the receptacular agencies
wrought by the people through their Constitution
in the interest of good government and the
common weal.

Republicanism, in so far as it implies the ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
adoption of a representative type of government, Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as
a particle of popular sovereignty and as the constitutional power by encroaching on terrain
ultimate source of the established authority. He properly judicial, the right to vote being involved.
has a voice in his Government and whenever
called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it HELD: There is no merit to the contention that
efficacy and not to stifle it. This, fundamentally, respondent Commission is devoid of power to
is the reason for the rule that ballots should be disregard and annul the alleged returns for being
read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with spurious or manufactured. The COMELEC has a
reasonable, liberality. clear duty to stigmatize the alleged returns. In
the discharge of its functions, it should be
No technical rule or rules should be permitted to allowed considerable latitude in devising means
defeat the intention of the voter, if that intention and methods that will insure the accomplishment
is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from of the great objective for which it was created --
evidence aliunde. This rule of interpretation goes free, orderly and honest elections.
to the very root of the system. Rationally, also,
If pursuant to Administrative Law, the findings of
this must be the justification for the suggested
fact of administrative organs created by ordinary
liberalization of the rules on appreciation of
legislation will not be disturbed by courts of
ballots which are now incorporated in section
justice, except when there is absolutely no
144 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act
evidence or no substantial evidence in support
No. 357).
of such findings ... there is no reason to believe
that the framers of our Constitution intended to
It results that, crediting the petitioner with the
place the Commission on Elections — created
two ballots herein held to have been erroneously
and explicitly made 'independent' by the
admitted by the Court of Appeals for the
Constitution itself — on a lower level than said
respondent, the latter still wins by one vote.
statuory administrative organs.
How the right to vote is to be exercised is

B petitioner vs. regulated by the Election Code. Its enforcement
BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, COMMISSION ON under the Constitution is, as noted, vested in
ELECTIONS, and THE COMELEC. Such a power, however, is purely
PROVIN B E executive or administrative. Thus, although
respondents independent of the President — to which the
Constitution has given the 'exclusive charge' of
FACTS: COMELEC excluded from the canvass the 'enforcement and administration of all laws
for the election of delegates in the lone district of relative to the conduct of elections,' the power of
the province of Sulu the returns from Siasi, decision of the Commission is limited to purely
Tapul, Parang and Luuk for being spurious or 'administrative questions.
manufactured returns and therefore considered
as no returns at all. That was the effect of The question of inclusion or exclusion from the
massive violence, terrorism and fraud. Unless list of voters is properly judicial. As to whether or
set aside then, petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan, not an election has been held is a question of a
who otherwise would have been entitled to the different type. It is properly within the
last remaining seat for delegates to the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC.
Constitutional Convention would lose out to
respondent Benjamin Abuba a The rejection by the COMELEC of the returns in
etiti ne c ntended t at suc e c usi n question would result in the disfranchisement of
etu ns wi esu t t the disfranchisement of a a large number of voters, but this is merely
large number of legitimate voters. Petitioner thus provisional, subject to the final determination of
dispute the power of respondent the validity of the votes at the protest that may
Commission to exclude such returns as a esu t be filed with the Constitutional Convention.
a testi n as we as t e e a inati n
t e inge p ints and signatu es t se w
a eged ted as t e asis te ding t at
n e ecti n in act did ta e p ace
ISSUE: WON the Commission exceeded its

2. Elections; Essence of Elections; Basis of ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
Plurality of Votes; Construction of Election Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
Laws/Limitations to Liberal Construction:
and affirmative defenses. Thus, he claims that
the summary dismissal of his motion to dismiss
Topic: Construction of Election Laws is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 139357. May 5, 2000
ABDULMADID P.B. MARUHOM ISSUE:
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HADJI Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused
JAMIL DIMAPORO its discretion in dismissing SPR No. 52-98.
YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS: RULING:
Maruhom and Dimaporo were both candidates for It is clear, given the foregoing facts of this case,
Mayor in the Municipality of Marogong, Lanao del that the roundabout manner within which
Sur. During the counting of votes, serious petitioner virtually substituted his answer by
irregularities, anomalies and electoral frauds were belatedly filing a motion to dismiss three (3)
committed at the instance of petitioner or his months later is a frivolous resort to procedure
followers in that votes actually casted for the calculated to frustrate the will of the electorate.
private respondent were not counted and credited As pointedly observed by the COMELEC in its
in his favor thru the concerted acts, conspiracy and challenged Resolution dated July 6, 1999,
manipulation of the Board of Election Inspectors, petitioner only filed his motion to dismiss "when
military, Election Officer and the Machine Operator the results of the trial appeared to be adverse to
who happens to be a nephew of the petitioner. him" or right after the creation of the Revision
Many official ballots were refused or rejected by Committee had been ordered by the trial court. If
the machine. petitioner truly intended to move for the
preliminary hearing of his special and affirmative
As a result of the foregoing irregularities, defenses as he claims, then he should have
simultaneously moved for the preliminary
anomalies and electoral frauds, the petitioner
hearing of his special and affirmative defenses
was illegally proclaimed as winner because he
at the time he filed his answer. Otherwise, he
appeared to have obtained 2,020 votes while the
should have filed his motion to dismiss "within
private respondent garnered 2,000 votes with a
the time for but before filing the answer"
slight margin of only 20 votes.
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Private respondent, knowing that he was
cheated and the true winner for Mayor, filed
before COMELEC a petition to annul the While the challenged COMELEC Resolution
proclamation of petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom may not have been entirely correct in dismissing
as the duly elected Mayor of Marogong, Lanao the petition in this regard, the soundness of its
del Sur. discretion to accord unto the trial court the
competence to resolve the factual issues raised
Subsequently, a Revision Committee was in the controversy cannot be doubted.
created and its membership were duly appointed
in open court which committee was directed by Section 2 (1) of Article IX of the Constitution
the COMELEC to finish the revision of ballots. gives the COMELEC the broad power to
"enforce and administer all laws and regulations
After the Revision Committee was directed by relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
the respondent to commence the revision of initiative, referendum and recall." There can
ballots, petitioner filed a counter-protest praying hardly be any doubt that the text and intent of
to hold in abeyance further proceedings since this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC
the protest is subject to petition filed with the all the necessary and incidental powers for it to
COMELEC. achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections.
In support of his cause, petitioner insists that
In accordance with this intent, the Court has
there is "nothing irregular or anomalous in the
filing of the motion to dismiss" after the filing of been liberal in defining the parameters of the
the answer because in effect he is merely COMELECs powers in conducting elections.
insisting on a preliminary hearing of his special Succinctly stated, laws and statutes governing
election contests especially the appreciation of
ballots must be liberally construed to the end
that the will of the electorate in the choice of
public officials may not be defeated by technical ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
infirmities. An election protest is imbued with Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
public interest so much so that the need to
dispel uncertainties which becloud the real Pena later submitted a list of specific contested
choice of the people is imperative, much more p ecincts n Ju 10, 17 da s a te ueg’s answer.
so in this case considering that a mere twenty
(20) votes separates the winner from the loser of
the contested election results. In October, the HRET ruled that while it had
jurisdiction over the petition, as the sole judge of
Laws and statutes governing election contests all contests relating to the election returns and
especially the appreciation of ballots must be qualifications of the members of the House of
liberally construed and that in applying election Representatives, the said petition, however, fails
laws, it would be far better to err in favor of the to state a cause of action, and is therefore,
popular sovereignty than to be right in complex insufficient in form and substance, meriting its
but little understood legalisms. dismissal.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Pena filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
WON the HRET committed GAOD in dismissing
PENA V. HRET ena’s petiti n ad cuatelam for lack of
G.R. No. 123037 substance (which Pena later cured)? NO.
March 21, 1997
HELD:
FACTS: ena’s petition lacking substance dismissal
Pena and Abueg were rivals for the proper
Congressional seat in Palawan during the May A perusal of the petition Ad Cuatelam,
8, 1995 elections. Apparently, Abueg was reveals that petitioner makes no specific
proclaimed winner. mention of the precincts where
widespread election, fraud and
On May 22, Pena filed a petition AD irregularities occurred. This is a fatal
CAUTELAM with the HRET, claiming that the omission, as it goes into the very
nd substance of the protest.
elections in the 2 district of Palawan were
tainted with massive
The prescription that the petition must be
fraud, widespread intimidation
sufficient in form and substance means that the
vote--‐ buying,
and terrorism and other serious irregularities petition must be more than merely rhetorical. If
committed before, during and after the voting, the allegations contained therein are
and during the counting of votes and the unsupported by even the faintest whisper of
preparation of election returns and certificates of authority in fact and law, then there is no other
canvass which affected the results of the course than to dismiss the petition, otherwise,
election. the assumption of an elected public official may,
and will always be held up by petitions of this
Because of these irregularities, Pena stated that sort by the losing candidate.
he lost the election by almost 7k votes. He then
assai ed ueg’s p c a ati n The defect in the instant case arises from the
failure to allege the contested precincts. Only a
Abueg filed an answer and a motion to dismiss a e a egati n “ assi e aud, widesp ead
on June 23, averring that the HRET has not intimidation and terrorism and other serious
acquired jurisdiction over the petition, the same i egu a ities,” wit ut speci icati n and
being insufficient in form and substance. In substantiation of where and how these
essence, the motion to dismiss anchors its occurrences took place, appears in the petition.
challenge on the fact that the petition failed to We cannot allow an election protest based on
allege the precincts where the massive fraud such flimsy averments to prosper, otherwise,
and disenfranchisement of voters occurred, nor the whole election process will deteriorate into an
did it point out how many votes would be gained endless stream of crabs pulling at each other,
by the protestant as a result of the same. racing to disembark from the water.
Substantial amendments may be allowed but

must be within time period (10 days after
winner’s proclamation)
The Court has already ruled in Joker P. ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
Arroyo vs. HRET, that substantial Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
amendments to the protest may be
allowed only within the same period for errors were committed by the Municipal Board of
filing the election protest, which, under Canvassers (MBCs).
Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of
Procedure is ten (10) days after the However, after canvassing the COCs for the 10
proclamation of the winner. municipalities, it turns out Bince garnered 27,370
tes against Micu’s 27,369 a a gin 1 vote.
Exception to liberal construction Bince was not yet proclaimed at this time
While it is conceded that statutes because of the absence of authority from the
providing for election contests are to be COMELEC.
liberally construed to the end that the will
of the people in the choice of public On June 29, the COMELEC en banc
officers may not be defeated by mere promulgated a resolution directing the PBC to
technical questions, the rule likewise continue with the provincial canvass and
stands, that in an election protest, the proclaim the winning candidates.
protestant must stand or fall upon the
issues he had raised in his original or On June 24, t e C acted n Micu’s petiti ns for
amended pleading filed prior to the correction of the SOVs for Tayug and San
lapse of the statutory period for filing Miguel. Bince appealed, claiming that the PBC
the protest. had no jurisdiction.
Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the Subsequently the PBC filed a petition with the
power to annul an election should be exercised COMELEC seeking a definitive ruling as to who
with the greatest care as it involves the free and should be proclaimed. Apparently, if the
fair expression of the popular will. It is only in corrections for the SOVs of Tayug and SM were
extreme cases of fraud and under circumstances to be included, Emiliano Micu would gain
which demonstrate to the fullest degree a plurality by 72 votes.
fundamental and wanton disregard of the law
that elections are annulled, and then only when The COMELEC resolved the PBC to proclaim
it becomes impossible to take any other step. the winning candidate on the basis of the
completed and corrected Certificates of
Canvass.
BINCE, JR. V. COMELEC
G.R. NOS. 111624--25 However on July 21, Bince was proclaimed
MARCH 9, 1995 winner.
FACTS: Micu filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to

Bince and Macu were Sangguniang Annul Proclamation, and Amended Urgent
Panlalawigan candidates in Pangasinan during Petition for Contempt and Annul Proclamation,
the 1992 elections. alleging that the PBC defied the directive of the
COMELEC. The COMELEC held the officers
During the canvassing of the COCs for the 10 who proclaimed Bince in contempt, and directed
th
municipalities of the 6 District, Micu objected to the PBC to proclaim the true winner.
the inclusion of the COC of San Quintin,
claiming that it contained false statements. T e case ate tu ned t t e ega it t e C’s
granting of the petition for the correction of the
Micu later secured a resolution from the Tayug and SM SOVs. Micu claims that his
COMELEC directing the Provincial Board of petitions for correction were valid under Section 6,
Canvassers the correct number of votes from Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
the municipality of San Quintin.
Eventually, ince’s p c a ati n was a i ed,
Meanwhile, Micu filed several petitions for ut n Micu’s MFR t t e en anc, was set aside
correction of the Statements of Votes (SOVs) for and declared null and void.
th
alleged errors in other municipalities of the 6
district (Tayug and San Miguel). Note that the Bince appealed to the SC in a special civil action
for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON the COMELEC committed GAOD in nu i ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
ing ince’s p c a ati n NO Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
HELD: Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests

COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction involve public interest, and technicalities and
Respondent COMELEC did not act with procedural barriers should not be allowed to
GAOD in annulling the proclamation of stand if they constitute an obstacle to the
petitioner Alfonso Bince, Jr. and in determination of the true will of the electorate in
directing the Provincial Board of the choice of their elective officials. And also
Canvassers of Pangasinan to order the settled is the rule that laws governing election
MBCs of Tayug and San Miguel to make contests must be liberally construed to the end
the necessary corrections in the SOVs that the will of the people may not be defeated
and COCs. by mere technical objections.
Nullification was justified as the basis was a Was allowing the correction of mathematical
mathematical error committed by the MBCs in errors proper? YES
the computation of votes. The COMELEC It does not involve the opening of ballot
cannot be faulted for subsequently annulling the boxes; neither does it involve the
proclamation of petitioner Bince on account of a examination and/or appreciation of
mathematical error in addition, committed by the ballots. The correction sought by
MBCs. respondents is correction of manifest
mistakes in mathematical addition.
s to timeliness of Micu’s petitions for Certainly, this only calls for a mere
correction clerical act of reflecting the true and
correct votes received by the candidates.
The petitions to correct manifest errors
In this case, the manifest errors only
were filed on time, that is, before the petiti
sought proper and diligent addition of the
ne ’s p c a ati n n Ju 21, 1992. The
votes in Tayug and San Miguel.
petition of the MBC of San Miguel was
filed on June 4, 1992, while that of the
Consequently, by a margin of 72 votes, Micu
MBC of Tayug was filed on June 5, 1992
Sti , p i ate esp ndent’s petition was filed indisputa w n ince’s p c a ati n and assumption
with the MBC of Tayug and San Miguel into public office was therefore flawed from the
on June 10 and 11, 1992, respectively. It beginning, the same having been based in a
faulty tabulation.
is definitely well within the period required
by Section 6, Rule 27 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure. Sec. 6 clearly
provides that the petition for
correction may be filed at any time TRINIDAD VS COMELEC AND SUNGA (Sept
before proclamation of a winner. 23, 1999)
What if the petitions for correction were filed out FACTS:

of time? No effect. Petitioner (herein private respondent) Manuel C.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Sunga was one of the candidates for the position
the petition was filed out of time, this of Mayor in the Municipality of Iguig, Province of
incident alone will not thwart the proper Cagayan, in the May 8, 1995 elections. Private
determination and resolution of the instant respondent (herein petitioner) Ferdinand B.
case on substantial grounds. Adherence Trinidad, then incumbent mayor, was a
to a technicality that would put a candidate for re-election in the same
stamp of validity on a palpably void municipality.
proclamation, with the inevitable result
of frustrating the people’s will cannot On 22 April 1995, Sunga filed with the
be countenanced. Adjudication of COMELEC a letter-complaint for disqualification
cases on substantive merits and not against Trinidad, accusing him of using three (3)
on technicalities has been consistently local government vehicles in his campaign, in
observed by the Court. violation of Section 261, par. (o), Art. XXII, of BP
Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code, as amended).
On 7 May 1995, Sunga filed another letter-

complaint with the COMELEC charging Trinidad
this time with violation of Sec. 261, par. (e)
(referring to threats, intimidation, terrorism or ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
other forms of coercion) of the Omnibus Election Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
Code.
p c ai ed as Ma in t e e ent petiti ne ’s
This was followed by an Amended Petition for disqualification
disqualification consolidating the charges in the
two (2) letters-complaint, including vote buying, RULING:
and providing more specific details of the (1) N , petiti ne ’s p c a ati n as Ma in t e 1998
violations committed by Trinidad. elections cannot be cancelled on account of
the disqualification case filed against him in
Meanwhile, the election results showed that the 1995 election.
Trinidad garnered the highest number of votes,
With the complaint for disqualification of private
while Sunga trailed second.
respondent rendered moot and academic by the
expiration of petitioners term of office therein
Notwithstanding the motion for suspension of the
contested, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
proclamation of Trinidad filed by Sunga, Trinidad
discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner
was proclaimed the elected mayor, prompting
from his reelected term of office in its second
Sunga to file another motion to suspend the
questioned Resolution on the ground that it
effects of the proclamation. Both motions were
comes as a matter of course after his
not acted upon by the COMELEC 2nd Division.
promulgated after the 1998 election. While it is
true that the first questioned Resolution was
The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings issued eight (8) days before the term of
of the Law Department and directed the filing of petitioner as Mayor expired, said Resolution had
the corresponding informations in the Regional not yet attained finality and could not effectively
Trial Court against Trinidad. Accordingly, four (4) be held to have removed petitioner from his
informations for various election offenses were office. Indeed, removal cannot extend beyond
filed in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, the term during which the alleged
Cagayan. The disqualification case, on the other misconduct was committed. If a public
hand, was referred to the COMELEC 2nd official is not removed before his term of
Division for hearing. office expires, he can no longer be removed
if he is thereafter reelected for another term.
COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the petition
for disqualification. Sunga filed the instant (2) No, the candidate who received the second
petition contending that the COMELEC highest number of votes cannot be
committed grave abuse of discretion in p c ai ed Ma in t e e ent petiti ne ’s
dismissing the petition for disqualification. disqualification
i ate esp ndent’s etiti n wit t is C u t was As per the Certificate of Canvass, petitioner
granted and COMELEC was ordered to obtained 5,920 votes as against the 1,727 votes
reinstate. Finally, on June 22, 1998, the obtained by private respondent and 15 votes
COMELEC 1st Division (former 2nd Division) garnered by the third mayoral candidate, Johnny
promulgated the first questioned Resolution R. Banatao. This gives petitioner a high 77.26%
disqualifying petitioner as a candidate in the May of the votes cast. There is no doubt, therefore, t
8, 1995 elections. COMELEC En Banc denied at petiti ne ecei ed is unicipa it ’s c ea mandate.
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and also This, despite the disqualification case filed
annulled his proclamation as duly elected Mayor against him by private respondent.
of Iguig, Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Private respondent assails the arguments raised Indeed, in election cases, it is fundamental that
in the Petition and prays that he be proclaimed the peoples will be at all times upheld. This
as the elected Mayor in the 1998 elections. Court has time and again liberally and equitably
construed the electoral laws of our country to give
ISSUES: (1) WON petiti ne ’s p c a ati n as fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for
Mayor in the 1998 elections can be cancelled on in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted
account of the disqualification case filed against to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
him in the 1995 elections expressed through the ballot.
(2) WON respondent, as the candidate receiving To simplistically assume that the second placer
the second highest number of votes be would have received the other votes would be to
substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter.
The second placer is just that, a second

placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
by either a majority or plurality of voters. He Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
could not be considered the first among qualified
candidates because in a field which excludes the massive fraud, irregularities and other illegal
disqualified candidate, the conditions would electoral practices during the registration and the
have substantially changed. To allow private voting as well as during the counting of votes.
respondent, a defeated and repudiated
candidate, to take over the mayoralty despite The trial court rendered judgment on September
his rejection by the electorate is to 23, 1996 with the following findings, viz: that
disenfranchise the electorate without any massive fraud, illegal electoral practices and
fault on their part and to undermine the serious anomalies marred the May 8, 1995
importance and meaning of democracy and elections; that ballots, election returns and tally
the people’s right to elect officials of their sheets pertaining to Precinct Nos. 8, 20, 41, 53,
choice. 68, 68-A and 70 disappeared under mysterious
circumstances; and that filled-up ballots with
undetached lower stubs and groups of ballots
with stubs cut out with scissors were found
PUNZALAN VS COMELEC AND MENESES inside ballot boxes. Because of these
(April 27, 1998) irregularities, the trial court was constrained to
examine the contested ballots and the
handwritings appearing thereon and came up
FACTS: with the declaration that Punzalan was the
Danilo Manalastas, Ferdinand Meneses and winner in the elections.
Ernesto Punzalan were among the four (4)
candidates for mayor of the municipality of On December 8, 1997, the COMELEC
Mexico, Pampanga during the May 8, 1995 promulgated a resolution setting aside the trial
elections. courts decision and affirming the proclamation of
Meneses by the MBC as the duly elected mayor
On May 24, 1995, the Municipal Board of of Mexico, Pampanga.
Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Ferdinand
Meneses as the duly elected mayor, having Punzalan prayed for the issuance of a temporary
garnered a total of 10,301 votes against Danilo est aining de t set aside COMELEC’s
Manalastas 9,317 votes and Ernesto Punzalans resolution.
8,612 votes.
ISSUES:
On May 30, 1995, Danilo Manalastas filed an (1) WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
election protest docketed as Election Case No. discretion in declaring as valid the ballots
E-005-95 before the Regional Trial Court of San credited to Meneses which did not bear the
Fernando, Pampanga, challenging the results of signature of the BEI chairman at the back
the elections in the municipalitys forty-seven (47) thereof.
precincts. In due time, Ferdinand Meneses filed
his answer with counter protest impugning the (2) WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
results in twenty-one (21) precincts of the 47 discretion in declaring valid (a) the ballots
protested by Manalastas. wherein the signatures of the BEI chairmen were
different from their respective signatures
On June 2, 1995, Ernesto Punzalan filed his own appearing on several COMELEC documents, (b)
election protest docketed as Election Case No. those group of ballots allegedly written by one
E-006-95, also before the RTC in San Fernando, (1) hand and (c) a number of single ballots
Pampanga, questioning the results of the written by two (2) persons, ignoring the trial
elections in one hundred and fifty seven (157) courts findings on the authenticity of said
precincts. handwritings
RULING:
Meneses, on his part, filed an answer with (1) While Section 24of Republic Act No. 7166,
counter-protest with respect to ninety-six (96) otherwise known as An Act Providing For
precincts of the 157 protested by Punzalan.
Synchronized National and Local Elections and
For Electoral Reforms, requires the BEI
The election contests sought the nullification of chairman to affix his signature at the back of the
the election of Meneses allegedly due to ballot, the mere failure to do so does not
invalidate the same although it may constitute an
election offense imputable to
said BEI chairman.Nowhere in said provision ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
does it state that the votes contained therein Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that
the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the
members of the board to comply with On the issue of the genuineness of the
their mandated administrative handwriting on the ballots, it is observed that
responsibility, i.e., signing, authenticating the specimens examined by Atty. Desiderio
and thumbmarking of ballots, should not A. Pagui, presented by Punzalan as an
penalize the voter with expert witness, were mere certified true
disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating copies of the ballots and documents
the will of the people. concerned. The result of examination of
questioned handwriting, even with the benefit
What should, instead, be given weight is the of aid of experts and scientific instruments,
consistent rule laid down by the HRET that a is, at best, inconclusive. There are other
ballot is considered valid and genuine for factors that must be taken into consideration.
as long as it bears any one of these The position of the writer, the condition of the
authenticating marks, to wit: (a) the surface on which the paper where the
COMELEC watermark, or (b) the signature questioned signature is written is placed, his
or initials, or thumbprint of the Chairman state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the
of the BEI; and (c) in those cases where kind of pen and/or paper used, played an
the COMELEC watermarks are blurred or important role on the general appearance of
not readily apparent to the naked eye, the the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in a
presence of red or blue fibers in the given case, absolute absence, or manifest
ballots. It is only when none of these marks dearth, or direct or circumstantial competent
appears extant that the ballot can be evidence of the character of a questioned
considered spurious and subject to rejection. handwriting, much weight should not be
given to characteristic similarities, or
Similarly, Section 211 of Batas Pambansa dissimilarities, between the questioned
Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus handwriting and an authentic one.
Election Code of the Philippines provides that
in the reading and appreciation of ballots, Laws and statutes governing election
every ballot shall be presumed to be valid contests especially appreciation of ballots
unless there is a clear and good reason to must be liberally construed to the end that
justify its rejection. Certainly, the the will of the electorate in the choice of
inefficiency of an election officer in failing to public officials may not be defeated by
affix his signature at the back of the ballot technical infirmities. An election protest is
does not constitute as a good and clear imbued with public interest so much so that
reason to justify the rejection of a ballot. the need to dispel uncertainties which
becloud the real choice of the people is
(2) imperative.
The appreciation of the contested ballots and
election documents involves a question of
fact best left to the determination of the BAUTISTA v. CASTRO
COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with
the supervision of elections all over the FACTS:
country. It is the constitutional commission Both the petitioner Sergio Bautista and private
vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction respondent Roberto Miguel were candidates for
over election contests involving regional, the office above mentioned. After canvass,
provincial and city officials, as well as petitioner Bautista was proclaimed the winner by
appellate jurisdiction over election protests the Barangay Board of Canvassers on May 17,
involving elective municipal and barangay 1982 with a plurality of two (2) votes. On May 25,
officials. Consequently, in the absence of 1982, Roberto Miguel filed a protest before the
grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional City Court of Quezon City, (docketed as Election
infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, Case No. 82-408) on the ground of fraud and
conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered illegal acts or practices allegedly committed by
by the said Commission on matters falling Bautista. The latter filed an answer but filed no
within its competence shall not be interfered counter protest.
with by this Court.
It appears that the results of the election in all
the four (4) voting centers in Bgy. Teachers
Village East, Quezon City were contested. A
revision and recounting of the ballots was ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
conducted which resulted in a tie. Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
The trial court rendered a decision declaring to determine the true value of the contested
Roberto Miguel to have received the same ballots and in order not to disenfranchise bona
number of votes as the protestee Sergio fide voters, it counted certain ballots in favor of
Bautista for the position of Bgy. Captain of Bgy. petitioner which the alleged handwriting expert
Teachers Village East, Quezon City. From this found as written by only one person. It
decision of the city court, protestant Roberto contradicted said report as regards Exhibits "I",
Miguel filed an appeal to the Court of First "J", "V" and "V-1". The respondent court was
Instance of Rizal. * On July 29, 1982, judgment circumspect in relying on its own findings on
was rendered on the appeal which, as stated in whether or not these contested ballots were
the first portion of this decision, declared prepared by one person. The ballots are the best
protestant Roberto Miguel the duly elected evidence of the objections raised. Resort to
Barangay Captain of Bgy. Teachers Village handwriting experts is not mandatory.
East, Quezon City and setting aside as null and Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are
void the proclamation of protestee Sergio not indispensable in examining or comparing
Bautista. Petitioner Sergio Bautista filed the handwriting, this can be
instant petition for review by certiorari. done by the COMELEC (in this case, the court
taking cognizance of the appeal
ISSUES: in this election protest) itself.
1) Whether or not the supposed opinion of a Petitioner also argues that respondent court
person, who was brought by private respondent misinterpreted and misapplied Section 36(f) of
but who was never presented as a witness, is Comelec Resolution No. 1539. It allegedly failed
competent and admissible evidence to support to take into consideration the other provisions of
the appellate court's (CFI) conclusion that no said Section 36 of the Resolution. We do not
less than eighteen (18) votes cast in favor of agree. The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. 222) and the
your petitioner were written by one and the same rules implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res.
person. No. 1539) leave no room for interpretation. The
absence of the signature of the Chairman of the
2) Whether or not a ballot which does not Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a
contain the signature of the poll chairman be voter as required by law and the rules as proof
considered a valid ballot. of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This
requirement is mandatory for the validity of
3) Whether or not respondent Judge acted the said ballot. As regards exhibit "Z" and "Z-l",
correctly in its appreciation of the contested respondent court reversed the decision of the
ballots trial court which ruled that these were not
marked ballots and hence, were valid votes for
HELD: petitioner BAUTISTA. In reversing the trial court,
Anent the first question, petitioner Bautista respondent court ruled that the presence of an
questions the reliance by respondent court on arrow with the words "and party," was meant for
the opinion of one Desiderio A. Pagui, who was no other purpose than to Identify the voter. We
never presented and qualified as an expert agree. It cannot be said that these writings were
witness. The report of Pagui allegedly appeared accidental. As a general rule, a voter must write
only in the records of the case on file with the on the ballot only the names of candidates
CFI which was attached in the Memorandum for
Protestant Miguel. The contention of petitioner voted for the offices appearing thereon. Certain
that respondent court relied on the report of an exceptions, however, are provided in Section
alleged handwriting expert is misplaced. It 149 of the Revised Election Code. For example,
should be noted that while respondent court prefixes such as "Sr.," "Mr.", and the like and
considered the report of Atty. Pagui, it did not suffixes such as "hijo", "Jr.", etc. will not
rely solely on the said report. In the words of invalidate the ballot (par. 5). Initials (paragraph
respondent court, "(I)t has taken pains and 15), nicknames or appellation of affection and
meticulous effort to examine with its naked eye friendship will not invalidate the ballot, if
the questioned ballots and handwritings and accompanied by the name or surname of the
compare the same with each other . . ." In fact, candidate, and above all, if they were not used
in its effort as a means to identify the voter. Even under a
liberal view, the words written on the ballots
under consideration cannot be considered as
falling within the exception to the
rule. Consequently, they are irrelevant ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
expressions that nullified the ballots. (Lloren v. Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever
CA, et al., No. L-25907, January 25, 1967, 19
SCRA 110). Hence, respondent court excluded I. ELECTIONS
Exhibits "Z" and "Z-l".
(i) Definition/How exercised:
Petitioner objects to respondent court's ruling
rejecting Exh. "5". The word "BLBIOY" was
written in the spare for Barangay Captain. GR. No. 142907 November 29, 2000
"BIBOY", petitioner's nickname was duly JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS, petitioner,
registered in his certificate of candidacy. While vs.
the name written was "BLBIOY", there was no HON. ADORACION G. ANGELES, IN HER
doubt that the voter intended to vote for CAPACITY AS THE ACTING PRESIDING
"BIBOY", the nickname of which petitioner was JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN
popularly known and which nickname was duly CALOOCAN CITY (BRANCH 125) and
registered in his certificate of candidacy. Hence, ANTONIO M. SERAPIO, respondents.
the respondent court's decision as regards
Exhibit "5" is reversed and the vote is counted FACTS:
for petitioner. Exhibit "6" was invalidated by both Petitioner Carlos and respondent Serapio were
respondent court and the city court as stray vote candidates for the position of mayor of the
on the ground that petitioner's name, municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila during
written as "Bo. Barangay Bautista" was placed May 11, 1998 elections. The petitioner was
on the first line intended for councilmen. We declared as the duly elected mayor having
believe however that the voter's intention to vote obtained 102,688 votes. The respondent, having
for BAUTISTA as Barangay Captain was present the second highest number of votes, 77270 vote,
and said vote should be filed with the RTC Valenzuela an election protest
counted in favor of petitioner. Respondent court challenging the results. Serapio sought for
correctly invalidated Exhibit "7". This ballot recount of the ballot, and the revised count
cannot be considered as a vote for petitioner resulted in the invalidation of 9679 votes of
whose name was written seven (7) times in the Serapio and validationg 53 votes in his favour.
ballot. The writing of a name more than twice on The court invalidated 19975 votes of Carlos and
the ballot is considered to be intentional and validated 33 votes in his favour. The
serves no other purpose than to result:Serapio 76246 votes and Carlos 103551
identify the ballot. votes. Now Serapio alleged significant badges of
fraud and vote buying perpetrated by Carlos.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent
court is MODIFIED as regards Exhibits "5" and The trial court declared that there was enough
"6". Private respondent Roberto Miguel in pattern of fraud in the conduct of the election for
declared the duly elected Barangay Captain of mayor in Valenzuela. It held that the fraud was
Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City, attributable to the protestee who had control
with a plurality of twenty-two (22) votes. The over the election paraphernalia and the basic
temporary restraining order issued Court on services in the community such as the supply of
December 2, 1982 is hereby LIFTED. electricity. Thus, notwithstanding the plurality of
valid votes in favor of the protestee, the trial
3. Power of Congress to regulate suffrage court set aside the proclamation of protestee
Carlos and declared protestant Serapio as the
duly elected mayor of Valenzuela City.
A. Constitutional Provisions
B. Omnibus Election Code – BP 881 Wit t is, t e petiti ne fi ed a n tice appea t
C. Amendments under the 1987 Constitution the C issi n n E ecti ns He a s fi ed a
D. RA 7160 Local Government Code petition before the Supreme Court. The
respondent submitted that Comelec and not the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition
for certiorari.
FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION
(SCOPE OF SUFFRAGE) ISSUE:
WON the respondent, having the second highest
number of votes, can be declared as the duly
elected mayor. NO

analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and
during the preparation and transmission of the
WON the trial court acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion when it set aside
the proclamation of petitioner and declared
respondent Serapio as the duly elected mayor of
Valenzuela City. YES
WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to

review, by petition for certiorari as a special civil
action, the decision of the RTC in an election
protest case involving an elective municipal
ficia c nside ing that it has no appellate
jurisdiction over such decision. YES
HELD:
An election is the embodiment of the popular
will, the expression of the sovereign power of the
people. The winner is the candidate who has
obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast
in the election. Even if the candidate receiving
t e a it tes is ine igi e disqua ified, t e
candidate receiving the next highest number of
votes or the second placer, can not be declared
elected. The wreath of victory cannot be
t ans e ed t e disqua ified winne t t e
repudiated loser because the law then as now
only authorizes a declaration of election in favor
of the person who has obtained a plurality of
votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving
the next highest number of votes to be declared
elected. In other words, a defeated candidate
cann t e dee ed e ected t te fice
The trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a

failure of election. It is the Comelec sitting en
banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to
declare a failure of election. In a petition to annul
an election, two conditions must be averred in
de t supp t a su ficient cause
of action. These are: (1) the illegality must affect
more than 50% of the votes cast and (2) the
good votes can be distinguished from the bad
ones. It is only when these two conditions are
established that the annulment of the election
can e ustified ecause t e e aining tes d not
constitute a valid constituency.
There are only three (3) instances where a

failure of elections may be declared, namely: (a)
the election in any polling place has not been
e d n t e date fi ed n acc unt ce
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling
place had been suspended e e t e u fi ed by law
for the closing of the voting on account of force
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) unicipa ficia s T e C u t t at ta es jurisdiction first
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
case.
election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect
on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, (ii) Essence of Elections/Basis
fraud, or other analogous causes. Thus, the trial
court in its decision actually pronounced a failure
of election by disregarding and setting aside the
results of the election. Nonetheless, as herein- MANUEL C. SUNGA, vs. COMMISSION ON
above stated, the trial court erred to the extent of ELECTIONS and FERDINAND B. TRINIDAD
ousting itself of jurisdiction because the grounds G.R. No. 125629 March 25, 1998
for failure of e ecti n we e n t significant and
FACTS: Petitioner Manuel C. Sunga was one of
even non-existent.
the candidates for the position of Mayor in the
Municipality of Iguig, Province of Cagayan, in the
8 May 1995 elections. Private respondent
Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction to
Ferdinand B. Trinidad, then incumbent mayor,
declare a failure of election, the extent of that
was a candidate for re-election in the same
power is limited to the annulment of the election
municipality.
and the calling of special elections.The result is
a failure of e ecti n t at pa ticu a fice In such On 22 April 1995 Sunga filed with the
case, the court can not declare a winner. A COMELEC a letter-complaint for disqualification
permanent vacancy is thus created. In such against Trinidad, accusing him of using three (3)
eventuality, the duly elected vice-mayor shall local government vehicles in his campaign, in
succeed as provided by law. violation of Sec. 261, par. (o), Art. XXII, of BP
Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code, as amended)
Both the Supreme Court and Comelec have Hearings were held wherein Sunga adduced
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, evidence to prove his accusations. Trinidad, on
prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of the other hand, opted not to submit any
trial courts of general jurisdiction (regional trial evidence at all.
courts) in election cases involving e ecti e
disqualification case was filed after election and
after proclamation.
Meanwhile, the election results showed that It further ruled that if the instant case is deemed
Trinidad garnered the highest number of votes, to have been filed upon receipt by the
while Sunga trailed second. COMELEC of the letter-complaint on April 26
1995, it nevertheless remained pending until
On 10 May 1995 Sunga moved for the
after the election. If it is deemed to have been
suspension of the proclamation of Trinidad.
filed upon filing of the amended petition on 11
However, notwithstanding the motion, Trinidad
May 1995, it was clearly filed after the election.
was proclaimed the elected mayor, prompting
In either case, Resolution No. 2050 mandates
Sunga to file another motion to suspend
the dismissal of the disqualification case.
theeffects of the proclamation. Both motions
were not acted upon by the COMELEC 2nd Sunga filed the instant petition contending that
Division. the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the petition for
The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings
disqualification in that: Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646
of the Law Department and directed the filing of
requires the COMELEC to resolve the
the corresponding informations in the Regional
disqualification case even after the election and
Trial Court against Trinidad. Accordingly, four (4)
7 proclamation, and the proclamation and
informations for various elections offenses were assumption of office by Trinidad did not deprive
filed in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, the COMELEC of its jurisdiction; since Trinidad
Cagayan. The disqualification case, on the other was a disqualified candidate, it is as if petitioner
hand, was referred to the COMELEC 2nd was the only candidate entitled to be proclaimed
Division for hearing which subsequently as the duly elected mayor.
dismissed the petition for disqualification,
holding that Resolution No. 2050 provides for The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sunga as to
the outright dismissal of the disqualification case the grave abuse of discretion committed by
in three cases: (1) The disqualification case was COMELEC when it dismissed the petition for
filed before the election but remains unresolved disqualification stating that what the Resolution
until after the election; (2) The disqualification mandates in such a case is for the Commission
case was filed after the election and before the
proclamation of winners; and (3) The
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) support in law and jurisprudence. The fact that
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever the candidate who obtained the highest number
of votes is later disqualified for the office to
to refer the complaint to its Law Department for which he was elected does not entitle the
investigation to determine whether the acts candidate who obtained the second highest
complained of have in fact been committed by number of votes to be declared the winner of the
the candidate sought to be disqualified. The elective office. The votes cast for a disqualified
findings of the Law Department then become the person may not be valid to install the winner into
basis for disqualifying the erring candidate. This office or maintain him there. But in the absence
is totally different from the other two situations of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary
contemplated by Resolution No. 2050, i.e., a political and legislative policy on the matter, if
disqualification case filed after the election but the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the
before the proclamation of winners and that filed candidate was qualified, they should not be
after the election and the proclamation of treated as stray, void or meaningless.
winners, wherein it was specifically directed by
the same Resolution to be dismissed as a Sunga totally miscontrued the nature of our
disqualification case. And that the filing of four democratic electoral process as well as the
(4) criminal informations against Trinidad before sociological and psychological elements behind
the Regional Trial Court is an indication that voters' preferences. Election is the process of
there was indeed prima facie evidence of complete ascertainment of the expression of the
violation of election laws. popular will. Its ultimate purpose is to give effect
to the will of the electorate by giving them direct
ISSUE: Whether or not Sunga should be participation in choosing the men and women
proclaimed as the duly elected mayor in the who will run their government. Thus, it would be
event Trinidad is disqualified from the position. extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
RULING: No. Sunga cannot be proclaimed as constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a
Mayor. candidate who has not acquired the majority or
plurality of votes is proclaimed winner and
Sunga's contention that he is entitled to be imposed as the representative of a constituency,
proclaimed as the duly elected Mayor of the
Municipality of Iguig, Province of Cagayan, in the
event that Trinidad is disqualified finds no COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 26
Also, what Sunga wants us to do is to disregard
the express mandate of Sec. 44, RA No. 7160,
which provides in part —
the majority of whom have positively declared
through their ballots that they do not choose him. Sec. 44. Permanent vacancies in the
office of the Governor, Vice-Governor,
While Sunga may have garnered the second Mayor, Vice-Mayor. — (a) If a permanent
highest number of votes, the fact remains that vacancy occurs in the office of the
he was not the choice of the people of Iguig, Governor or Mayor, the Vice-Governor or
Cagayan. "The wreath of victory cannot be Vice-Mayor concerned shall become the
transferred from the disqualified winner to the Governor or Mayor . . .
repudiated loser because the law then as now
only authorizes a declaration of election in favor For purposes of this chapter, a permanent
of the person who has obtained a plurality of vacancy arises when an elective local
votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving official fills a higher vacant office, refuses
the next highest number of votes to be declared to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is
elected." In Aquino v. COMELEC, this Court removed from office, voluntarily resigns or
made the following pronouncement: is otherwise permanently incapacitated to
discharge the functions of his office . . . .
To simplistically assume that the second
placer would have received the other This provision is echoed in Art. 83 of the
votes would be to substitute our judgment Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
for the voter. The second placer is just Local Government Code of 1991.
that, a second placer. He lost the election. The language of the law is clear, explicit and
He was repudiated by either a majority or unequivocal, thus admits no room for
plurality of voters. He could not be interpretation but merely application. This is the
considered the first among qualified basic legal precept. Accordingly, in the event
candidates because in a field which that Trinidad is adjudged to be disqualified, a
excludes the disqualified candidate; the permanent vacancy will be created for failure of
conditions would have substantially the elected mayor to qualify for the said office. In
changed. We are not prepared to
extrapolate the results under such
circumstances.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) On 3 August 1992, petitioner instituted the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever instant proceedings seeking the declaration of
failure of election in forty-nine (49) precincts
such eventuality, the duly elected vice-mayor where less than a quarter of the electorate were
shall succeed as provided by law. able to cast their votes. He also prayed for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order to
enjoin private respondent from assuming office.
SULTAN MOHAMAD L. MITMUG vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL COMELEC denied the petition.
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LUMBA- ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC committed
BAYABAO, LANAO DEL SUR, and DATU an error in denying the petition.
GAMBAI DAGALANGIT
RULING: No. There was no error in denying the
G.R. No. 106270-73 February 10, 1994 petition.
FACTS: Petitioner SULTAN MOHAMAD L. As provided under the COMELEC Rules of
MITMUG and private respondent DATU Procedure, particularly Sec. 2, Rule 26, fefore
GAMBAI DAGALANGIT were among the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking
candidates for the mayoralty position of Lumba- to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions
Bayabao during the 11 may 1992 election. There must concur: first, no voting has taken place in
were sixty-seven (67) precincts in the the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law
municipality. or, even if there was voting, the election
The voter turnout during the election was rather nevertheless results in failure to elect; and,
low, particularly in forty-nine (49) precincts second, the votes not cast would affect the result
where the average voter turnout was 22.26%, of the election.
five (5) of these precincts did not conduct actual In the case before us, it is indubitable that the
voting at all. votes not cast will definitely affect the outcome
Consequently, COMELEC ordered the holding of of the election. But, the first requisite is missing,
a special election on 30 May 1992 in the five (5) i.e., that no actual voting took place, or even if
precincts which failed to function during election there is, the results thereon will be tantamount to
day. On 30 July 1992 another special election COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 27
was held for a sixth precinct.
RULLODA VS COMELEC (G.R. NO. 154198,

a failure to elect. Since actual voting and election JANUARY 20,2003)
by the registered voters in the questioned
precincts have taken place, the results thereof FACTS:
cannot be disregarded and excluded.
COMELEC therefore did not commit any abuse In the barangay elections of July 15, 2002,
of discretion, much less grave, in denying the Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L. Placido were
petitions outright. There was no basis for the the contending candidates for Barangay
petitions since the facts alleged therein did not Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto,
constitute sufficient grounds to warrant the relief Pangasinan. On June 22, 2002, Romeo suffered
sought. For, the language of the law expressly a heart attack and passed away. His widow,
requires the concurrence of these conditions to petiti ne et ni a “ ett ” Ru da, w te a etter to the
justify the calling of a special election. Comelec on June 25, 2002 seeking permission
to run as candidate for Barangay Chairman of
There can be failure of election in a political unit Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband.
only if the will of the majority has been defiled Petitioners request was supported by the
and cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be Appeal-Petition containing several signatures of
determined, it must be accorded respect. After people purporting to be members of the
all, there is no provision in our election laws electorate of Barangay Sto. Tomas.
which requires that a majority of registered
voters must cast their votes. All the law requires On July 14, 2002, Election Officer Ludivico L.
is that a winning candidate must be elected by a Asuncion issued a directive to the Chairman and
plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual Members of the Barangay Board of Canvassers
number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less than of Sto. Tomas as follows:
25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts
cast their votes, the same must still be Just in case the names BETTY or
respected. There is prima facie showing that PETRONILA or the surname RULLODA is
private respondent was elected through a
plurality of valid votes of a valid constituency.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for
certiorari, seeking to annul Section 9 of Resolution
written on the ballot, read the same as it No. 4801 and Resolution No. 5217, both of the
is written but add the words NOT COMELEC, insofar as they prohibited petitioner
COUNTED like BETTY NOT COUNTED from running as substitute candidate in lieu of her
or RULLODA NOT COUNTED. deceased husband; to nullify the proclamation of
respondent; and to proclaim her as the duly
During the canvass of votes, petitioner garnered elected Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San
516 votes while respondent Remegio Placido Jacinto, Pangasinan.
received 290 votes. Despite this, the Board of
Canvassers proclaimed Placido as the Barangay Private respondent Remegio Placido filed his
Chairman of Sto. Tomas. Comment, arguing that since the barangay
election is non-partisan, substitution of
After the elections, petitioner learned that the candidates is not allowed. Moreover, petitioner
COMELEC, acting on the separate requests of did not file any certificate of candidacy; hence,
Andres Perez Manalaysay and Petronila Rulloda there was only one candidate for Barangay
to be substituted as candidates for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, namely, respondent
Chairman of Barangay La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Placido.
Nueva Ecija and Barangay Sto. Tomas, San
Jacinto, Pangasinan, respectively, issued Public respondent COMELEC also filed its
Resolution No. 5217 dated July 13, 2002 which Comment. It contends that its Resolution No.
denied to give due course to their COCs and to 4801 was issued not pursuant to its quasi-
direct the respective election officer to delete judicial functions but as an incident of its
their names. The resolution is based on inherent administrative functions over the
C e ec’s Res uti n N 4801 w ic sets t e conduct of the barangay elections. Therefore,
guidelines on filing of COC, more particulary the same may not be the subject of review in a
Section 9 which states that: petition for certiorari.
Sec. 9. Substitution of candidates. There shall
be no substitution of candidates for barangay
and sangguniang kabataan officials.
Respondents base their argument that the
substitution of candidates is not allowed in
barangay elections on Section 77 of the
ISSUE: WON Petronilla Rulloda can substitute Omnibus Elections Code, which states:
his deceased husband.
Section 77. Candidates in case of death,
HELD: YES disqualification or withdrawal of another. If after
the last day of the filing of certificates of
At the outset, there is no dispute that petitioner candidacy, an official candidate of a registered
garnered 516 votes while respondent got only or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
290 votes. Respondents did not deny this in their disqualified for any cause, only a person
respective Comments. belonging to, and certified by the same political
party may file a certificate of candidacy to
In our jurisdiction, an election means the choice replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was
or selection of candidates to public office by disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated
popular vote through the use of the ballot, and by the political party concerned may file his
the elected officials which are determined certificate of candidacy for the office affected in
through the will of the electorate. An election is accordance with the preceding sections not later
the embodiment of the popular will, the than mid-day of the election. If the death,
expression of the sovereign power of the people. withdrawal or disqualification should occur
The winner is the candidate who has obtained a between the day before the election and mid-
majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the day of election day, said certificate may be filed
election. Sound policy dictates that public with any board of election inspectors in the
elective offices are filled by those who receive political subdivision where he is a candidate or,
the highest number of votes cast in the election in the case of candidates to be voted by the
for that office. For, in all republican forms of entire electorate of the country, with the
government the basic idea is that no one can be Commission.
declared elected and no measure can be
declared carried unless he or it receives a Private respondent argues that inasmuch as the
majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the barangay election is non-partisan, there can be
election.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Tomas in lieu of her late husband was treated as
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever a certificate of candidacy.
no substitution because there is no political party To reiterate, it was petitioner who obtained the
from which to designate the substitute. Such an plurality of votes in the contested election. Laws
interpretation, aside from being non sequitur, governing election contests must be liberally
ignores the purpose of election laws which is to construed to the end that the will of the people in
give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the the choice of public officials may not be defeated
voters. It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear by mere technical objections.
and unmistakable mandate of the people. It is
well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws
must be so construed as to give life and spirit to (iii) Construction/Limitations
the popular mandate freely expressed through
the ballot.
DUREMDES VS COMELEC OCTOBER 27,
Contrary to respondents claim, the absence of a 1989
specific provision governing substitution of FACTS:
candidates in barangay elections can not be
inferred as a prohibition against said In the 18 January 1988 elections, pet
substitution. Such a restrictive construction Ramon D. DUREMDES, private resp Cipriano B.
cannot be read into the law where the same is PENAFLORIDA, and Rufino Palabrica ran for
not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the office of Vice-Governor of the Province of
the substitution of candidates where no political Iloilo. DUREMDES was the official candidate of
parties are involved than when political the Liberal Party (LP) and PDP-Laban coalition,
considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact while PENAFLORIDA was the official candidate
that must have been subsumed by law. of the Lakas ng Bansa (Lakas).
Moreover, the Memorandum of the COMELEC
Law Department as well as the assailed During the canvass of votes by the
Resolution No. 5217, wherein it indubitably Provincial Board of Canvassers of Iloilo,
appears that petitioners letter-request to be PENAFLORIDA objected verbally to some 110
allowed to run as Barangay Chairman of Sto.
Code) ... because of the absolute certainty that
candidate Ramon Duremdes has obtained the
highest number of votes, whether or not the
election returns from various precincts, which he contested votes were excluded."
followed up with written objections which was
overruled by the board because it was not timely
On 2 February 1988, DUREMDES took
filed and no evidence was presented to support
his oath and assumed office. Also on 2 February
the charge. The Board thus ordered the
1988, an "Intervention with Motion to Dismiss"
inclusion of the questioned election returns. On
was filed by DUREMDES and two other
January 29, PENAFLORIDA and the Lakas filed
candidates for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
with the COMELEC an "Appeal by Way of a
seeking the denial of PENAFLORIDA's Petition
Petition for Review," for the exclusion of the
for Annulment before the COMELEC, for lack of
questioned election returns and for
merit. On 12 February 1988, Perla S. Zulueta
PENAFLORIDA's proclamation as the elected
(also an Intervenor in SPC Case No. 88-448),
Vice-Governor of Iloilo. On 30 January 1988,
filed a case pleading that she be proclaimed as
PENAFLORIDA filed with the Comelec a Petition
one of the winning candidates in the 10-member
seeking the annulment of election returns and
Iloilo Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
the suspension of the proclamation of any
candidate.
On 8 March 1988, PENAFLORIDA filed
an Amended Petition challenging the legality of
On 31 January 1988, the Board
the composition of the Provincial Board of
proclaimed DUREMDES as the duly elected
Canvassers, "a ground just known lately," and
Vice- Governor, together with the duly elected
praying for a recanvassing of the objected
Governor and only eight (8) members of the
election returns. On 4 April 1988, the COMELEC
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo. Certified to
granted a Motion for the consolidation of the two
was that DUREMDES had garnered 157,361
cases
votes (the number of his uncontested votes) in
2,377 precincts. Apparently, the Board had
made the proclamation upon DUREMDES'
"Manifestation and Motion," dated the same day,
31 January 1988, that "the contested returns will
not adversely affect the uncontested results of
the election (See Section 245, Omnibus Election
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Division certified and elevated the case to the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever COMELEC en banc. On 4 October 1988,
PENAFLORIDA filed a Motion to Suspend
On 20 June 1988, PENAFLORIDA filed Implementation of the Second Division
with the COMELEC a Supplemental Petition, Resolution which was granted by the
charging, among others, that DUREMDES was COMELEC.
proclaimed "on the basis of increased votes in
the unofficial and separately tallied Statement of On 12 January 1989, the COMELEC en
Votes, more than what was actually reflected in banc rendered a decision declaring as null and
the Election Returns." void the proclamation of Intervenor Ramon
Duremdes; Directing the Provincial Board of
On 20 September 1988, the COMELEC Canvassers of Iloilo to immediately reconvene
(Second Division), after hearing, issued a Per and to include in the canvass of votes for Vice-
Curiam Resolution, sustaining the rulings of the Governor the questioned/contested returns. For
Board of Canvassers on PENAFLORIDA's that purpose, the Board shall make a formal
objections as well as DUREMDES' proclamation. tabulation of the results of the contested returns
They also directed the board of canvassers to and shall prepare a new Statement of Votes and
include in the canvass the questioned election Certificate of Canvass.
returns and to proclaim the winning candidates
th th
for the 9 and 10 slots for SP and to direct the DUREMDES faults the COMELEC with
Law Department of the Commission to conduct a grave abuse of discretion for having disregarded
thorough investigation into the matter of the the well-settled doctrines (1) that matters of
reported falsification of the transcripts of the protest, objections or issues not originally raised
stenographic notes of Stenographer Nelly C. before the Board of Canvassers upon the
Escana to determine the parties responsible opening of the returns, cannot be raised for the
therefor and to cause the filing of the necessary first time before the COMELEC; and (2) that
criminal complaint against those probably guilty after a proclamation has been made, a pre-
thereof as the evidence may warrant. proclamation controversy is no longer viable, the
proper recourse, being an election protest.
PENAFLORIDA moved for
reconsideration, whereupon, the Second
Canvassers. As pointed out by the Solicitor
General, "it is a purely mechanical act of the
Board of Canvassers in the performance of
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed grave which the Commission has direct control and
abuse of discretion by declaring as null and void supervision," pursuant to Section 227 of the
the proclamation of Duremdes and by Omnibus Election Code. By virtue of that power,
disregarding well-settled doctrines.
added to its overall function to "decide all
questions affecting elections" (Article IX[C]
HELD: NO. It is true that, before the Board of Section 2[3], 1987 Constitution), a question
Canvassers, PENAFLORIDA did not raise in pertaining to the proceedings of said Board may
issue the matter of the discrepancies between be raised directly with the COMELEC as a pre-
the number of votes appearing in the Statement proclamation controversy.
of Votes and that in the Election Returns. As a
matter of fact that matter is not even listed as Sec. 241. Definition. — A pre-proclamation
one of the issues that may be raised in pre-
controversy refers to any question pertaining to
proclamation controversies under Section 243 of
or affecting the proceedings of the board of
the Omnibus Election Code. In this respect, the
canvassers which may be raised by any
law is silent as to when the same may be raised.
candidate or by any registered political party or
We are, however, not unmindful of the fact that
coalition of political parties before the board or
the statement of votes supports the certificate of
directy with the Commission, or any matter
canvass and shall be the basis of proclamation
raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in
(Sec. 231, paragraph 2). Consequently, any
relation to the exploration, transmission, receipt,
error in the Statement of Votes would affect the
custody and appreciation of the election returns
proclamation made on the basis thereof. The
(Omnibus Election Code). (Italics supplied).
true will of the electorate may thus be not fully
and faithfully reflected by the proclamation.
When so elevated, the COMELEC acts in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction for which
There was no grave abuse of discretion in the reason it is not indispensable that the issue be
foregoing COMELEC pronouncement. The
Statement of Votes is a tabulation per precinct of
the votes garnered by the candidates as
reflected in the election returns. Its preparation is
an administrative function of the Board of
DUREMDES also calls attention to Rule
13, Section 1 (g) of the COMELEC Rules of
raised before the Board of Canvassers during Procedure, which does not allow the filing of
the canvassing. The COMELEC is not supplemental pleadings. As stated heretofore,
discharging its appellate jurisdiction under however, these Rules took effect only on 15
Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, November 1988, or five months after the
which has to do with contests regarding the Supplemental Petition was filed. Said rule,
inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any therefore, cannot be given retroactive effect the
election returns, with a prescribed appellate legal truth being that laws of procedure may be
procedure to follow. retroactively applied provided no substantial
rights are impaired.
Cognizance may also be taken of the fact that at
the time PENAFLORIDA filed the Supplemental That discrepancies exist between the entries in
Petition on 20 June 1988, there was no clear-cut the Statement of Votes and that reflected in the
rule on the matter. It was only in the COMELEC questioned election returns, was openly
Rules of Procedure, which took effect on 15 admitted by the Chairman of the Board of
November 1988, wherein it was provided under Canvassers at the scheduled promulgation on
subparagraph (2), paragraph (a), Section 4 of 15 December 1988 of the 9th and 10th placers
Rule 27, that the matter of correction of the of the SP. Under the circumstances, therefore,
statement of votes may be the subject of a pre- and considering that any error in the Statement
proclamation case which may be filed directly of Votes would affect the proclamation made on
with the Commission. Nonetheless, there should the basis thereof, and primordially, in order to
be no question, considering Section 241 in determine the true will of the electorate, the
relation to Section 227 of the Omnibus Election COMELEC Decision ordering the Board of
Code, that the issue is one that can be raised Canvassers to reconvene and prepare a new
directly with the COMELEC. It is a procedure Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass
that best recommends itself specially should be upheld.
considering that the Statement of Votes is a vital
component in the electoral process. It supports
the Certificate of Canvass and is the basis for
proclamation.
Petition for Review" from the rulings of the
Board, and on 30 January 1988, a Petition for
the annulment of' election returns and the
The Commission on Elections has ample power suspension of the proclamation of any
to see to it that elections are held in a clean and candidate. The COMELEC had not resolved
orderly manner and it may decide all questions either Petition at the time the proclamation was
affecting the elections. It has original jurisdiction made. Pursuant to Sections 245, supra, and 238
on all matters relating to election returns, of the Omnibus Election Code, therefore, the
including the verification of the number of votes Board of Canvassers should not have
received by opposing candidates in the election proclaimed any candidate without waiting for the
returns as compared to the statement of votes in authorization by the COMELEC. Any
order to insure that the true will of the people is proclamation thus made is void ab initio.
known. Such clerical error in the statement of
votes can be ordered corrected by the
SEC. 238. Canvass of remaining or
COMELEC.
unquestioned returns to continue. — In cases
under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 hereof,
It is DUREMDES' further submission that his
the board of canvassers shall continue the
proclamation could not be declared null and void
canvass of the remaining or unquestioned
because a pre-proclamation controversy is not
election returns. If, after the canvass of all the
proper after a proclamation has been made, the
said returns, it should be determined that the
proper recourse being an election protest. This
returns which have been set aside will affect the
is on the assumption, however, that there has
result of the election, no proclamation shall be
been a valid proclamation. Where a
made except upon orders of the Commission
proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is
after due notice and hearing. Any proclamation
no proclamation at all and the proclaimed
made in violation hereof shall be null and void.
candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive
the COMELEC of the power to declare such
In this case, with 110 contested election
nullity and annul the proclamation. DUREMDES'
returns and 25,930 ballots questioned
proclamation must be deemed to have been null
(COMELEC Resolution, September 20,1988, p.
and void. It was made on 31 January 1988 after
PENAFLORIDA had filed with the COMELEC on
29 January 1988 an "Appeal by Way of a
Over and above all else, the
determination of the true will of the electorate
4, p. 115, Rollo), DUREMDES' margin of 7,286 should be the paramount consideration.
non-contested votes could very well be off-set.
Moreover, DUREMDES' proclamation was made
on the basis of an official canvass of the votes
cast in 2,377 precincts only, when there were BENITO VS. COMELEC
actually 2,487 precincts. The votes in 110 G.R. No. 106053 August 17, 1994
precincts, therefore, were not included, which is
exactly the number of 110 election returns
Petitioner Ottomama Benito and the deceased
questioned by PENAFLORIDA. Further,
Hadji Murad Kismen Sampiano Ogca were
DUREMDES was certified to have garnered
candidates for mayor in the municipality of
157,361 votes (ibid.), which number represents
Balabagan, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992
the non-contested votes only, and clearly
election. Murad Sampiano Ogca obtained a total
excludes the totality of the "contested/deferred
of 3,699 votes as against petitioner's 2,644.
votes" of the candidates concerned.
DUREMDES' proclamation having been based
On May 20, 1992, candidate Ogca was killed in
on an incomplete canvass, no grave abuse of
an ambush while returning home from the
discretion can be ascribed to the COMELEC for
residence of Lanao del Sur Governor Saidamen
directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers of
Pangarungan in Marawi City.
Iloilo "to immediately reconvene and to include in
the canvass of votes for Vice-Governor the
On the same date, petitioner, probably not aware
questioned/contested returns." All the votes cast
of the death of his opponent, filed a motion to
in an election must be considered because to
suspend the proclamation of Ogca as elected
disregard returns is in effect to disenfranchise
mayor of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur, contending
the voters (Mutuc vs. COMELEC, L-28517,
that there was strong evidence of guilt against him
February 21, 1968, 22 SCRA 662). A canvass
in a previous disqualification case.
can not be reflective of the true vote of the
electorate unless all returns are considered and
none is omitted (Datu Sinsuat vs. Pendatun, L- COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 32
31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630).
to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to
which he was elected does not necessarily
entitle the candidate who obtained the second
The Municipal Board of Directors, on the other highest number of votes to be declared the
hand, removed Ogca from the list of living 15
winner of the elective office. For to allow the
candidates including his obtained votes and
thereby proclaimed Benito as duly elected defeated and repudiated candidate to take over
mayor. the mayoralty despite his rejection by the
electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate
without any fault on their part and to undermine
On July 6, 1992, the COMELEC issued a
the importance and meaning of democracy and
resolution declaring the proclamation of
the people's right to elect officials of their choice.
petitioner an absolute nullity and of no force and
effect.
It is petitioner's further submission that the
appeal filed by the heirs of the deceased
ISSUE: W/N Benito was validly proclaimed as
mayoralty candidate from the May 30, 1992
mayor
ruling of the Balabagan Municipal Board of
Canvassers was filed out of time, the same
RULING: No. The proclamation of petitioner
having been submitted a day late. Well-settled is
Ottomama Benito as mayor-elect of Balabagan,
the doctrine that election contests involve public
Lanao del Sur, by the Municipal Board of
interest, and technicalities and procedural
Canvassers was not a valid proclamation.
barriers should not be allowed to stand if they
constitute and obstacle to the determination of
In every election, the people's choice is the the true will of the electorate in the choice of
paramount consideration and their expressed their elective officials. And also settled is the rule
will must, at all times, be given effect. When the that laws governing election contests must be
majority speaks and elects into office a liberally construed to the end that the will of the
candidate by giving him the highest number of people in the choice of public officials may not
votes cast in the election for that office, no one be defeated by mere technical objections.
can be declared elected in his place. Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the
The fact that the candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes dies, or is later declared
The Court declared:
election laws should not frustrate the "The cardinal objective in the appreciation of the
determination of the popular will. ballots is to discover and give effect to the
intention of the voter. That intention would be
nullified by the strict interpretation of the said
section as suggested by the petitioner for it
SOME PARTS OF THE RULING ON would result in the invalidation of the ballot even
FERNANDEZ V. COMELEC (april 2000) if duly accomplished by the voter, and simply
(from case of Libanan Vs. HRET) because of an omission not imputable to him but
to the election officials. The citizen cannot be
It should be noteworthy that in an unsigned deprived of his constitutional right of suffrage on
3rd April 1990 resolution, in "Jolly Fernandez vs. the specious ground that other persons were
COMELEC," the Court en banc had the negligent in performing their own duty, which in
opportunity to debunk the argument that all the case at bar was purely ministerial and
ballots not signed at the back thereof by the technical, by no means mandatory but a mere
Chairman and the Poll Clerk were to be antecedent measure intended to authenticate
considered spurious for non-compliance with the ballot. A contrary ruling would place a
Section 15 of R.A. No. 6646, i.e., "The Electoral premium on official ineptness and make it
Reforms Law of 1987," reading as follows: possible for a small group of functionaries, by
their negligence - or, worse, their deliberate
"Sec. 15. - Signature of Chairman and Poll Clerk inaction - to frustrate the will of the electorate."
at the Back of Every Ballot. - In addition to the
preliminary acts before the voting as (from case of Punzalan V Comelec)
enumerated in Section 191 of Batas Pambansa While Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7166,
Blg. 881, the chairman and the poll clerk of the otherwise known as An Act Providing For
board of election inspectors shall affix their Synchronized National and Local Elections and
signatures at the back of each and every official For Electoral Reforms, requires the BEI
ballot to be used during the voting. A certification COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 33
to that effect must be entered in the minutes of
the voting."
invalid. Ramirez countered that Libanan also
committed election offenses but later on
withdrew his counter charge. The evidence and
chairman to affix his signature at the back of the the issues submitted by the parties for
ballot, the mere failure to do so does not consideration by the HRET related mainly to the
invalidate the same although it may constitute an proper appreciation of the ballots objected to, or
election offense imputable to said BEI chairman. claimed by, the parties during the revision. No
Nowhere in said provision does it state that the evidence was presented in support of the other
votes contained therein shall be nullified. It is a allegations of the protest so the HRET
well-settled rule that the failure of the BEI concentrated on the appreciation of ballots. The
chairman or any of the members of the board to HRET recounted the votes cast on the valid
comply with their mandated administrative ballots and declared Ramirez as the winner of
responsibility, i.e., signing, authenticating and the election in Eastern Samar.
thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the
voter with disenfranchisement, thereby ISSUE: WON the absence of the signature of
frustrating the will of the people. the BEI chairman makes the ballot invalid.
HELD: "No spurious ballot was found in this

LIBANAN V. HRET G.R. No. 129783. case. For a ballot to be rejected for being
December 22, 1997 VITUG, J.: spurious, the ballot must have any of the
following authenticating marks: a) the
COMELEC watermark; b) the signatures or initial
FACTS: This is a petition to review the decision of the BEI Chairman at the back of the ballot;
of the HRET declaring Ramirez the winner of the and c) red and blue fibers. In the present case,
1995 congressional election of the lone district of all the ballots examined by the Tribunal had
Samar against the petitioner where Ramirez led COMELEC watermarks. "Fraud is not presumed.
as much as 600+votes. Libanan filed a petition It must be sufficiently established. Moreover,
with the HRET to annul the election and Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code
proclamation of Ramirez alleging that the provides in part that 'in the reading and
election was marred by massive election
irregularities, specifically that some of the ballots
were not signed by the BEI chairman and hence
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) FACTS: Private respondent filed
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever with public
respondent Commission on Elections
appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be (COMELEC) a “ etiti n t end t e
presumed to be valid unless there is clear and Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective
good reason to justify its rejection.' In the instant O icia s, e p e’s Initiati e” (De in etiti n)
case, there is no evidence to support wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order
protestant's allegation that the ballots he (1) Fixing the time and dates for signature
enumerated in hisMotion for Reconsideration are gathering all over the country; (2) Causing the
substitute ballots. The absence of the BEI necessary publications of said Order and the
Chairman's signature at the back of the ballot attac ed “ etiti n Initiati e n t e 1987
cannot be an indication of ballot switching or Constitution, in newspapers of general and local
substitution. At best, such absence of BEI circulation; and (3) Instructing Municipal Election
Chairman's signature is a prima facie evidence Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to
that the BEI Chairmen concerned were derelict assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing
in their duty of authenticating the ballots. Such signing stations at the time and on the dates
omission, as stated in the Decision, is not fatal to designated for the purpose. Delfin asserted that
the validity of the ballots. R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative
to amend the Constitution and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300 is a valid exercise of
II. KINDS OF ELECTIONS/DISTINCTIONS delegated powers. Petitioners contend that R.A.
No. 6375 failed to be an enabling law because of
III. INITIATIVE its deficiency and inadequacy, and COMELEC
IV. REFERENDUM Resolution No. 2300 is void.
ISSUE: Whether or not (1) the absence of

(i) RA 6735 (Initiative) subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, (2) R.A. No.
6735 is adequate to cover the system of initiative
on amendment to the Constitution, and (3)
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. COMELEC COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid. .
G.R No. 127325, March 19, 1997
DAVIDE, JR.
and Statistics Office a certificate on the total
number of registered voters in each legislative
district; (3) to assist, through its election
registrars, in the establishment of signature
HELD: NO. Petition (for prohibition) was stations; and (4) to verify, through its election
granted. The conspicuous silence in subtitles registrars, the signatures on the basis of the
simply means that the main thrust of the Act is egist ist te s, te s’ a ida its, and voters’ identi
initiative and referendum on national and local icati n ca ds used in t e immediately preceding
laws. R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide sufficient election.
standard for subordinate legislation. Provisions
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory
rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative
petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC
or amendments to the Constitution are declared
Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or
void.
given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The
respondent Commission must have known that
Subtitles are intrinsic aids for construction and the petition does not fall under any of the actions
interpretation. R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide or proceedings under the COMELEC Rules of
any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for
unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are which reason it did not assign to the petition a
specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle docket number. Hence, the said petition was
III. This deliberate omission indicates that the merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed.
atte pe p e’s initiati e t a end t e Constitution That petition was nothing more than a mere
was left to some future law. scrap of paper, which should not have been
dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order
petition for initiative only after its filing. The directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their
petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it,
before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with
sitting en banc. The only participation of the
COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of
such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the
petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) ponencia should be held to cover only the Delfin
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever petition and must not be so understood as
having intended or contemplated to embrace the
grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its signature drive of the Pedrosas. The grant of
time, energy, and resources. such a right is clearly implicit in the constitutional
mandate on people initiative.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
FRANCISCO, concurring and dissenting:
PUNO, concurring and dissenting: There is no question that my esteemed
I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our colleague Mr. Justice Davide has prepared a
esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Davide insofar scholarly and well-written ponencia.
as it orders the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin Nonetheless, I cannot fully subscribe to his view
petition. I regret, however, I cannot share the that R. A. No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the
view that R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC system of initiative on amendments to the
Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective and Constitution. (MELO and MENDOZA concur)
cann t i p e ent t e pe p e’s initiati e t amend the
Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition PANGANIBAN, concurring and dissenting:
with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario
on and should be dismissed. (MELO and G. Davide Jr., writing for the majority, holds that:
MENDOZA concur)
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or
VITUG, concurring and dissenting: with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the
“initiat ” De in etiti n
I vote for granting the instant petition before the (2) While the Constitution allows amendments to
Court and for clarifying that the TRO earlier “ e di ect p p sed t e pe p e t ug
issued by the Court did not prescribe the initiati e,” t e e is n i p e enting aw t e
exercise by the Pedrosas of their right to pu p se R 6735 is “inc p ete, inadequate,
campaign for constitutional amendments. wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution
[T]he TRO earlier issued by the Court which, is c nce ned ”
consequentially, is made permanent under the
converting the Subic military reservation into
alternative productive uses.
(3) C e ec Res uti n N 2330, “ins a as it
On November 24, 1992, the American navy
prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct
turned over the Subic military reservation to
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution,
the Philippines government. Immediately,
is id ”
petitioner commenced the implementation of its
task, particularly the preservation of the sea-
I concur with the first item above. Until and
ports, airport, buildings, houses and other
unless an initiatory petition can show the
installations left by the American navy.
required number of signatures — in this case,
12% of all the registered voters in the Philippines
On April 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of
with at least 3% in every legislative district — no
Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang
public funds may be spent and no government
Kapasyahan Bilang 10 , Serye 1993, expressing
resources may be used in an initiative to amend
therein its absolute concurrence, as required by
the Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot
said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to join the Subic
even entertain any petition absent such
Special Economic Zone and submitted such to
signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully
the Office of the President.
t e a it ’s tw t e u ings
On May 24, 1993, respondents Garcia filed a
petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY vs.
to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg.10, Serye
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ENRIQUE T.
1993.
GARCIA and CATALINO A. CALIMBAS
The petition prayed for the following: a) to nullify
Pambayang Kapasyang Blg. 10 for Morong to
FACTS:
join the Subic Special Economi Zone, b) to allow
Morong to join provided conditions are met.
On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted RA.
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon
7227 (The Bases Conversion and Development
the petition by promulgating Pambayang
Act of 1992), which created the Subic Economic
Zone. RA 7227 likewise created SBMA to
implement the declared national policy of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) bounds of the SSEZ including therein the portion
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever of the former naval base within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong.
Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993, requesting
Congress of the Philippines so amend certain On June 18, 1996, respondent Comelec issued
provisions of RA 7227. Resolution No. 2845and 2848, adopting a
"Calendar of Activities for local referendum and
Not satisfied, respondents resorted to their providing for "the rules and guidelines to govern
power initiative under the LGC of 1991. the conduct of the referendum.
On July 6, 1993, COMELEC denied the petition On July 10, 1996, SBMA instituted a petition for
for local initiative on the ground that the subject certiorari contesting the validity of Resolution
thereof was merely a resolution and not an No. 2848 alleging that public respondent is intent
ordinance. on proceeding with a local initiative that
proposes an amendment of a national law.
On August 15, 1993, respondents instituted a
petition for certiorari and mandamus before this ISSUE:
Court against the COMELEC and the Whether or not respondent Comelec commit
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan, to set grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and
aside Comelec Resolution No. 93-1623 insofar implementing Resolution No. 2848.
as it disallowed the conduct of a local initiative to
annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye RULING:
1993, and Comelec Resolution No. 93-1676 SC answer the question in the affirmative.
insofar as it prevented the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Bataan from proceeding with the To begin with, the process started by private
authentication of the required number of respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent
signatures in support of the initiative and the Comelec made preparations for a
gathering of signatures. REFERENDUM only. In fact, in the body of the
Resolution as reproduced in the footnote below
On February 1, 1995, the President issued
Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a
petition proposing to enact a national legislation;
and
the word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to
times, but "initiative" is not mentioned at all. The a petition proposing to enact a regional,
Comelec labeled the exercise as a provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,
"Referendum"; the counting of votes was resolution or ordinance.
entrusted to a "Referendum Committee"; the (b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by
documents were called "referendum returns"; the people through a proposition sent to
the canvassers, "Referendum Board of Congress or the local legislative body for action.
Canvassers" and the ballots themselves bore (c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate
the description "referendum". To repeat, not to approve or reject a legislation through an
once was the word "initiative" used in said body election called for the purpose. It may be of two
of Resolution No. 2848. And yet, this exercise is classes, namely:
unquestionably an INITIATIVE. c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a
petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part
There are statutory and conceptual thereof, passed by Congress; and
demarcations between a referendum and an c.2. Referendum on local law which refers to a
initiative. In enacting the "Initiative and petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or
Referendum Act, Congress differentiated one ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and
term from the other, thus: local legislative bodies.
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to Along these statutory definitions, Justice Isagani A.
propose amendments to the Constitution or to Cruz defines initiative as the "power of the people
propose and enact legislations through an to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject
election called for the purpose. them at the polls independent of the legislative
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: assembly." On the other hand, he explains that
a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to referendum "is the right reserved to the people to
a petition proposing amendments to the adopt or reject any act or measure which has been
Constitution;
passed by a legislative body and
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Prescinding from these definitions, we gather
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever that initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the
people directly either because the law-making
which in most cases would without action on the body fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance,
part of electors become a law." resolution or act that they desire or because they
want to amend or modify one already existing.
The foregoing definitions, which are based on
Black's and other leading American authorities, Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative
are echoed in the Local Government Code (RA body is given the opportunity to enact the
7160) substantially as follows: proposal. If its refuses/neglects to do so within
thirty (30) days from its presentation, the
"SEC. 120. Local Initiative Defined. -- Local proponents through their duly-authorized and
Initiative is the legal process whereby the registered representatives may invoke their
registered voters of a local government unit may power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the
directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. local legislative body concerned. Should the
proponents be able to collect the number of
"SEC. 126. Local Referendum Defined. -- Local signed conformities within the period granted by
referendum is the legal process whereby the said statute, the Commission on Elections "shall
registered voters of the local government units then set a date for the initiative (not referendum)
may approve, amend or reject any ordinance at which the proposition shall be submitted to the
enacted by the sanggunian. registered voters in the local government unit
concerned x x x".
The local referendum shall be held under the
control and direction of the Comelec within sixty On the other hand, in a local referendum, the
(60) days in case of provinces and cities, forty- law-making body submits to the registered
five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or
(30) days in case of barangays. rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is
duly enacted or approved by such law-making
The Comelec shall certify and proclaim the authority. Said referendum shall be conducted
results of the said referendum."
that "(n)o petition embracing more than one
subject shall be submitted to the electorate,"
although "two or more propositions may be
also under the control and direction of the submitted in an initiative".
Commission on Elections.
It should be noted that under Sec. 13 (c) of RA
In other words, while initiative is entirely the work
6735, the "Secretary of Local Government or his
of the electorate, referendum is begun and
designated representative shall extend
consented to by the law-making body. Initiative
assistance in the formulation of the proposition."
is a process of law-making by the people
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec
themselves without the participation and against
exercises administration and supervision of
the wishes of their elected representatives, while
the process itself, akin to its powers over the
referendum consists merely of the electorate
conduct of elections. These law-making
approving or rejecting what has been drawn up
powers belong to the people, hence the
or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the
respondent Commission cannot control or
process and the voting in an initiative are
change the substance or the content of
understandably more complex than in a
legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it
referendum where expectedly the voters will
may (in fact it should have done so already)
simply write either "Yes" or "No" in the ballot.
issue relevant and adequate guidelines and
rules for the orderly exercise of these "people-
From the above differentiation, it follows that power" features of our Constitution.
there is need for the Comelec to supervise an
initiative more closely, its authority thereon
extending not only to the counting and
canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that
the matter or act submitted to the people is in
the proper form and language so it may be
easily understood and voted upon by the
electorate. This is especially true where the
proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated,
and should thus be broken down into several
autonomous parts, each such part to be voted
upon separately. Care must also be exercised
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) verified the signatures of the 6.3 million
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever individuals.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an
AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, vs. THE modifications in the proposed Article XVIII
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.
FACTS: The COMELEC issued its Resolution denying
due course to the Lambino Group's petition for
On 15 February 2006, the group of Raul lack of an enabling law governing initiative
La in and E ic u entad (“La in petitions to amend the Constitution. The
G up”) c enced gate ing signatu es an COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in
initiative petition to change the 1987 Santiago v. Commission on Elections
Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the
Group filed a petition with the Commission on initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Elections (COMELEC) to hold a plebiscite that Constitution.
will ratify their initiative petition under Section
5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays
6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. The for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and
proposed changes under the petition will shift mandamus to set aside the COMELEC
the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. COMELEC to give due course to their initiative
petition. The Lambino Group contends that the
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
had the support of 6,327,952 individuals in denying due course to their petition since
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of Santiago is not a binding precedent.
all registered voters, with each legislative district Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and
its registered voters. The Lambino Group also
claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
the framers intended to adopt the relevant
American jurisprudence on peoples initiative;
and (b) in particular, the people must first see
their petition deserves cognizance as an
the full text of the proposed amendments before
expression of the "will of the sovereign people.
they sign, and that the people must sign on a
petition containing such full text.
ISSUES:
T e essence a end ents “di ect p p sed t e
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative pe p e t ug initiati e up n a petiti n”
petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of
is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition
the Constitution on amendments to the
by the people. This means two essential
Constitution through a people's initiative;
elements must be present.
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in
Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, First, the people must author and thus sign the
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and entire proposal. No agent or representative can
conditions" to implement the initiative clause on sign on their behalf.
proposals to amend the Constitution; and Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave proposal must be embodied in a petition.
abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Group's petition.
These essential elements are present only if the
full text of the proposed amendments is first
RULING:
shown to the people who express their assent by
1. The initiative petition does not comply with
signing such complete proposal in a petition. The
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
full text of the proposed amendments may be
direct proposal by the people.
either written on the face of the petition, or
attached to it. If so attached, the petition must
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the state the fact of such attachment. This is an
g e ning p isi n t at a ws a pe p e’s initiative to assurance that every one of the several millions
propose amendments to the Constitution. While
this provision does not expressly state that the
petition must set forth the full text of the
proposed amendments, the deliberations of the
framers of our Constitution clearly show that: (a)
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) equi es t at an initiati e ust e “di ect
p p sed t e pe p e in a petiti n” –
meaning that the people must sign on a petition
of signatories to the petition had seen the full
that contains the full text of the proposed
text of the proposed amendments before – not amendments. On so vital an issue as amending
after – signing.
t e nati n’s unda enta aw, t e w iting t e
M e e , “an initiati e signe ust e in ed
text of the proposed amendments cannot be
at the time of signing of the nature and effect of
hidden from the people under a general or
t at w ic is p p sed” and ai u e t d s is
special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless,
“decepti e and is eading” which renders the
and unelected individuals.
initiative void.
2. A revisit of Santiago vs. COMELEC is not
In t e case t e La in G up’s petiti n, necessary.
t e e’s n t a sing e w d, p ase, sentence
text of the proposed changes in the signature The petition failed to comply with the basic
sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the
that the text of the proposed changes is attached Constitution on the conduct and scope of a
to it. The signature sheet merely asks a question peoples initiative to amend the Constitution.
whether the people approve a shift from the There is, therefore, no need to revisit this Courts
Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral- ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete,
Parliamentary system of government. The inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
signature sheet does not show to the people the
draft of the proposed changes before they are amend the Constitution. An affirmation or
asked to sign the signature sheet. This omission
reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome
is fatal.
of the present petition. It settled that courts will
not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if
An initiative that gathers signatures from the the case can be resolved on some other
people without first showing to the people the full grounds.
text of the proposed amendments is most likely
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, this will
a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud
not change the result here because the present
n t e pe p e T at’s w t e C nstituti n
Initiative for Reform, Modernization and
Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC. For following
this Court's ruling, no grave abuse of discretion
petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the is attributable to the COMELEC. On this ground
Constitution, which provision must first be alone, the present petition warrants outright
complied with even before complying with RA dismissal. Thus, this Court should reiterate its
6735. Worse, the petition violates the following unanimous ruling in PIRMA:
provisions of RA 6735: The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that
no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed
a. Section 5(b), requiring that the people must to the public respondent COMELEC in
sign the petition as signatories. The 6.3 million dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it
signatories did not sign the petition or the appearing that it only complied with the
amended petition filed with the COMELEC. Only dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in
Attys. Lambino, Donato and Agra signed the G.R. No. 127325, promulgated on March 19,
petition and amended petition. 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, 1997.
b. Section 10(a), providing that no petition
embracing more than one subject shall be (ii) Requirements; Procedure; Effectivity
submitted to the electorate. The proposed
Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions,
mandating the interim Parliament to propose
further amendments or revisions to the V. RECALL
Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated
to the shift in the form of government.
(i) Definition/Nature
3. The COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the
Lambino Group's Initiative
In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative

petition, the COMELEC en banc merely followed
this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's
Petitioners filed with the respondent COMELEC
a petition to deny due course to said Resolution
GARCIA VS COMELEC No. 1. Petitioners alleged that the PRAC failed to
GR NO 111511 OCTOBER 5, 1993 comply with the "substantive and procedural
requirement" laid down in Section 70 of R.A.
FACTS: 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991
Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was elected
governor of the province of Bataan in the May Respondent COMELEC dismissed the petition
11, 1992 elections. In the early evening of July and scheduled the recall elections for the
1993, some mayors, vice-mayors and members position of Governor of Bataan. Petitioners then
of the Sangguniang Bayan of the 12 filed with the SC a petition for certiorari and
municipalities of the province met at the National prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction to
Power Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. annul the said Resolution
At about 12:30 A.M of the following day, July 2,
1993, they proceeded to the Bagac town plaza They urged that section 70 of R.A. 7160 allowing
where they constituted themselves into a recall through the initiative of the PRAC is
Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall unconstitutional because: (1) the people have
election of petitioner Garcia. the sole and exclusive right to decide
whether or not to initiate proceedings, and
The Vice-Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben (2) it violated the right of elected local public
Roque moved that a resolution be passed for the officials belonging to the political minority to
recall of the petitioner on the ground of "loss of equal protection of law. They also argued that
confidence. the proceedings followed by the PRAC in
passing Resolution No. I suffered from
146 names appeared in Resolution No. 1 but numerous defects, the most fatal of which was
only 80 carried the signatures of the members of the deliberate failure to send notices of the
the PRA. Of the 80 signatures, only 74 were meeting to 65 members of the assembly.
found genuine. The PRAC of the province had a
membership of 144 and its majority was 73.
mechanisms of recall as its discernment
dictates.
SC granted the petition on ground that the
What the Constitution simply required is that the
sending of selective notices to members of the
mechanisms of recall, whether one or many, to
PRAC violated the due process protection of the
be chosen by Congress should be effective.
Constitution and fatally flawed the enactment of
Using its constitutionally granted discretion,
Resolution No. 1.
Congress deemed it wise to enact an alternative
mode of initiating recall elections to supplement
ISSUE(S): 1) W/N the people have the sole and the former mode of initiation by direct action of
exclusive right to initiate recall proceedings. the people. The legislative records reveal there
2) W/N the procedure for recall violated the right were two (2) principal reasons why this
of elected local public officials belonging to the alternative mode of initiating the recall process
political minority to equal protection of the law. thru an assembly was adopted, viz: (a) to
diminish the difficulty of initiating recall thru the
RULING: direct action of the people; and (b) to cut down
st on its expenses.
1 issue: No. There is nothing in the
Constitution that will remotely suggest that the nd
2 issue: No. Under the Sec. 70 of the LGC, all
people have the "sole and exclusive right to
mayors, vice-mayors and sangguniang members
decide on whether to initiate a recall
of the municipalities and component cities are
proceeding." The Constitution did not provide for
made members of the preparatory recall
any mode, let alone a single mode, of initiating
assembly at the provincial level. Its membership
recall elections. The mandate given by section 3
is not apportioned to political parties. No
of Article X of the Constitution is for Congress to
significance is given to the political affiliation of
"enact a local government code which shall
its members. Secondly, the preparatory recall
provide for a more responsive and accountable
assembly, at the provincial level includes all the
local government structure through a system of
elected officials in the province concerned.
decentralization with effective mechanisms of Considering their number, the greater probability
recall, initiative, and referendum . . ." By this
constitutional mandate, Congress was clearly
given the power to choose the effective
is that no one political party can control its (ii) Modes of Initiating
majority. Thirdly, sec. 69 of the Code provides
that the only ground to recall a locally elected
public official is loss of confidence of the people. (iii) Procedure/Effectivity/Limitations
The members of the PRAC are in the PRAC not
in representation of their political parties but as
(iv) Cases
representatives of the people. By necessary
implication, loss of confidence cannot be
premised on mere differences in political party
PARAS VS COMELEC
affiliation. Indeed, our Constitution encourages
GR NO 123169 NOVEMBER 4, 1996
multi-party system for the existence of
opposition parties is indispensable to the growth
FACTS: Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent
and nurture of democratic system. Clearly then,
Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who
the law as crafted cannot be faulted for
won during the last regular barangay election in
discriminating against local officials belonging to
1994. A petition for his recall as Punong
the minority. Moreover, the law instituted
Barangay was filed by the registered voters of
safeguards to assure that the initiation of the
the barangay. Acting on the petition for recall,
recall process by a preparatory recall assembly
public respondent Commission on Elections
will not be corrupted by extraneous influences.
(COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition.
We held that notice to all the members of the
recall assembly is a condition sine qua non to
At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed
the validity of its proceedings. The law also
the petition, well above the 25% requirement
requires a qualified majority of all the
provided by law. The COMELEC, however,
preparatory recall assembly members to
deferred the recall election in view of petitioners
convene in session and in a public place.
opposition. The COMELEC set anew the recall
Needless to state, compliance with these
election. To prevent the holding of the recall
requirements is necessary, otherwise, there will
be no valid resolution of recall which can be COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 41
given due course by the COMELEC.

Paragraph (b) of Sec 74 of the LGC construed
together with paragraph (a) merely designates
the period when such elective local official may
election, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial be subject of a recall election, that is, during the
Court of Cabanatuan City a petition for injunction second year of his term of office. Thus,
with the trial court issuing a temporary subscribing to petitioners interpretation of the
restraining order. After conducting a summary phrase regular local election to include the SK
hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining order election will unduly circumscribe the novel
and dismissed the petition. provision of the Local Government Code on
COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the recall. And if the SK election which is set by R.A.
recall election hence, the instant petition for No. 7808 to be held every three years from May
certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. 1996 were to be deemed within the purview of
the phrase regular local election, as erroneously
Petitioners argues that Section 74 (b) of Republic insisted by petitioner, then no recall election can
Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local be conducted rendering inutile the recall
Government Code, states that no recall shall take provision of the Local Government Code.
place within one (1) year from the date of the
officials assumption to office or one (1) year Recall election is potentially disruptive of the
immediately preceding a regular local election. normal working of the local government unit
Petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13, necessitating additional expenses, hence the
1996 recall election is now barred as the prohibition against the conduct of recall election
Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set by one year immediately preceding the regular local
Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May election. The proscription is due to the proximity
1996, and every three years thereafter. of the next regular election for the office of the
local elective official concerned. The electorate
ISSUE: W/N the prohibition on Sec.74(b) of the could choose the officials replacement in the
LGC may refer to SK elections, where the recall said election who certainly has a longer tenure in
election is for Barangay post. office than a successor elected through a recall
election. It would, therefore, be more in keeping
RULING: NO. with the intent of the recall provision of the Code
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Private respondent de Alban was also a
candidate in said elections.
to construe regular local election as one
referring to an election where the office held by September, 1996 – private respondent
the local elective official sought to be recalled respondent filed with the Local Election
will be contested and be filled by the electorate. Registrar in Tumauni, Isabela, a Petition for
Recall against the petitioner.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer
possible because of the limitation stated under Acting on the petition, Deputy Executive Director
Section 74 (b) of the Code considering that the for Operations Pio Jose Joson submitted to the
next regular election involving the barangay COMELEC En Banc, a Memorandum[4] dated
office concerned is barely seven (7) months October 8, 1996 recommending approval of the
away, the same having been scheduled on May petition for recall filed by private respondent and
1997 (the case has already become moot and its signing by other qualified voters in order to
academic) garner at least 25% of the total number of
registered voters as required by Section 69(d) of
the Local Government code of 1991.
G.R. NO. 126576. MARCH 5, 1997
MAYOR RICARDO M. In turn acting on the abovementioned
ANGOBUNG, PETITIONER, VS. Memorandum of Deputy Executive Director
COMMISSSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Joson, the COMELEC en banc issued the herein
AND ATTY. AURORA S. DE assailed Resolution No. 96-2951.
ALBAN, RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned
FACTS: resolution as being unconstitutional and
therefore invalid, on two main grounds:
Petitioner won as the duly elected Mayor of the On October 25, 1996, the Supreme Court issued
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela in the local a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining public
elections of 1995. He garnered 55% of all the
votes cast.
to be actually contested and filled by the
electorate. Thus, in the instant case where the time
bar is being invoked by petitioner mayor in view of
respondent COMELEC from implementing and the approaching Barangay Elections in May 1997,
enforcing Resolution No. 96-2951. there can be no application of the one year bar,
hence no invalidity may be ascribed to Resolution
No. 96-2951 on this ground.
ISSUE:
(1) W/N the resolution of the Comelec
No. Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer
scheduling the recall election within one (1) year
by the people before the end of his term of office.
from the May 12, 1997 Barangay Elections is
The peoples prerogative to remove a public officer
valid.
is an incident of their sovereign power and in the
absence of constitutional restraint, the power is
(2) W/N the resolution approving the Petition for
implied in all governmental operations. Such
Recall albeit same was signed by just one
power has been held to be indispensable for the
person in violation of the statutory 25% minimum
proper administration of public affairs. Not
requirement as to the number of signatures
undeservedly, it is frequently described as a
supporting and petition for recall was proper.
fundamental right of the people in a representative
democracy.
RULING:
Recall as a mode of removal of elective local
YES. Private respondent is correct in saying that in
officials made its maiden appearance in section
the light of our pronouncement in Paras v.
2 of Article XI entitled Local Government, viz:
COMELEC, the recall election scheduled on
December 2, 1996 in the instant case cannot be
SEC. 2. The Batasang Pambansa shall enact a
said to be barred by the May 12, 1997 Barangay
local government code which may not thereafter
Elections. In construing the meaning of the term,
be amended except by a majority vote of all its
regular local election in Section 74 of the Local Members, defining a more responsive and
Government Code of 1991 which provides that no
recall shall take place within one (1) year x x x
immediately preceding a regular local election, we
ruled that for the time bar to apply, the
approaching regular local election must be one
where the position of the official to be recalled, is
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) be amended except by a majority vote of all its
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Members, defining a more responsive and
accountable local government structure with an
accountable local government structure with an effective system of recall x x x
effective system of recall x x x
The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337
The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337 entitled, The Local Government Code of 1983
entitled, The Local Government Code of 1983 Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only one
Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only one mode of initiating the recall elections of local
mode of initiating the recall elections of local election officials, i.e., by petition of at least
election officials, i.e., by petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters in the local government unit
registered voters in the local government unit concerned x x x.
concerned x x x.
Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by Section 3 of its Article X also reiterated the
the people before the end of his term of office. mandate for Congress to enact a local
The peoples prerogative to remove a public government code which shall provide for a more
officer is an incident of their sovereign power responsive and accountable local government
and in the absence of constitutional restraint, the structure instituted through a system of
power is implied in all governmental operations. decentralization with effective mechanisms of
Such power has been held to be indispensable recall, initiative and referendum x x x. In
for the proper administration of public affairs. Not response to this constitutional call, Congress
undeservedly, it is frequently described as a enacted R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the
fundamental right of the people in a Local Government Code of 1991, which took
representative democracy. effect on January 1, 1992.[16]
Recall as a mode of removal of elective local Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of
officials made its maiden appearance in section 1991 expressly provides that recall of any
2 of Article XI entitled Local Government, viz: elective x x x municipal x x x official may also be
SEC. 2. The Batasang Pambansa shall enact a
local government code which may not thereafter
The court finally says, We can not and must not,

under any and all circumstances, countenance a
validly initiated upon petition of at least twenty-
circumvention of the explicit 25% minimum voter
five percent (25%) of the total number of
requirement in the initiation of the recall process.
registered voters in the local government unit
Petetion Granted.
concerned during the election in which the local
official sought to be recalled was elected. The
law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates
recall proceedings: only a petition of at least 25% G.R. NO. 127066 MARCH 11, 1997
of the total number of registered voters, may
validly initiate recall proceedings. We take REYNALDO O. MALONZO VS. THE
careful note of the phrase, petition of at least HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
twenty-five percent (25%) and point out that the AND THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY
law does not state that the petition must be (CALOOCAN CHAPTER) AND ALEX L.
signed by at least 25% of the registered voters; DAVID, CONRADO G. CRUZ, TRINIDAD
rather, the petition must be of or by, at least 25% REPUNO, GLORIA M. CRUZ, MIRALI M.
of the registered voters, i.e., the petition must be DURR, FERMIN JIMENEZ, AURELIO BILUAN,
filed, not by one person only, but by at least 25% ROGELIO SARAZA, HELENE VALBUENA,
of the total number of registered voters.This is AND HIGINO RULLEPA
understandable, since the signing of the petition
is statutorily required to be undertaken before FACTS:
the election registrar or his representative, and in Malonzo was elected as Mayor of Caloocan
the presence of a represetantive of the official City in the elections held on May 8, 1995.
sought to be recalled, and in public place in the x However, barely a year after his election, on July
x x municipality x x x.[17] Hence, while the 7, 1996, 1,057 Punong Barangays,
initiatory recall petition may not yet contain the Sangguniang Barangay members and SK
signatures of at least 25% of the total number of chairmen constituting a majority of the
registered voters, the petition must contain the Preparatory Recall Assembly of Caloocan
names of at least 25% of the total number of passed Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution
registered voters in whose behalf only one No. 01-96,
person may sign the petition in the meantime.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Whether or not the recall proceeding was valid.
expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo, RULING:

and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings
against him. Yes. The recall process was valid. The notices
were propery served to the members of the
The said resolution, along with other relevant PRA. Moreover, it was the PRA which initiated
documents, was filed by the PRA with the the recall and not the Liga ng mga Barangay.
COMELEC. Malonzo filed a petition with The resolution was properly adopted in a
COMELEC challenging the validity of recall meeting conducted by the PRA.
process. The COMELEC, however, rejected the
petition. It then declared the recall proceedings Service of the notices
to be in order. The COMELEC adequately ruled on the issue of
the service of notices to the members of the
Malonzo then filed a Petition for Certiorari With PRA. In response to petitioner's request for a
Prayer For Temporary Restraining Order and technical examination of the recall documents,
Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction", the COMELEC directed its Election Records and
assailing the COMELEC's resolution as having Statistics Department (ERSD) to resolve the
been issued with grave abuse of discretion. matter of notices sent to the Preparatory Recall
Malonzo challenged the recall proceedings, Assembly members. The ERSD in turn
essentially claiming that the notices for the performed its task and reported its findings to
meeting of the PRA were not properly served. the COMELEC.
Moreover, he argued that it was the Liga ng mga The ERSD and the COMELEC found that the
Barangay and not the PRA which initiated the notices were properly served.
recall, contrary to the requirements under the
Local Government Code. He also claimed that At the time the PRA was convened, there were
the proceeding followed for adopting the recall 1, 699 barangay officials. 1, 927 notices were
resolution was defective and therefore void. sent. Service was done through personal
delivery or by mail. Most of these were properly
ISSUE:
just so happens that the personalities
representing the barangays in the Liga are the
very members of the Preparatory Recall
received while there were some who refused to Assembly, the majority of whom met on July 7,
accept the notice. These were all duly noted. 1996, and voted in favor of the resolution calling
The COMELEC found no irregularities in the for the recall of Mayor Malonzo, after
service of the notices.
deliberation reported in the record, in
accordance with the existing law. Thus, the
Morever, that Alex David, president of the Liga Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay
ng mga Barangay, sent the notices is of no members convened and voted as members of
moment. As a member of the PRA, he could the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the City of
validly exercise the prerogatives attached to his Caloocan, and not as members of the Liga ng
membership. mga Barangay. The recall proceedings,
therefore, cannot be denied merit on this ground.
Needless to state, the issue of propriety of the The law on recall did not prescribe an elaborate
notices sent to the PRA members is factual in proceeding. Neither did it demand a specific
nature, and the determination of the same is procedure. What is fundamental is compliance
therefore a function of the COMELEC. In the with the provision that there should be a session
absence of patent error, or serious called for the purpose of initiating recall
inconsistencies in the findings, the Court should proceedings, attended by a majority of all the
not disturb the same. The factual findings of the members of the preparatory recall assembly, in a
COMELEC, based on its own assessments and public place and that the resolution resulting
duly supported by gathered evidence, are from such assembly be adopted by a majority of
conclusive upon the court, more so, in the all the PRA members
absence of a substantiated attack on the validity
of the same.
Validity of the recall proceedings

Ma nz ’s insistence, t at t e initiati n t e recall
proceedings was infirm since it was convened by
the Liga ng mga Barangays, is misplaced. The
Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity
distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly. It
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Limitations on Recall. - (a) Any elective
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever local official may be the subject of a recall
election only once during his term of
CLAUDIO V. COMELEC office for loss of confidence.
G.R. 140560. MAY 4, 2000
(b) No recall shall take place within one
FACTS (1) year from the date of the official's
Jovito Claudio was the duly elected mayor of assumption to office or one (1) year
Pasay City during the 11 May 1998 elections. He immediately preceding a regular local
assumed office on 1 July 1998. election. Xxxx
On 19 May 1999, an ad hoc committee was The COMELEC granted the petition. It ruled that
formed for the purpose of convening a the petition did not violate the one-year ban
epa at Reca sse (“ R ”) because the petition was filed on 2 July 1999,
ne da a te C audi ’s assu pti n ice
On 29 May 1999, majority of the members of the
PRA adopted a Resolution to Initiate the Recall ISSUES
of Mayor Jovito Claudio for Loss of Confidence. 1. WoN the word recall in Sec. 74(b), LGC
covers a process which includes the convening
On 2 July 1999, the petition for recall was of the Preparatory Recall Assembly and its
formally submitted to the Office of the Election approval of the recall resolution.
Officer. Copies of the petition were posted in 2. WoN the term "regular local election" in the
public places in Pasay City and the authenticity last clause of Sec. 74(b), LGC includes the
of the signatures therein was verified by the election period for that regular election or simply
election officer for Pasay City. the date of such election.
The petition was opposed on several grounds. HELD/RATIO

Principally, that the convening of the PRA took 1. The word recall in Sec. 74(b), LGC refers to
place within the one-year prohibited period the to the election itself by means of which
under Sec. 74, LGC which provides:
In Garcia v. COMELEC, the delegation of the
power to initiate recall proceedings from the
electorate to the PRAs was questioned. The
voters decided whether they shall retain their Supreme Court held that what the Constitution
local official or elect his replacement.
gave to the people is the power to recall and
not the power to initiate the recall
Recall is a process which involves the proceedings. The holding of the PRA is not
following steps: the recall itself.
(1) The convening of the preparatory
assembly or gathering of the signatures of at (2) That the word recall refers to the recall
least 25% registered voters in the LGU; election is consistent with the purposes of the
(2) The filing of the recall resolution or petition limitations on recall.
with the COMELEC;
(3) The verification of the resolution or The purpose of the first limitation is to provide
petition; a reasonable basis for judging the
(4) Fixing of the date of the recall election; and performance of the official (Angobung v.
(5) Holding of the election. COMELEC). This judgment is not given during
the preliminary proceedings (such as the
T at t e w d “ eca ” used in Sec 74 ( ), LGC, convening of the PRA) but through the vote
refers to the recall election itself is due to the during the recall election itself.
following reasons:
(3) That the word recall refers to the recall
(1) Sec. 69, LGC provides that the power of election is to uphold the constitutional rights of
recall shall be exercised by the registered speech and freedom of assembly of PRA
voters of the LGU to which the local elective members.
official belongs. It is clear that the power of
recall referred to in Sec. 69 is the power to To hold that limitation includes the formation
retain/replace officials and not the power to of opinion through public
initiate recall proceedings. Thus, the limitations
under Sec. 74 (Limitations on Recall) apply only
to the recall elections.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Petition DISMISSED.
discussions on the matter of recall of an AFIADO V. COMELEC

official is to curtail these constitutional G.R. 141787. SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
rights.
FACTS
2. The term “regular elections” does not include During the May 11, 1998 elections in Santiago
the election period. City, Joel Miranda won as Mayor while Amelita
Navarro won as vice-mayor. Miranda was
T c nst ue t e w d “ egu a e ecti ns” as removed from office after it was held that the
including the election period would certificate of candidacy of his father Antonio
emasculate the right of the people to Abaya (whom Joel substituted) was not valid
exercise the power of recall. thus Joel Miranda could not
be validly proclaimed as the winner in the
In Paras v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court mayoralty elections. By virtue of the law on
held that the limitations on Sec. 74 (a) and succession, Navarro became the new mayor. On
Sec. 74 (b) would mean that a local elective the other hand when she was still a vice-mayor,
official may be subject only to recall during Navarro was sought to be recalled through a
the second year of his/her term (in this case, preparatory recall assembly (PRA) and its PRA
from 1 July 1999 to mid-May 2000) Resolution No. 1. Navarro, in response to this,
filed a petition (EM No. 99-006) which aimed to
I t e “ egu a e ecti ns” enti ned in Sec 74(b) annul the said PRA Resolution. On December 27,
would include the election period, which 1999, petitioners alleged that they were not
commences 90 days from the date of the informed nor were they aware of the
election and extends to 30 days thereafter, developments as to EM No. 99-006, thus they
the period during which the power of recall filed an urgent Motion for the Early Resolution of
may be exercised will be reduced even more. EM No. 99-006. They further alleged that the
(In this case, from 1 July 1999 to mid- COMELEC’s inaction in resolving the said petition
February 2000) will render the PRA
The title itself suggests that the recall is intended
for the incumbent Vice Mayor of Santiago City.
The third paragraph of the resolution recounted
Resolution moot and academic since recall "the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro that
elections cannot be undertaken anymore come brought forth the loss of confidence in her
June 30, 2000 (one year after the assumption of capacity and fitness to discharge the duties and
office) pursuant to Sec. 74 of the Local to perform the functions of her public office." And
Government Code. because of such acts, the assembly
"RESOLVED to invoke the rescission of the
ISSUE electoral mandate of the incumbent City Vice
WoN an elective official who became City Mayor Mayor." Clearly, the intent of the PRA as
by legal succession can be the subject of a expressed in the said Resolution is to remove
recall election by virtue of a Preparatory Recall the petitioner as Vice Mayor for they already lost
Assembly Resolution which was passed or their confidence in her by reason of her official
adopted when the said elective official was still acts as such.
the Vice-Mayor.
To recall, then, the petitioner when she is
HELD/RATIO already the incumbent City Mayor is to deviate
No, such action is already moot and academic. from the expressed will of the PRA. Having,
The assumption by legal succession of the thus, succeeded to the position of City Mayor,
petitioner as the new Mayor of Santiago City is a the petitioner was placed beyond the
supervening event which rendered the reach of the effects of the PRA Resolution.
recall proceeding against her moot and Even if the Preparatory Recall Assembly
academic. A perusal of the said Resolution were to reconvene to adopt another resolution
reveals that the person subject of the recall for the recall of Amelita Navarro, this time as
process is a specific elective official in relation to Mayor of Santiago City, the same would still not
her specific office. The said resolution is replete prosper in view of Section 74 (b) of the Local
with statements, which leave no doubt that the Government Code of 1991 which provides that
purpose of the assembly "No recall shall take place within one (1) year
was to recall petitioner as Vice Mayor for her
official acts as Vice Mayor.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever FACTS:
On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991
from the date of the official's assumption of office calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976
or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular t e Citizens sse ies (“ a anga s”) t
election." There is no more allowable time in the resolve, among other things, the issues of
light of that law within which to hold recall martial law, the interim assembly, its
elections for that purpose. The then Vice-Mayor replacement, the powers of such replacement,
Amelita S. Navarro assumed office as Mayor of the period of its existence, the length of the
Santiago City on October 11, 1999. One year period for the exercise by the President of his
after her assumption of office as Mayor will be present powers. Twenty days after, the
October 11, 2000 which is already within the one President issued another related decree, PD No.
(1) year prohibited period immediately preceding 1031, amending the previous PD No. 991, by
the next regular election in May 2001. declaring the provisions of PD No. 229 providing
for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in
“ a anga s” app ica e t t e nati na
VI. PLEBISCITE referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16, 1976. Quite
relevantly, PD No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec
4, of PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept
(i) Definition/Process 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 1033, stating the
questions to he submitted to the people in the
(ii) Section 10 Article X 1987 Constitution referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The
Dec ee ecites in its “w e eas” c auses t at t e
pe p e’s c ntinued pp siti n t t e c n ening
(iii) Nature/Requirements/Jurisdiction of the interim National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and
PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. replaced thru a constitutional amendment,
SANIDAD vs. providing for a new interim legislative body,
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS which will be submitted directly to the people in
and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.
G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976
a function normally exercised by the legislature,
is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the
1973 Constitution, the power to propose
amendments to the Constitution resides in the
On September 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a interim National Assembly during the period of
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to transition (Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After
enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding that period, and the regular National Assembly in
and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on its active session, the power to propose
October 16; to declare without force and effect amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative
Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1
as they propose amendments to the and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 Constitution). The normal
Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. course has not been followed. Rather than
1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on calling the interim National Assembly to
Elections to supervise, control, hold, and constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the
conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled incumbent President undertook the proposal of
on October 16, 1976.Petitioners contend that amendments and submitted the proposed
under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to
no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on
the constituent power to propose amendments October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of the
to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the procedure for amendments, written in lambent
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no words in the very Constitution sought to be
constitutional or legal basis. The Soc-Gen amended, raises a contestable issue. The
contended that the question is political in nature implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991,
hence the court cannot take cognizance of it. 1031, and 1033, which commonly purport to
have the force and effect of legislation are
ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity
propose amendments to the Constitution. of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within
the competence of this Court to pass upon.
HELD: Yes. The amending process both as to
proposal and ratification raises a judicial
question. This is especially true in cases where
the power of the Presidency to initiate the
amending process by proposals of amendments,
Republic Act No. 7155 creates the Municipality
Section 2 (2) Article X of the new Constitution of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines
p ides: “ cases in ing t e c nstituti na it Norte to be composed of Barangays Tulay-Na-
of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod,
heard and decided by the Supreme Court en Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot,
banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law and Calabasa, all in the Municipality of Labo,
may be declared unconstitutional without the same province.
c ncu ence at east ten Me es ”T e
Supreme Court has the last word in the Pursuant to said law, the COMELEC issued a
construction not only of treaties and statutes, but resolution for the conduct of a plebiscite. The
also of the Constitution itself. The amending, like said resolution provides that the plebiscite shall
all other powers organized in the Constitution, is be held in the areas or units affected, namely the
in form a delegated and hence a limited power, barangays comprising he proposed Municipality
so that the Supreme Court is vested with that of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the
authority to determine whether that power has mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
been discharged within its limits.
In the plebiscite held throughout the Municipality
This petition is however dismissed. The of Labo, majority of the votes cast were against
President can propose amendments to the the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-
Constitution and he was able to present those Lupa.
proposals to the people in sufficient time. The
President at that time also sits as the legislature. Thus, petitioner as Governor of Camarines
Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite
conducted throughout the Municipality of Labo
HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as and prays that a new plebiscite be undertaken. It
Governor of the Province of Camarines Norte, is the contention of petitioner that the plebiscite
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, was a complete failure and that the results
respondent obtained were invalid and illegal because the
G.R. No. 103328 October 19, 1992
which would participate in the plebiscite.
Logically, those to be included in such political
areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of
plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC, should the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as
have been conducted only in the political unit or well as those living in the parent Municipality of
units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising Labo, Camarines Norte. Thus, it was concluded
the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa namely that respondent COMELEC did not commit
Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the
Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag- resolution.
Asa, Maot, and Calabasa. Petitioner stresses
that the plebiscite should not have included the
remaining area of the mother unit of the
TAN VS. COMELEC
Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. In
G.R. No. 73155 July 11, 1986
support of his stand, petitioner argues that
where a local unit is to be segregated from a
(Nalisudan ko ug sabot sa facts sa case huhu
parent unit, only the voters of the unit to be
please read the full text)
segregated should be included in the plebiscite.
FACTS: Prompted by the enactment of Batas
ISSUE:
Pambansa Blg. 885-An Act Creating a New
WON the plebiscite conducted in the areas
Province in the Island of Negros to be known as
comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-
the Province of Negros del Norte, Petitioners
Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother
(Tan et. al), who are residents of the Province of
Municipality of Labo valid.
Negros Occidental filed a case for Prohibition for
the purpose of stopping the Commission on
RULING:
Elections from conducting the plebiscite (held on
Yes. When the law states that the plebiscite January 3, 1986) in the implementation of the
shall be conducted "in the political units directly aforesaid law.
affected," it means that residents of the political
entity who would be economically dislocated by
the separation of a portion thereof have a right to
vote in said plebiscite. Evidently, what is
contemplated by the phase "political units
directly affected," is the plurality of political units
Acting on the petition, as well as on the
supplemental petition for prohibition with
Petitioners contend that Batas Pambansa Blg. preliminary injunction with prayer for restraining
885 is unconstitutional and it is not in complete order, the Court required respondents to
accord with the Local Government Code as in comment. Respondents filed their Comment,
Article XI, Section 3 of our Constitution. arguing that Batas Pambansa 885 should be
accorded the presumption of legality. They
The plebiscite was confined only to the submit that the said law is not void on its face
inhabitants of the territory of Negros del Norte, and that the petition does not show a clear,
namely: the Cities of Silay, Cadiz, and San categorical and undeniable demonstration of the
Carlos, and the municipalities of Calatrava, supposed infringement of the Constitution since
Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, the requisites of the Local Government Code
E.B. Magalona and Don Salvador Benedicto. have been complied with. Furthermore, they
submit that this case has now become moot and
Finding that the exclusion and non-participation academic with the proclamation of the new
of the voters of the Province of Negros Province of Negros del Norte.
Occidental other than those living within the
territory of the new province of Negros del Norte Respondents argue that the remaining cities and
to be not in accordance with the Constitution, municipalities of the Province of Negros
petitioners prayed that writ of mandamus be Occidental not included in the area of the new
issued to schedule the holding of another Province of Negros del Norte, de not fall within
plebiscite at which all the qualified voters of the the meaning and scope of the term "unit or units
entire Province of Negros Occidental shall affected", as referred to in Section 3 of Art. XI of
participate, at the same time making our Constitution.
pronouncement that the plebiscite held on
January 3, 1986 has no legal effect. Respondents also maintain that the requisites
under the Local Government Code (P.D. 337) for
Petitioners further prayed that the respondent the creation of the new province of Negros del
COMELEC hold in abeyance the issuance of
any official proclamation of the results of the
aforestated plebiscite.
Board of Canvassers proclaimed the new
province which shall be known as "Negros del
Norte".
Norte have all been duly complied with.
Respondents discredit petitioners' allegations
The Supreme Court was in recess at the time so
that the requisite area of 3,500 square
the petition was not timely considered.
kilometers as so prescribed in the Local
Consequently, petitioners filed a supplemental
Government Code for a new province to be
pleading on January 4, 1986, after the plebiscite
created has not been satisfied. Petitioners insist
sought to be restrained was held the previous
that the area which would comprise the new
day, January 3.
province of Negros del Norte, would only be
about 2,856.56 square kilometers and which
ISSUE: Whether or not the plebiscite was legal
evidently would be lesser than the minimum
and complied with the constitutional requisites
area prescribed by the governing statute.
under Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Consititution,
Respondents, in this regard, point out and stress
which states that --
that Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885
creating said new province plainly declares that
"Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio
the territorial boundaries of Negros del Norte
may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or
comprise an area of 4,019.95 square kilometers,
its boundary substantially altered except in
more or less.
accordance with the criteria established in the
Local Government Code, and subject to the
As a final argument, respondents insist that
approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite
instant petition has been rendered moot and
in the unit or units affected."
academic considering that a plebiscite has been
already conducted on January 3, 1986; that as a
HELD: In interpreting the above provision, the
result thereof, the corresponding certificate of
Supreme Court held that whenever a province is
canvass indicated that out of 195,134 total votes
created, divided or merged and there is
cast in said plebiscite, 164,734 were in favor of
substantial alteration of the boundaries, "the
the creation of Negros del Norte and 30,400
were against it; and because "the affirmative
votes cast represented a majority of the total
votes cast in said plebiscite, the Chairman of the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) "...when the Constitution speaks of "the unit or
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever units affected" it means all of the people of the
municipality if the municipality is to be divided
approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in such as in the case at bar or of the people of two
the unit or units affected" must first be obtained. or more municipalities if there be a merger. I see
no ambiguity in the Constitutional provision."
The creation of the proposed new province of
Negros del Norte will necessarily result in the It appeared that when Parliamentary Bill NO.
division and alteration of the existing boundaries 3644 which proposed the creation of the new
of Negros Occidental. province of Negros del Norte was passed for
approval, it recited therein that "the plebiscite
"Plain and simple logic will demonstrate that two shall be conducted in the areas affected within a
political units would be affected. The first would period of one hundred and twenty days from the
be the parent province of Negros Occidental approval of this Act." However, when the bill was
because its boundaries would be substantially enacted into B.P. 885, tehre was an unexplained
altered. The other affected entity would be change from "areas affecte" to "the proposed
composed of those in the area subtracted from new province, which are the areas affected." The
the mother province to constitute the proposed Supreme Court held that it was a self-serving
province of Negros del Norte." phrase to state that the new province constitutes
the area affected.
The Supreme Court further held that the case of
Governor Zosimo Paredes versus the Honorable "Such additional statement serves no useful
Executive Secretary to the President, et al., G.R. purpose for the same is misleading, erroneous,
No. 55628, March 2, 1984 (128 SCRA 6), which and far from truth. The remaining portion of the
the respondents used to support their case, parent province is as much an area affected.
should not be taken as a doctrinal or compelling The substantial alteration of the boundaries of
precedent. Rather, it held that the dissenting the parent province, not to mention the adverse
view of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in the economic effects it might suffer, eloquently
aforementioned case is the forerunner of the argue the points raised by the petitioners."
applicable ruling, quoting that:
Pursuant to the Local Government Code of
1991, a plebiscite was held on April 10, 1994.
The people of Mandaluyong were asked whether
Consequently, the Supreme Court pronounced they approved of the conversion of the
that the plebscite held on January 3, 1986 has Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly
no legal effect for being a patent nullity. urbanized city as provided under R.A. No. 7675.
The turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of
"WHEREFORE, Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is the voting population. Nevertheless, 18,621
hereby declared unconstitutional. The voted "yes" whereas 7,911 voted "no." By virtue
proclamation of the new province of Negros del of these results, R.A. No. 7675 was deemed
Norte, as well as the appointment of the officials ratified and in effect.
thereof are also declared null and void.
Petitioners contended that R.A. No. 7675,
SO ORDERED." specifically Article VIII, Section 49 thereof, is
unconstitutional for being violative of the "one
subject-one bill" rule, as enunciated in Article VI,
TOBIAS VS. ABALOS Section 26(1) of the Constitution. They also
G.R. No. L-114783, December 8, 1994 allege that the inclusion of the assailed Section
49 in the subject law resulted in the latter
embracing two principal subjects, namely: (1) the
FACTS: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly
R.A. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act urbanized city; and (2) the division of the
Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong
a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City into two separate districts.
of Mandaluyong." Prior to the enactment of the
assailed statute, the municipalities of Petitioners also argue that the division has resulted
Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only in an increase in the composition of the House of
one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, Representative beyond that provided in the
the incumbent congressional representative, Constitution. The said division was not made
sponsored the bill and President Ramos signed
R.A. No. 7675 into law.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) The second contention that the law violates the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever present limit of the number of representatives,
the provision of the section itself shows that the
pursuant to any census showing that the subject 250 limit is not absolute. The Constitution clearly
municipalities have attained the minimum provides that the House of Representatives shall
population requirements. be composed of not more than 250 members,
"un ess t e wise p ided aw” T e e e, the increase
Further, Petitioners contend that the people of in congressional representation mandated by
San Juan should have been made to participate R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
in the plebiscite on R.A. No. 7675 as the same
involved a change in their legislative district.
With regards, to the third contention that there is
ISSUES: Whether or not R.A. 7675 is no mention in the assailed law of any census to
unconstitutional and Whether or not San show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each
Juan was required to participate in the attained the minimum requirement of 250,000
plebiscite making Mandaluyong into a highly inhabitants to justify their separation into two
urbanized city. legislative districts, unless otherwise proved that
the requirements were not met, the said Act
HELD: enjoys the presumption of having passed
1. The law is not unconstitutional. The Supreme through the regular congressional processes,
Court ruled that the contentions are devoid of including due consideration by the members of
merit. With regards to the first contention of one Congress of the minimum requirements for the
subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate establishment of separate legislative district
congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a
separate and distinct subject from its conversion
into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and 2. Petitioners contend that the people of San
logical consequence. In addition, a liberal Juan should have been made to participate in
construction of the "one title-one subject" rule the plebiscite on R.A. No. 7675 as the same
has been invariably adopted by this court so as involved a change in their legislative district.
not to cripple or impede legislation. The contention is bereft of merit since the
FACTS:
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents
principal subject involved in the plebiscite of Karangalan Village that they be segregated
was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a from its mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela
highly urbanized city. The matter of separate Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and
district representation was only ancillary separated into a distinct barangay to be known
thereto. Thus, the inhabitants of San Juan as Barangay Karangalan.
were properly excluded from the said
plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the The City Council of Pasig passed and approved
change of status of neighboring Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating
Mandaluyong. Barangay Karangalan in Pasig City. Plebiscite
on the creation of said barangay was thereafter
set for June 22, 1996.
EN BANC
CITY OF PASIG vs. COMELEC & MUN. OF On September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig
CAINTA, PROV. OF RIZAL [G.R. No. 125646. similarly issued Ordinance No. 52, Series of
Sept 10, 1999] 1996, creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City.
Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15,
MUN.OF CAINTA, PROV. OF RIZAL vs. 1997.
COMELEC- CITY OF PASIG [G.R. No. 128663.
Sept 10, 1999] Immediately upon learning of such Ordinances,
the Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: cancel the respective plebiscites scheduled, and
 G.R. No. 125646 involves the proposed filed Petitions with the Commission on Elections
Barangay Karangalan. on June 19, 1996 (UND No. 96-016) and March
 While G.R. No. 128663 involves the 12, 1997 (UND No. 97-002), respectively.
proposed Barangay Napico.
 The City of Pasig claims these areas as
part of its jurisdiction/territory while Municipality
of Cainta claims that these proposed barangays
encroached upon areas within its own
jurisdiction/territory.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) cast therein. Hence, the filing of G.R. No.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever 128663 by the Municipality of Cainta.
In both Petitions, the Municipality of Cainta
called the attention of the COMELEC to a ISSUE: Whether or not the plebiscites
pending case before the Regional Trial Court of scheduled for the creation of Barangays
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, for settlement of Karangalan and Napico should be
boundary dispute. suspended in view of the pending boundary
According to the Municipality of Cainta, the dispute between the two local governments.
proposed barangays involve areas included in
the boundary dispute subject of said pending HELD: YES. Plebiscite on the creation of
case; hence, the scheduled plebiscites should be Barangay Karangalan should be held in
suspended or cancelled until after the said case abeyance pending final resolution of the
shall have been finally decided by the court. boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and
the Municipality of Cainta by the RTC Antipolo
In UND No. 96-016, the COMELEC accepted the City. The plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to
position of the Municipality of Cainta and ordered ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig
the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay City, should be annulled and set aside.
Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the
court has settled with finality the boundary The Court agrees with the position of the
dispute involving the two municipalities. Hence, COMELEC that Civil Case No. 94-3006 involving
the filing of G.R. No. 125646 by the City of the boundary dispute between the Municipality
Pasig. of Cainta and the City of Pasig presents a
prejudicial question which must first be decided
 The COMELEC, however, ruled differently before plebiscites for the creation of the
in UND No. 97-002, dismissing the Petition for proposed barangays may be held.
being moot in view of the holding of the
plebiscite as scheduled on March 15, 1997 In the case at bar, while the City of Pasig
where the creation of Barangay Napico was vigorously claims that the areas covered by the
ratified and approved by the majority of the votes COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 52
jurisdiction. Beyond these limits, its acts
are ultra vires. Needless to state, any
uncertainty in the boundaries of local
proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico are
government units will sow costly conflicts
within its territory, it cannot deny that portions of in the exercise of governmental powers
the same area are included in the boundary which ultimately will prejudice the
dispute case pending before the Regional Trial people’s welfare.
Court of Antipolo. Surely, whether the areas in
controversy shall be decided as within the
Moreover, considering the expenses entailed in
territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Cainta
the holding of plebiscites, it is far more prudent
or the City of Pasig has material bearing to the
to hold in abeyance the conduct of the same,
creation of the proposed Barangays Karangalan
pending final determination of whether or not the
and Napico. Indeed, a requisite for the creation of
entire area of the proposed barangays are truly
a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be
within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of
properly identified by metes and bounds or by
Pasig.
more or less permanent natural boundaries.
Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue
Neither does the court agree that merely
raised in the pending civil case, until and unless
because a plebiscite had already been held in
such issue is resolved with finality, to define the
the case of the proposed Barangay Napico, the
territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays
petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already
would only be an exercise in futility. Not only that,
been rendered moot and academic. The issues
we would be paving the way for potentially ultra
raised by the Municipality of Cainta in its petition
vires acts of such barangays.
before the COMELEC against the holding of the
In Mariano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, the plebiscite for the creation of Barangay Napico
court held that are still pending determination before the
The importance of drawing with precise Antipolo Regional Trial Court.
strokes the territorial boundaries of a
local unit of government cannot be
overemphasized. The boundaries must
be clear for they define the limits of the
territorial jurisdiction of a local
government unit. It can legitimately
exercise powers of government only
within the limits of its territorial
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) and the COMELEC, docketed as Civil Case No.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever 3442, before the RTC of Balayan, Batangas,
Branch XI, for annulment of Ordinance No. 05
The Petition of the City of Pasig in G.R. No. and Resolution No. 345, series of 1997, both
125646 is DISMISSED for lack of merit; while enacted by the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of
The Petition of the Municipality of Cainta in G.R. Batangas, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2987,
No. 128663 is GRANTED. The COMELEC series of 1998, with prayer for preliminary
Order in UND No. 97-002, dated March 21, injunction/temporary restraining order.
1997, is SET ASIDE and the plebiscite held on
March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of  Ordinance No. 5: declared the abolition of
Barangay Napico in the City of Pasig is declared barangay San Rafael and its merger with
null and void. Plebiscite on the same is ordered barangay Dacanlao and instructed the Comelec
held in abeyance until after the courts settle with to conduct the required plebiscite (Sec 9-10,
finality the boundary dispute between the City of LGC)
Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta, in Civil
 Resolution No. 3455: affirmed the
Case No. 94-300.
effectivity of Ordinance No. 05, thereby
overriding the veto exercised by the governor of
Batangas. Ordinance No. 05 was vetoed by the
EN BANC
governor of Batangas for being ultra vires,
ELPIDIO M. SALVA, v. HON. ROBERTO L.
particularly, as it was not shown that the
MAKALINTAL [G.R. No. 132603. September
essential requirements under Section 9, in
18, 2000]
relation to Section 7, of Republic Act No. 7160,
referring to the attestations or certifications of
BUENA, J.: the Department of Finance (DOF), National
Statistics Office (NSO) and the Land
FACTS: Management Bureau of the Department of
On February 23, 1998, petitioners, as officials Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
and residents of barangay San Rafael, Calaca, were obtained.
Batangas, filed a class suit against the
Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Batangas,
Sangguniang Pambayan of Calaca, Batangas,
 That Resolution 2987 is dependent on the
validity of Ordinance No. 5 and Resolution 3455
 Pursuant to the said Resolution and Petitioners assert that when the Comelec
Ordinance, the Comelec promulgated Resolution exercises its quasi- udicia uncti n, it’s su ect t
2987, providing for the rules and regulations this Court; but where it performs its ministerial
governing the conduct of the plebiscite duty, it is subject to the RTC. The conduct of a
scheduled on February 28, 1998, to decide the plebiscite is ministerial in nature.
issue of the abolition of barangay San Rafael
and its merger with barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Petitioner assert that the holding of a plebiscite
Batangas. could not validate an otherwise invalid ordinance
and resolution.
In an Order dated February 25, 1998, the trial
court denied the ex parte motion for the Solicitor General: What is reviewable by this
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or Court are those exercised in its
preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction.
adjudicatory/quasi-judicial function, and not
According to the trial court, the temporary
those ministerial in nature. issuance of
restraining order/injunction sought by petitioners
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 is a ministerial
is directed only to COMELEC Resolution No.
duty of the COMELEC in the exercise of its
2987. The trial court ruled that any petition or
administrative functions.
action questioning an act, resolution or decision
of the COMELEC must be brought before the
Public respondent COMELEC: submits that the
Supreme Court.
power to review or reverse COMELEC
Resolution No. 2987 solely belongs to the SC.
Hence, this petition.
The COMELEC further argues that if a RTC
does not have jurisdiction to issue writs against
Petitioners contend:
 That the assailed Order of the RTC

encourages multiplicity of suits and splitting a
single cause of action.
 That petitioner seek the TRO before this
Court and not the RTC
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) In Garces vs. Court of Appeals and Filipinas
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Engineering and Machine Shop vs. Ferrer, the
Court interpreted the foregoing provision that xxx
What is contemplated by the term final orders,
statutory agencies of government. COMELEC rulings and decisions of the COMELEC reviewable
contends that the temporary restraining order by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by
law are those rendered in actions or proceedings
sought by petitioners has been rendered moot before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by
and academic by the actual holding of the the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
quasi‐ judicial powers.
plebiscite sought to be enjoined.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent court has The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that
xxx. [t]he issuance of [COMELEC] Resolution No. 2987
jurisdiction to enjoin the COMELEC from is thus a ministerial duty of the COMELEC that is enjoined
implementing its Resolution No. 2987, Series by law and is part and parcel of its administrative
functions. It involves no exercise of discretionary authority
of 1998. on the part of respondent COMELEC; let alone an
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi‐ judicial power to hear
and resolve controversies defining the rights and duties of
HELD: YES. party‐ litigants, relative to the conduct of elections of public
officers and the enforcement of the election laws.
Section 7, Article IX‐ A of the 1987 Constitution provides in part that:
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides
SEC. 7. xxx. Unless otherwise provided by this for the rules and regulations governing the conduct
of the required plebiscite was not issued pursuant
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or to the COMELECs quasi‐ judicial functions but
ruling of each Commission may be brought to merely as an incident of its inherent administrative
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the functions over the conduct of plebiscites, thus, the
said resolution may not be deemed as a final order
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question
a copy thereof. pertaining to the validity of said resolution may be
well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial
courts.
respondents, filed with the COMELEC a petition
seeking the annulment of the announced results
of the plebiscite with a prayer for revision and
recount of the ballots. The COMELEC treated
The assailed Order dated Feb 25, 1998, of the the petition as an election protest, docketed as
RTC of Balayan, Batangas, Branch XI is SET EPC No. 98-102. It was raffled to the Second
ASIDE and ANNULLED. The RTC of Balayan, Division. Petitioner intervened in the case. He
Batangas, Branch XI is ordered to proceed with then filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
dispatch in resolving Civil Case No. 3442. The ground that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction
execution of the result of the plebiscite held on over an action involving the conduct of a
February 28, 1998 shall be deferred depending plebiscite. He alleged that a plebiscite cannot be
on the outcome of Civil Case No. 3442. the subject of an election protest. The
COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution
granting petitioner motion and dismissing the
petition to annul the results of the Taguig
BUAC vs COMELEC plebiscite for lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC
en banc affirmed this Resolution.
FACTS: On April 25, 1998, the COMELEC
conducted a plebiscite in Taguig, Metro Manila Accordingly, on April 19, 2004, the COMELEC
on the conversion of this municipality into a Second Division issued an Order in EPC No. 98-
highly urbanized city as mandated by Republic 102 constituting the committees for the
Act No. 8487. The residents of Taguig were revision/recount of the plebiscite ballots. On April
asked this question: Do you approve the
conversion of the Municipality of Taguig, Metro
Manila into a highly urbanized city to be known
as the City of Taguig, as provided for in Republic
Act No. 8487? On April 26, 1998, the Plebiscite
Board of Canvassers (PBOC), without
completing the canvass of sixty-four (64) other
election returns, declared that the NO votes
won, indicating that the people rejected the
conversion of Taguig into a city. However, upon
order of the COMELEC en banc, the PBOC
reconvened and completed the canvass of the
plebiscite returns, eventually proclaiming that the
negative votes still prevailed.
Alleging that fraud and irregularities attended the

casting and counting of votes, private
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an
independent constitutional body exclusively
28, 2004, the revision/recount proceedings charged with the power of enforcement and
commenced and upon its termination, the administration of all laws and regulations relative
Committees on Revision submitted their to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
complete and final reports. Thereafter, the initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC
COMELEC Second Division set the case for has the indisputable expertise in the field of
hearing. As no witnesses were presented by election and related laws. Its acts, therefore,
petitioner, the parties were directed to submit enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
their respective memoranda, which they did. performance of official duties.
Petitioner contends that the revision of the In fine, we hold that in issuing the challenged
plebiscite ballots cannot be relied upon for the Resolution and Order in these twin petitions, the
determination of the will of the electorate COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
because the revision is incomplete. He claims
that based on the Final Report of the Committee
on Revision for each of the eight (8) Revision PART II
Committees, the revision of ballots yielded a
total of 15,802 votes for YES and a total of COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
12,602 votes for NO. The revision committee
thus canvassed only a total of 28,404 ballots.
BRILLANTES VS. YORAC
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion. FACTS: The petitioner is challenging the
HELD: No. The above factual findings of the designation by the President of the Philippines of
COMELEC supported by evidence, are Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as
accorded, not only respect, but finality. This is so Acting Chairman of the Commission on
because the conduct of plebiscite and Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B.
determination of its result have always been the Davide, who had been named chairman of the
business of the COMELEC and not the regular COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 55
The Solicitor General argues that no such
designation is necessary in the case of the
Supreme Court because the temporary
fact-finding commission to investigate the succession cited is provided for in Section 12 of
December 1989 coup d' etat attempt. the Judiciary Act of 1948. A similar rule is found
in Section 5 of BP 129 for the Court of Appeals.
President Corazon Aquino appointed Comelec There is no such arrangement, however, in the
Associate Commissioner Haydee Yorac as case of the Commission on Elections. The
Acting Chairman of the Commission on designation made by the President of the
Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B. Philippines should therefore be sustained for
Davide, who had been named chairman of the eas ns “ad inist ati e e pedienc ,” t prevent
fact-finding commission to investigate the disruption of the functions of the COMELEC.
Dece e 1989 c up d’ etat atte pt etitioner Sixto
Brillantes, Jr. questioned the appointment in
view of the status of the COMELEC as an ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of an
independent constitutional body and and the Acting Chairman of COMELEC is
specific provision of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of unconstitutional
t e C nstituti n t at “(I)n n case s a an
Member (of the Commission on Elections) be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting HELD: Yes. The appointment of Yorac as Acting
capacit ” i antes u t e a gued t at t e Chairman of the COMELEC is unconstitutional.
choice of the acting chairman should not come
from the President for such is an internal matter Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution
that should be resolved by the members expressly describes all the Constitutional
themselves and that the intrusion of the C issi ns as “independent ” t ug
president violates the independence of the essentially executive in nature, they are not
COMELEC as a constitutional commission. He under the control of the President of the
cites the practice in this Court, where the senior Philippines in the discharge of their respective
Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice
in the absence of the Chief Justice. No
designation from the President of the Philippines
is necessary.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) without cause, and thus deprived of the powers
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever and perquisites of that temporary position.
functions. Each of these Commissions conducts The Constitution provides for many safeguards
its own proceedings under the applicable laws to the independence of the Commission on
and its own rules and in the exercise of its own Elections, foremost among which is the security
discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are of tenure of its members. That guaranty is not
subject only to review on Certiorari by this Court available to the respondent as Acting Chairman
as provided by the Constitution in Article IX-A, of the Commission on Elections by designation
Section 7. of the President of the Philippines.
The choice of a temporary chairman in the The lack of a statutory rule covering the situation
absence of the regular chairman comes under at bar is no justification for the President of the
that discretion. That discretion cannot be Philippines to fill the void by extending the
exercised for it, even with its consent, by the temporary designation in favor of the
President of the Philippines. respondent. This is still a government of laws
and not of men. The problem allegedly sought to
A designation as Acting Chairman is by its very be corrected, if it existed at all, did not call for
terms essentially temporary and therefore presidential action. The situation could have
revocable at will. No cause need be established been handled by the members of the
to justify its revocation. Assuming its validity, the Commission on Elections themselves without
designation of the respondent as Acting the participation of the President, however well-
Chairman of the Commission on Elections may meaning.
be withdrawn by the President of the Philippines
at any time and for whatever reason she sees fit.
CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
It is true, as the Solicitor General points out that
the respondent cannot be removed at will from FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was
her permanent position as Associate nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to
Commissioner. It is no less true, however, that the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
she can be replaced as Acting Chairman, with or
have been candidates for any elective position in
the immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall
letter received by the Secretariat of the be members of the Philippine Bar who have
Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. been engaged in the practice of law for at least
Petitioner opposed the nomination because ten years.
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the
It was established that after graduating from the
practice of law for at least ten years.
College of Law and hurdling the Bar, respondent
w ed in is at e ’s aw ice a s t w i e, then worked
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on
as an Operations Officer in the World Bank
Appointments confirmed the nomination of Group for about 2 years, which involved getting
Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On acquainted with the laws of member-countries,
June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the negotiating loans, and coordinating legal,
same day, he assumed office as Chairman of economic and project work of the Bank. Upon
the COMELEC. returning to the Philippines, he worked with the
Meralco Group, served as Chief Executive
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by Officer of an investment bank and has
the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's subsequently worked either as Chief Executive
nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, Officer or Consultant of various companies.
filed the instant petition for certiorari and
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod satisfies the
the consequent appointment of Monsod as requirement of the position of Chairman of the
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be COMELEC.
declared null and void.
HELD: YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers
The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is
Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, holders of a college degree, and must not
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) representative capacity as an advocate in
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever proceedings pending or prospective, before any
court, commissioner, referee, board, body,
c u t…In gene a , a ad ice t c ients, and a committee, or commission constituted by law or
action taken for them in matters connected with authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise
the law incorporation services, assessment and stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
condemnation services, contemplating an engages in the business of advising clients as to
appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure their rights under the law, or while so engaged
tgage, en ce ent a c edit ’s c ai in performs any act or acts either in court or
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in the practice aw ”
matters of estate and guardianship have been
held to constitute law practice. Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the
Philippine Bar, having passed the bar
Practice of law means any activity, in or out examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%.
court, which requires the application of law, legal He has been a dues paying member of the
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its
“T engage in t e p actice aw is t pe those acts inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying
which are characteristics of the profession. his professional license fees as lawyer for more
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or t an 10 ea s tt M ns d’s past w experiences as a
render any kind of service, which device or lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
service requires the use in any degree of legal entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
whether in or out of court. constitutional requirement
— that he has been engaged in the practice of
A person is also considered to be in the practice law for at least 10 years.
aw w en e: “ a ua e c nside ati n ZALDIVAR VS. ESTENZO
engages in the business of advising person,
firms, associations or corporations as to their
rights under the law, or appears in a COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 57
Pepito, and against the respondent, now
petitioner Zaldivar and issued an ex-parte order
for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and
FACTS: Geronimo Zaldivar filed a petition the writ itself were issued on the same day the
against respondent, Judge Numeriano Estenzo, special civil action was filed; and the arrest of
of the Court of First Instance of Ormoc City for petitioner immediately followed by a warrant of
the purpose of setting aside (a) the decision arrest were ordered by respondent Judge.
dated April 28, 1966, rendered by the Honorable
Judge Numeriano Estenzo of the Court of First The decision assailed, as well as the challenged
Instance of Leyte in a Special Civil Case No. orders and actuations of respondent Judge, was
753-0; (b) the order for the arrest of petitioner the direct consequence of his assumption of
issued in said case on the same date that the jurisdiction over the special civil action of
decision was promulgated; (c) the warrant of prohibition with preliminary injunction.
arrest issued pursuant to said order; (d) the
order issued in said case dated November 5,
The petitioners, both of whom were municipal
1965, granting the issuance of a writ of
councilors and local leaders and supporters of
preliminary injunction; and (e) the writ of
the candidacy for reelection of Congressman
preliminary injunction issued on the same date,
Dominador M. Tan alleged that Zaldivar, with the
on the ground that said decision, orders, warrant
municipal mayor of another municipality, a
of arrest and writ of preliminary injunction were
certain Feliciano Larrazabal, "acting in their
issued by the trial court without jurisdiction.
official capacities as Municipal Mayors, are
known to be sympathetic to the candidacy of
Petitioner Geronimo Zaldivar was the incumbent Rodolfo Rivilla, and with grave abuse of
municipal mayor of Albuera, Leyte and was discretion have caused to appoint special
named respondent in the special civil case policemen and agents to be paid from public
referred to, while the other respondent, Sotero funds and to be provided with uniforms and
Pepito, was one of the petitioners in such case. firearms for the sole purpose of utilizing said
The writ of preliminary injunction prayed for was special policemen and agents to terrorize and
granted in a resolution of May 20, 1966, which
gave due course to the petition.
Respondent Judge Estenzo rendered a decision

in favor of the petitioner, now respondent,
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) exercise all other functions which may be
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever conferred upon it by law." The Commission on
Elections is vested under the Election Code with
arrest electors sympathetic to Congressman "direct and immediate supervision over the
Dominador M. Tan during the elections of provincial, municipal, and city officials
N e e 9, 1965 ” designated by law to perform duties relative to
the conduct of elections."
It was the contention of petitioners that
respondents, as municipal mayors, acted In the special civil action for prohibition before
"without and in excess of their powers as respondent Judge, its essentially political
executives of their respective jurisdictions, as no character is manifest, the main allegation being
authority or sanction has been obtained from the the utilization of the power of petitioner Zaldivar
Executive Secretary and the Commission on to avail himself of the authority of his office to
Elections, and the exercise of such powers appoint special policemen or agents to terrorize
would be detrimental to the interest of the voters so that they would support the
electorate which they are bound to protect. congressional candidate of his choice.
Hon. Estenzo decided in favor of Pepito, issued Both under the Constitution and the Revised
the order for the arrest of Zaldivar, and granted Election Code, it is not so much the power, but
the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. the duty of the Commission on Elections to
Hence, Zaldivar sought for the setting aside of exercise supervision over municipal officials
the orders as they were issued by the trial court precisely to enforce the Election Code. No other
without jurisdiction. agency is better suited to preclude abuse of
ISSUE: Whether or not the judiciary can be a co- authority on the part of local officials, the
participant in this particular instance of enforcing sanction being that it could recommend to the
the Election Code as its authority was invoked. President their removal if found guilty of "non-
feasance, malfeasance or misfeasance in
HELD: Under the Constitution, the Commission connection with the performance of their duties
on Elections has "exclusive charge of the relative to the conduct of elections."
enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections and shall COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 58
Province of Camiguin and was seeking re-
election in the May 11, 1992 synchronized
elections. Petitioners Arevalo, Echavez, Aranas,
Moreover, this Court, from the creation of the and Sia are the provincial treasurer, provincial
Commission on Elections, has accorded full auditor, provincial engineer, and provincial
amplitude to the wide discretion vested in the budget officer of Camiguin.
Commission on Elections in the performance of
its constitutional functions. Their co-petitioners Rambuyon, Primo and Noel
Navarro are all government project laborers. On
The RTC cannot assume jurisdiction over a case the other hand, the private respondent was the
involving the enforcement of the election code, incumbent Congressman of the lone
which pertained to the taking cognizance of a Congressional district of Camiguin, a candidate
Special Civil Action filed before it to restrain the for the same office in the said synchronized
mayor from pursuing certain infrastructure elections and the Regional Chairman of the
projects during the election period, which was Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) in
alleged to constitute a violation of Section 261 of Region X.
the Omnibus Election Code.
On April 10, 1992, private respondent filed his
Petition (Special Civil Action No. 465) before the
GALLARDO VS. TABAMO court a quo against petitioners to prohibit and
restrain them from pursuing or prosecuting
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and certain public works projects as it violates the
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules 45-day ban on public works imposed by the
of Court. Petitioners seek to prohibit, restrain Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg.
and enjoin respondent Judge Tabamo from 881) because although they were initiated few
continuing with the proceedings in a petition for days before March 27, 1992, the date the ban
injunction, prohibition and mandamus with a took effect, they were not covered by detailed
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and engineering plans, specifications or a program of
restraining order filed as a taxpayer's suit.
At the time of filing both the special civil action

and the instant petition, petitioner Antonio
Gallardo was the incumbent Governor of the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever thus the jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the
COMELEC, not the Regional Trial Court.
work which are preconditions for the
commencement of any public works project. The ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has
questioned projects are classified into two (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter of Special
categories: (a) those that are Locally-Funded, Civil Action No. 465.
consisting of 29 different projects for the
maintenance or concreting of various roads, the HELD: No. The material operative facts alleged
rehabilitation of the Katibawasan Falls and the in the petition therein inexorably link the private
construction of the Capitol Building, and (b) respondent's principal grievance to alleged
those designated as Foreign-Assisted, violations of paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w),
consisting of fifteen (15) projects which include Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code
the construction of Human Development Center, (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).There is particular
various Day Care cum Production Centers and emphasis on the last two (2) paragraphs which
water works systems; the extension and read:
renovation of various buildings; the acquisition of
hospital and laboratory equipment; and the c. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be
rehabilitation of office and equipment. guilty of an election offense:
On the same day, respondent Judge issued the (a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. —
question TRO. In the same order, he directed
the petitioners to file their Answer within 10 days xxx xxx xxx
from receipt of notice and set the hearing on the
application for the issuance of the writ of (b) Conspiracy to bribe voters. —
preliminary injunction for April 24, 1992. Instead
of filing the Answer, the petitioners filed the xxx xxx xxx
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition,
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction (v) Prohibition against release, disbursement or
and/or temporary restraining order. They expenditure of public funds. Any public official or
contend that the case principally involves an
grants its exclusive original jurisdiction over
contests involving elective municipal officials.
Neither can the court agree with the petitioner's
employee including barangay officials and those assertion that the Special Civil action filed in the
of government-owned or controlled corporations RTC below involves the prosecution of election
and their subsidiaries, who, during forty-five offenses; the said action seeks some reliefs
days before a regular election and thirty days incident to or in connection with alleged election
before a special election, releases, disburses or offenses; specifically, what is sought is the
expends any public funds for: prevention of the further commission of these
offenses which, by their nature, are continuing.
(1) Any and all kinds of public works, except the
following: There is as well no merit in the petitioners' claim
that the private respondent has no legal standing
xxx xxx xxx to initiate the filing of a complaint for a violation
of the Omnibus Election Code. There is nothing
(w) Prohibition against construction of public in the law to prevent any citizen from exposing
works, delivery of materials for public works and the commission of an election offense and from
issuance of treasury warrants and similar filing a complaint in connection therewith. On the
devices. — During the period of forty-five days contrary, under the COMELEC Rules of
preceding a regular election and thirty days Procedure, initiation of complaints for election
before a special election, any person who (a) offenses may be done motu propio by the
undertakes the construction of any public works, Commission on Elections or upon written
except for projects or works exempted in the complaint by any citizen, candidate or registered
preceding paragraph; or (b) issues, uses or political party or organization under the party-list
avails of treasury warrants or any device system or any of the accredited citizens arms of
undertaking future delivery of money, goods or the Commission. However, such written
other things of value chargeable against public complaints should be filed with the "Law
funds. Department of the Commission; or with the
The court ruled that the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court under the election laws is
limited to criminal actions for violations of the
Omnibus Election Code. The Constitution itself
Respondent Judge issued an order dated 14
May 1992 in Special Proceedings No. 19,
offices of the Election Registrars, Provincial restraining the COMELEC Board of
Election Supervisors or Regional Election Canvassers of Maigo, Lanao del Norte, from
Directors, or the State Prosecutor, Provincial canvassing the election returns of Precinct
Fiscal or City Fiscal." As earlier intimated, the No. 10-A until either the COMELEC or the
private respondent was not seriously concerned Regional Trial Court in Iligan City could act on
with the criminal aspect of his alleged the petition of Wilfredo P. Randa, a mayoralty
grievances. He merely sought a stoppage of the candidate of the Nationalist People's Coalition
public works projects because of their alleged (NPC).
adverse effect on his candidacy. Indeed, while
he may have had reason to fear and may have Complainant Librados alleged that she was an
even done the right thing, he committed a official mayoralty candidate of the Laban ng
serious procedural misstep and invoked the Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) in Maigo, Lanao
wrong authority. del Norte, in the synchronized national and local
elections held on 11 May 1992; that during the
canvassing of the election returns, the candidate
LIBARDOS v. CASAR of the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC),
A.M. No. MTJ-92-728 July 8, 1994 Wilfredo Randa, filed a complaint for
Preliminary Injunction with the Municipal
PADILLA, J.: Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kolambugan-
Maigo, Lanao del Norte, presided over by
FACTS: A sworn complaint, dated 27 October respondent judge, docketed as Special
1992, was filed before the SC by complainant, Proceedings No. 19, entitled "Wilfredo P. Randa,
Mayor Perlita P. Libardos of Maigo, Lanao del candidate for Mayor under NPC against Board of
Norte, against respondent Judge Abdullah M. Canvassers, Maigo, Lanao del Norte;" that on
Casar of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court the basis of the said complaint, subscribed
(MCTC), Kolambugan-Maigo, Lanao del Norte, before respondent judge, said respondent
for gross ignorance of the law, grave
misconduct, arbitrariness and conduct
unbecoming a judge.
the Board of Canvassers because the election
returns had not been canvassed and that it is an
express provision of law that an appeal can be
issued the aforesaid order dated 14 May 1992, had only after the Board of Canvassers has
ordering the Board of Canvassers to suspend rendered its ruling on the objections of any party
the canvassing of the election returns of Precinct to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns.
No. 10-A until either the Commission on
Elections, Manila, or the Regional Trial Court in
Respondent Judge Casar admitted having
Iligan City could act on the complaint of Wilfredo
issued without jurisdiction the questioned order
Randa; that the said order caused the delay in
of 14 May 1992. He justified its issuance "as
the canvassing of the election returns which
an immediate remedy and arrangement to
was resumed only after the Provincial Election
prevent bloodshed between the contending
Supervisor of Lanao del Norte sent a message
parties, the complainant's followers, the LDP and
to the COMELEC (Manila) requesting that an
the oppositions (sic) followers, the NPC, which if
order be issued ordering the Board of
said eminent (sic) trouble will occur, would
Canvassers, Maigo, Lanao del Norte, to
caused (sic) not only irreparable damages but
disregard the restraining order of respondent
may ignite and give rise to the revival of the old
judge.
centuries (sic) conflict between Christians and
Muslims in the province." He pointed out that
Complainant further avers that despite the fact complainant's failure to question or move for a
that respondent judge lacked jurisdiction over reconsideration of the assailed order implied her
the matter, he nevertheless issued the assailed acceptance thereof. He likewise suggested that
order of 14 May 1992 on the alleged ground that complainant filed the complaint for the purpose
the judges of the "RTC at Iligan City are not of harassing him and to block his application for
available to issue a Preliminary Injunction, and, it promotion to the Regional Trial Court.
is admitted fact the COMELEC, Manila is very
far and might not receive on time the appeal of
On 23 November 1993, the Court referred this
the petitioner." Complainant asserts that
case to the Office of the Court Administrator for
respondent's justification in issuing the
evaluation, report and recommendation.
order constituted ignorance of the law,
considering that on 14 May 1992 there was as
yet no appeal to speak of from the decision of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) independence (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, supra). A
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Judge should behave at all times as to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary (Rule 2.01, Canon 2, supra).
ISSUE: WHETHER RESPONSENT JUDGE IS
GUILTY OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND
MAY BE HELD LIABLE. YES
ITF v. COMELEC
HELD: Respondent judge administratively liable G.R. No. 159139 January 13, 2004
for having knowingly issued an order without
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Court cannot overlook the fact that CASE: Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion Court, seeking
in issuing his Order dated May 14, 1992 ordering (1) to declare null and void Resolution No. 6074
the Board of Canvassers of Maigo, Lanao del of the Commission on Elections (Comelec),
Norte to suspend the canvassing of the election which awarded "Phase II of the Modernization
returns knowing full (sic) well that he does not Project of the Commission to Mega Pacific
have jurisdiction to act on the petition filed by Consortium (MPC);"
Wilfredo Randa. (2) to enjoin the implementation of any further
contract that may have been entered into by
Respondent's actuation as unbecoming that of a Comelec "either with Mega Pacific Consortium
worthy Judge, for a judge should be faithful to and/or Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI);"
the law and maintain professional competence and
(Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct). (3) to compel Comelec to conduct a re-bidding of
While his reasons for issuing the assailed order the project.
are perhaps commendable and demonstrative of
his concern for peace and order during the FACTS: On June 7, 1995, Congress passed
election period in the given community, he lost Republic Act 8046, which authorized Comelec
sight of his bounden duty, as a Judge, to be the to conduct a nationwide demonstration of a
embodiment of competence, integrity, and
e e ed t t e C’s Tec nica W ing G up
(TWG) and the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST).
computerized election system and allowed the
poll body to pilot-test the system in the March
In its Report on the Evaluation of the Technical
1996 elections in the Autonomous Region in
Proposals on Phase II, DOST said that both
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
MPC and TIMC had obtained a number of failed
marks in the technical evaluation.
On October 29, 2002, Comelec adopted in its
Notwithstanding these failures, Comelec en
Resolution 02-0170 a modernization program
banc, on April 15, 2003, promulgated
for the 2004 elections. It resolved to conduct
Resolution No. 6074 awarding the project to
biddings for the three (3) phases of its
MPC. The Commission publicized this
Automated Election System; namely, Phase I —
Resolution and the award of the project to MPC
Voter Registration and Validation System; Phase on May 16, 2003.
II — Automated Counting and Canvassing
System; and Phase III — Electronic
On May 29, 2003, five individuals and entities
Transmission.
(including the herein Petitioners ITF of the
Philippines, represented by its president, Alfredo
On January 24, 2003, President Gloria M. Torres; and Ma. Corazon Akol) wrote a letter
Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. to Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. They
172, which allocated the sum of P2.5 billion to protested the award of the Contract to
fund the AES for the May 10, 2004 elections. Respondent MPC "due to glaring irregularities in
Upon the request of Comelec, she authorized the manner in which the bidding process had
the release of an additional P500 million.
been conducted." Citing therein the
noncompliance with eligibility as well as
On January 28, 2003, the Commission issued
technical and procedural requirements (many
an "Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to
of which have been discussed at length in the
Bid".
Petition), they sought a re-bidding.
Out of the 57 bidders,13 the BAC (Bids and
Awards Committee) found MPC and the Total
Information Management Corporation (TIMC)
eligible. For technical evaluation, they were
Ratio: Comelec awarded this billion-peso

undertaking with inexplicable haste, without
In a letter-reply dated June 6, 2003 the Comelec adequately checking and observing mandatory
chairman -- speaking through Atty. Jaime Paz, financial, technical and legal requirements. It
his head executive assistant -- rejected the also accepted the proferred computer hardware
protest and declared that the award "would and software even if, at the time of the award,
stand up to the strictest scrutiny." they had undeniably failed to pass eight critical
requirements designed to safeguard the integrity
Hence, the present Petition. of elections:
ISSUE: Whether the Commission on 1. Awarded the Contract to MPC though it did
Elections, the agency vested with the not even participate in the bidding
exclusive constitutional mandate to oversee 2. Allowed MPEI to participate in the bidding
elections, gravely abused its discretion despite its failure to meet the mandatory
when, in the exercise of its administrative eligibility requirements
functions, it awarded to MPC the contract for 3. Issued its Resolution of April 15, 2003
the second phase of the comprehensive awarding the Contract to MPC despite the
Automated Election System. issuance by the BAC of its Report, which formed
the basis of the assailed Resolution, only on
HELD: YES. The Court declared NULL and April 21, 2003
VOID Comelec Resolution No. 6074 awarding 4. Awarded the Contract, notwithstanding the
the contract for Phase II of the CAES to Mega fact that during the bidding process, there were
Pacific Consortium (MPC). Also declared null violations of the mandatory requirements of RA
and void is the subject Contract executed 8436 as well as those set forth in Comelec's own
between Comelec and Mega Pacific eSolutions Request for Proposal on the automated election
(MPEI). Comelec was further ORDERED to system
refrain from implementing any other contract or 5. Refused to declare a failed bidding and to
agreement entered into with regard to this conduct a re-bidding despite the failure of the
project.
FACTS: On December 8, 2003, the General

bidders to pass the technical tests conducted by
Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
the Department of Science and Technology
(LDP), a registered political party, informed the
6. Failed to follow strictly the provisions of RA
COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only
8436 in the conduct of the bidding for the
the Party Chairman, Senator Edgardo J. Angara,
automated counting machines.
or his authorized representative may endorse
the ce ti icate candidac t e pa t ’s icia
Because of the foregoing violations of law and
candidates. The same Manifestation stated that
the glaring grave abuse of discretion committed
Sen. Angara had placed the LDP Secretary
by Comelec, the Court has no choice but to
General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on
exercise its solemn "constitutional duty" to void
"indefinite forced leave." In the meantime,
the assailed Resolution and the subject
Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was
Contract. The illegal, imprudent and hasty
designated Acting Secretary General.
actions of the Commission have not only
desecrated legal and jurisprudential norms, but
On December 16, 2003, Rep. Aquino filed his
have also cast serious doubts upon the poll
Comment, contending that the Party Chairman
d ’s a i it and capacit t c nduct aut ated
does not have the authority to impose
elections. Truly, the pith and soul of democracy -
disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General.
- credible, orderly, and peaceful elections -- has
As the Manifestation filed by the LDP General
been put in jeopardy by the illegal and gravely
Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the
abusive acts of Comelec.
COMELEC to disregard the same.
On December 26, 2003, the COMELEC issued

LDP v. COMELEC and Aquino
an Order requiring the parties to file a
G.R. No. 161265 February 24, 2004
verified petition. It turned out that, two days
before, Sen. Angara had submitted a verified
TINGA, J.:
CASE: Petition for Certiorari assailing the

COMELEC Resolution for having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) The COMELEC recognized the candidates of
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever LD as t e “ ngara Wing” and “ quino Wing".
Each faction or "Wing" is entitled to a
Petition, in essence, reiterating the contents of representative to any election committee to
its previous Manifestations. Attached to the which it may be entitled as created by the
Petition was a Resolution adopted by the LDP Commission for the May 10, 2004 elections. For
National Executive Council, granting full the copies of the election returns, the
authority to Party Chairman Edgardo J. Angara "Angara Wing" will be entitled to the copies
to enter, negotiate and conclude a coalition corresponding to odd number of precincts and
agreement with other like-minded opposition for the "Aquino Wing" to the even number of
parties, aggrupations and interest groups with precincts. The two LDP "Wings" are further
the sole purpose of uniting the political entitled to and be accorded the rights and
opposition and fielding a unity ticket for the May privileges with corresponding legal obligations
10, 2004 elections. under Election Laws.
Pending resolution, a Certificate of Nomination Sen. Angara thus filed the present petition for
of Sen. Panfilo Lacson as LDP candidate for Certiorari assailing the COMELEC Resolution
President was filed with the COMELEC. The for having been issued with grave abuse of
Certificate of Nomination was signed by Rep. discretion.
Aquino as LDP Secretary General.
Thereafter, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment.
On January 6, 2004, the COMELEC came to a
decision. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a
Manifestation and Motion praying for the
The COMELEC recognized that it "has the granting of the Petition. The COMELEC thus
authority to act on matters pertaining to ‘the filed a separate Comment to the Petition.
ascertainment of the identity of [a] political
party and its legitimate officers… ’
The petition was GRANTED with LEGAL

EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 63
objectives for which it was created to
promote free, orderly and honest elections."
ISSUE:
The COMELEC has the power and the duty to
(1) WHETHER THE COMELEC HAS THE
step in and enforce the law not only to
AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY
protect the party but, more importantly, the
OF A POLOTICAL PARTY AND ITS
electorate in line with the ommission’s broad
LEGITIMATE OFFICERS. YES
constitutional mandate to ensure orderly
elections.
(2) WHETHER COMELEC RESOLUTION
SPLITTING THE LDP INTO TWO WINGS IS
(2) On the issue of who as between the Party
VALID. NO.
Chairman and the Secretary General has the
authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the
HELD: COMELEC Resolution is ANNULLED official candidates of the party. Indeed, the
and the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. petitioners’ Manifestation and etition before
Respondent Commission on Elections is
the COMELEC merely asked the Commission
directed to recognize as official candidates of the
to recognize only those certificates of
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino only those
candidacy signed by petitioner Sen. Angara
whose Certificates of Candidacy are signed by
or his authorized representative, and no
LDP Party Chairman Senator Edgardo J. Angara
other.
or his duly authorized representative/s.
To resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC
need only to turn to the Party Constitution. It
(1) The fundamental law itself, vest upon the
need not go so far as to resolve the root of the
COMELEC the power and function to enforce conflict between the party officials. It need only
and administer all laws and regulations relative resolve such questions as may be necessary in
to the conduct of an election. In the exercise of the exercise of its enforcement powers.
such power and in the discharge of such
function, the Commission is endowed with
ample "wherewithal" and "considerable
latitude in adopting means and methods that
will ensure the accomplishment of the great
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) opposition and, ultimately, to the voting public,
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever as its Resolution facilitated, rather than
forestalled, the division of the minority party.
The COMELEC misapplied equity in the
present case. For all its conceded merits, equity A split party without a complete set of election
is available only in the absence of law and not returns cannot successfully help preserve the
as its replacement.The COMELEC should have sanctity of the ballot.
decided the case on the basis of the party
constitution and election laws. The assailed COMELEC Resolution does not
advance, but subverts, this philosophy
Worse, the COMELEC divided the LDP into behind political parties.
"wings," each of which may nominate
candidates for every elective position. As if to rationalize its folly, the COMELEC
invokes the constitutional policy towards a free
By creating the two wings, the COMELEC and open party system. This policy, however,
e ecti e di used t e LD ’s st ength and envisions a system that shall "evolve according
undeniably emasculated its chance of obtaining to the free choice of the people," not one molded
t eC issi n’s n d as t e d inant in it and whittled by the COMELEC. When the
party. Constitution speaks of a multi-party system,
it does not contemplate the COMELEC
By allowing each wing to nominate different splitting parties into two.
candidates, the COMELEC planted the seeds of
confusion among the electorate, who are apt to
be confounded by two candidates from a single SANTOS v. COMELEC and ASISTIO III
political party. G.R. No. 164439 January 23, 2006
By according both wings representatives in the CARPIO, J.:
election committees, the COMELEC has
eroded the significance of political parties CASE: Petition for certiorari assailing the
and effectively divided the opposition. The Resolution of the COMELEC First Division in
COMELEC performed a disservice to the
votes. Santos prayed for the nullification of
the proclamation of Asistio and for his
declaration as the duly elected Councilor of the
SPC No. 04-233 and Resolution No. 72573 of Second District of Caloocan City.
the COMELEC En Banc, promulgated on 29
June 2004.
In a Resolution promulgated on 29 June 2004,
the COMELEC First Division dismissed SPC
FACTS: Jeffrey L. Santos and Macario E. Asistio
No. 04-233 for lack of merit.
III were candidates for the position of Councilor
for the Second District of Caloocan City in the 10
The COMELEC First Division ruled that: (1)
May 2004 Elections. On 18 May 2004, the City Sant s’ ac watc e s and c unse du ing t e
Board of Canvassers proclaimed Asistio as
early stages of the canvassing proceedings is
councilor-elect for the Second District of
not a proper ground for the annulment of
Caloocan City. Based on the Canvass of
sisti ’s p c a ati n; (2) t e d cu ents
Election Returns and the Statement of Votes,
submitted by Santos, consisting of a compilation
Asistio garnered 45,163 votes and secured the
and tabulation of votes which he himself
sixth and last slot for the position of Councilor
prepared, and which he based on certified true
while Santos placed seventh with 44,558
c pies N MFREL’s e ecti n etu ns and t e
votes.
originals of various Certificates of Votes
submitted by the poll watchers, are not
On 28 May 2004, Santos filed with the
admissible in evidence; and (3) Santos should
COMELEC a Petition, docketed SPC No. 04-
have assailed the proceedings via a pre-
233, for Annulment of Proclamation on the
proclamation controversy, or through an
Basis of Erroneous Canvass/Tallies of Votes.
election protest within ten days after the
Santos alleged that he was a victim of "dagdag-
proclamation of Asistio, instead of a petition for
bawas" and that his votes were reduced in the
annulment of proclamation.
State ent V tes w i e sisti ’s tes we e
increased. Santos further alleged that based on
t e ce ti ied t ue c pies t e N MFREL’s4
election returns as well as the Certificates of
Votes submitted by the poll watchers in the
Second District of Caloocan City, he obtained
46,361 votes while Asistio garnered only 45,514
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever On 9 July 2004, Santos filed with the COMELEC
En Banc a motion for the reconsideration
On 29 June 2004, COMELEC En Banc assailing the COMELEC First Division’s
promulgated Resolution No. 7257 xxx Resolution.
4. All remaining pre-proclamation cases, which On 30 August 2004, Santos filed before the
on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, Supreme Court a petition for certiorari
appear meritorious and/or are subject of orders assailing the 29 June 2004 Resolution of the
by the Supreme Court or this Commission in COMELEC First Division and Resolution No.
petitions for certiorari brought respectively to 7257 of the COMELEC En Banc.
them shall likewise remain active cases, thereby
requiring the proceedings therein to continue In his Comment on the petition, Asistio
beyond 30 June 2004, until they are finally accused Santos of forum shopping. Asistio
resolved; and informed the Court that the COMELEC En Banc
5. All petitions for disqualification, failure of n disp sed Sant s’ ti n
elections or analogous cases, not being pre- reconsideration in its Order of 15 September
proclamation controversies and, therefore, not 2004 when it affirmed the 29 June 2004
governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.
particularly, by the second paragraph of Sec. 6, Hence, at the time of the filing of the petition for
Republic Act No. 7166, shall remain active ce ti a i e e t is C u t, Sant s’ ti n
cases, the proceedings to continue beyond June reconsideration was still pending before the
30, 2004, until the issues therein are finally COMELEC En Banc.
resolved by the Commission;
Xxx Santos, in his Reply t sisti ’s C ent,
This resolution shall take effect immediately. maintains that he is not guilty of forum shopping
because the petition before the Supreme Court
Annexed to Resolution No. 7257 is a list of only challenges Resolution No. 7257 and not the
cases that shall remain active before the 29 June 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC First
COMELEC until their final resolution. SPC No. Division. Santos further argues that by excluding
04-233 is not included in the list.
COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 7257. It
was only when Asistio, in his Comment,
called the ourt’s attention that antos now
SPC No. 04-233 from the list of cases annexed belatedly asserts that he only seeks to
to Resolution No. 7257, the COMELEC En challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 7257
Banc effectively terminated the case to its and not the Resolution of the COMELEC First
finality. Santos claims that he only learned on Division.
22 July 2004 of the exclusion of SPC No. 04-233
from the list of cases, after the petition before
Santos stated in his petition before this Court
this Court had been filed. However, he admits
that on 9 July 2004, he filed a motion for ec
that Resolution No. 7257 was published in the
nside ati n t e COMELEC Fi st Di isi n’s
Philippine Daily Inquirer on 30 June 2004.
Resolution. However, he did not disclose that at
ISSUES:
the time of the filing of his petition, his motion for
(1) Whether the COMELEC First Division
reconsideration was still pending before the
committed grave abuse of discretion in
COMELEC En Banc. Santos did not also bother
dismissing SPC No. 04-233. NO.
to inform the Court of the denial of his motion for
reconsideration by the COMELEC En Banc. Had
(2)Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed
sisti n t ca ed t is C u t’s attenti n, we w u d
grave abuse of discretion in excluding SPC No.
have ruled on whether the COMELEC First
04-233 from the list of cases annexed to
Division committed grave abuse of discretion in
Resolution No. 7257. MOOT.
dismissing SPC No. 04-233, which is one of the
issues raised by Santos in this petition. This act
RULING: Petition dismissed.
of Santos alone constitutes a ground for this
C u t’s su a dis issa is petiti n
Santos is Guilty of Forum-Shopping
The Resolution of the COMELEC First
Santos filed the petition for certiorari before this
Division has attained Finality. Had this Court
Court during the pendency of his motion for been apprised at the outset of the pendency of
reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc.
The petition clearly states that he is questioning
the two Resolutions issued by the COMELEC:
the 29 June 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC
First Division in SPC No. 04-233 and the
ROQUE V.COMELEC (2009)
Sant s’ ti n ec nside ati n e e t e EN BANC
COMELEC En Banc, it would have dismissed [G.R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009]
the petition outright for premature filing.
VELASCO JR., J.:
When the COMELEC En Banc finally resolved
the motion for reconsideration, Santos no longer FACTS: On 23 January 2007, Congress passed
elevated the denial of his motion before this RA 9369 amending the first automated election
[2]
Court. He could no longer do that without law, RA 8436. Section 5 of RA 8436, as
exposing his act of forum shopping. Thus, by amended by RA 9369, which amendment took
antos’ inaction the rder of the ME E En effect on 10 February 2007, authorized the
Banc is now final and executory. COMELEC to:
C nt a t Sant s’ c ai , t e COMELEC En Use an automated election system or systems in

Banc did not dismiss outright SPC No. 04-233 the same election in different provinces, whether
even though the case was excluded in the list paper-based or a direct recording automated
annexed to Resolution No. 7257. The election system as it may deem appropriate and
COMELEC First Division in fact resolved SPC practical for the process of voting, counting of
No. 04-233. When Santos filed a motion for votes and canvassing/consolidation and
reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc transmittal of results of electoral exercises:
accepted, considered and disposed of the Provided, that for the regular national and
motion. Hence, the issue of whether the local election, which shall be held
COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse immediately after effectivity of this Act, the
of discretion in excluding SPC No. 04-233 in AES shall be used in at least two highly
the list of cases annexed to Resolution No. urbanized cities and two provinces each in
7257 is now moot since the COMELEC in fact Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, to be chosen
accepted, considered and disposed of SPC No. by the Commission x x x x In succeeding
04-233. regular national or local elections, the AES shall
the optical scanners leased by the COMELEC

do not satisfy the minimum systems capabilities"
under RA 8436, as amended and (2) the
be implemented nationwide. (Emphasis Provider not only failed to submit relevant
supplied) documents during the bidding but also failed to
show "community of interest" among its
The COMELEC did not use any automated constituent corporations as required in
election system in the 14 May 2007 elections, Information Technology Foundation of the
the national and local elections held after RA Philippines v. COMELEC (Infotech).
9369 took effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the COMELEC gravely
On 10 July 2009, the COMELEC, on the one abuse its discretion when it entered to contract
hand, and TIM and Smartmatic (Provider), on with Smartmatic TIM Corporation and assailing
the other, signed the Contract for the automated to an automated election.
tallying and recording of votes cast nationwide in
the 10 May 2010 elections. For RULING: Assayed against the provisions of the
P7,191,484,739.48, the COMELEC leased for Constitution, the enabling automation law, RA
use in the 10 May 2010 elections 82,200 optical 8436, as amended by RA 9369, the RFP and
scanners (and related equipment) and hired even the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners
ancillary services of the Provider. invoked as an afterthought, the Court finds the
project award to have complied with legal
On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as taxpayers and prescriptions, and the terms and conditions of
[4] the corresponding automation contract in
citizens, filed this petition to enjoin the signing
of the Contract or its implementation and to question to be valid. No grave abuse of
compel disclosure of the terms of the Contract discretion, therefore, can be laid on the
and other agreements between the Provider and doorsteps of respondent COMELEC. And surely,
its subcontractors.
[5]
Petitioners sought the the winning joint venture should not be faulted
Contract's invalidation for non-compliance with for having a foreign company as partner.
the requirement in Section 5 of RA 8436, as
amended, mandating the partial use of an
automated election system before deploying it
nationwide. To further support their claim on the
Contract's invalidity, petitioners alleged that (1)
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) There are no ready-made formulas for solving
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever public problems. Time and experience are
necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the
ends of good government. In the matter of the
The COMELEC is an independent constitutional administration of the laws relative to the conduct
body with a distinct and pivotal role in our of elections, x x x we must not by any excessive
scheme of government. In the discharge of its zeal take away from the comelec the initiative
awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, which by constitutional and legal mandates
administrator and lead implementor of laws properly belongs to it. Due regard to the
relative to the conduct of elections, it should not independent character of the Commission x x x
be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps requires that the power of this court to review the
be justified in the case of an organization of acts of that body should, as a general
lesser responsibility.[103] It should be afforded proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in
ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in appropriate cases.
devising means and initiatives that would enable
it to accomplish the great objective for which it This independent constitutional commission, it is
was created--to promote free, orderly, honest true, possesses extraordinary powers and
and peaceful elections. This is as it should be enjoys a considerable latitude in the discharge of
for, too often, COMELEC has to make decisions its functions. The road, however, towards
under difficult conditions to address unforeseen successful 2010 automation elections would
events to preserve the integrity of the election certainly be rough and bumpy. The comelec is
and in the process the voice of the people. Thus, laboring under very tight timelines. It would
in the past, the Court has steered away from accordingly need the help of all advocates of
inte e ing wit t e COMELEC’s e e cise its orderly and honest elections, of all men and
power which, by law and by the nature of its women of goodwill, to smoothen the way and
office properly pertain to it. Absent, therefore, a assist comelec personnel address the fears
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on c expressed about the integrity of the system. Like
e ec’s pa t, as e e, t e C u t s u d e ain from anyone else, the Court would like and wish
utilizing the corrective hand of certiorari to automated elections to succeed, credibly.
review, let alone nullify, the acts of that body.
2009 Decision on the following issues or
grounds:
1 T e C e ec’s pu ic p n unce ents s w that there

ROQUE VS COMELEC is a "high probability" that there will be failure of
automated elections;
(mas maganda na digest although medyo iba rin
ang issue na gina tackle nya.) 2. Comelec abdicated its constitutional functions
in favor of Smartmatic;
FACTS: This case is a motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioners of the 3. There is no legal framework to guide the
September 10, 2009 ruling of the Supreme Comelec in appreciating automated ballots in
Court, which denied the petition of H. Harry L. case the PCOS machines fail;
Roque, Jr., et al. for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus to nullify the contract-award of the 4. Respondents cannot comply with the
2010 Election Automation Project to the joint requirements of RA 8436 for a source code
venture of Total Information Management review;
Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International
Corporation (Smartmatic).
5. Certifications submitted by private
respondents as to the successful use of the
In this MR, petitioners Roque, et al. are again machines in elections abroad do not fulfill the
before the Supreme Court asking that the requirement of Sec. 12 of RA 8436;
contract award be declared null and void on the
stated ground that it was made in violation of the 6. Private respondents will not be able to provide
Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence. telecommunications facilities that will assure
Intervening petitioner also interposed a similar 100% communications coverage at all times
motion, but only to pray that the Board of during the conduct of the 2010 elections; and
Election Inspectors be ordered to manually
count the ballots after the printing and electronic
transmission of the election returns.
Petitioners Roque, et al., as movants herein,

seek a reconsideration of the September 10,
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) elections"; "the unaddressed logistical
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever nightmares—and the lack of contingency plans
that should have been crafted as a result of a
7. Subcontracting the manufacture of PCOS pilot test—make an automated failure of
ac ines t Quisdi i ates t e C e ec’s elections very probable"; and "COMELEC
bidding rules. committed grave abuse of discretion when it
signed x x x the contract for full automation x x x
Note: (This digest would only deal with the despite the likelihood of a failure of elections."
procedural aspect of the MR. Only those issues
ormgrounds wherein the Court made a ruling re: Speculations and conjectures are not equivalent
procedure would be discussed here.) to proof; they have little, if any, probative value
and, surely, cannot be the basis of a sound
ISSUE: Is the motion for reconsideration
judgment.
meritorious?
Petitioners, to support their speculative venture
RULING: No. Upon taking a second hard look
vis-à-vis the possibility of Comelec going
into the issues in the case at bar and the
manual, have attributed certain statements to
arguments earnestly pressed in the instant
respondent Comelec Chairman Melo, citing for
motions, the Court cannot grant the desired
the purpose a news item on Inquirer.net, posted
reconsideration.
September 16, 2009.
etiti ne s’ t es d a gu ent de es n
Reacting to the attribution, however,
possibilities, on matters that may or may not
respondents TIM and Smartmatic, in their
occur. The conjectural and speculative nature of comment, described the Melo pronouncements
the first issue raised is reflected in the very
as ade in t e c nte t C e ec’s contingency plan.
manner of its formulation and by statements,
Petitioners, however, the same respondents
such as "the public pronouncements of public
added, put a misleading spin to the Melo
respondent COMELEC x x x clearly show that
pronouncements by reproducing part of the
there is a high probability that there will be
news item, but omitting to make reference
automated failure of elections"; "there is a high
probability that the use of PCOS machines in the COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 68
May 2010 elections will result in failure of

While a motion for reconsideration may tend to
dwell on issues already resolved in the decision
sought to be reconsidered—and this should not
to his succeeding statements to arrive at a
be an obstacle for a reconsideration—the hard
clearer and true picture.
reality is that petitioners have failed to raise
matters substantially plausible or compellingly
i ate esp ndents’ se ation is well-taken.
persuasive to warrant the desired course of
Indeed, it is easy to selectively cite portions of
action.
what has been said, sometimes out of their
proper context, in order to assert a misleading
Significantly, petitioners, in support of their
conclusion. The effect can be dangerous.
position on the lack-of-legal-framework issue,
Improper meaning may be deliberately attached
invoke the opinion of Associate, later Chief,
to innocent views or even occasional crude
Justice Artemio Panganiban in Loong v.
comments by the simple expediency of lifting
Comelec, where he made the following
them out of context from any publication.
observations: "Resort to manual appreciation of
the ballots is precluded by the basic features of
etiti ne s’ p stu e anent t e t i d issue, i e, there
the automated election system," and "the rules
no is legal framework to guide Comelec in the laid down in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)
appreciation of automated ballots or to govern for the appreciation and counting of ballots cast
manual count should PCOS machines fail, in a manual election x x x are inappropriate, if
cannot be accorded cogency. First, it glosses not downright useless, to the proper appreciation
over the continuity and back-up plans that would and reading of the ballots used in the automated
be implemented in case the PCOS machines system." Without delving on its wisdom and
falter during the 2010 elections. The overall validity, the view of Justice Panganiban thus
fallback strategy and options to address even cited came by way of a dissenting opinion. As
the worst-case scenario—the wholesale
such, it is without binding effect, a dissenting
breakdown of the 80,000 needed machines
opinion being a mere expression of the individual
nationwide and of the 2,000 reserved units—
have been discussed in some detail in the view of a member of the Court or other collegial
Decision subject of this recourse. The Court adjudicating body, while disagreeing with the
need not belabor them again.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) cannot be brought out on review. Basic
considerations of fair play impel this rule. The
imperatives of orderly, if not speedy, justice
conclusion held by the majority.
frown on a piecemeal presentation of evidence
And going to another but recycled issue, and on the practice of parties of going to trial
petitioners would have the Court invalidate the haphazardly.
automation contract on the ground that the
certifications submitted by Smartmatic during the Moving still to another issue, petitioners claim
bidding, showing that the PCOS technology has that "there are very strong indications that
been used in elections abroad, do not comply Private Respondents will not be able to provide
with Sec. 1222 of RA 8436. Presently, for telecommunication facilities for areas without
petitioners assert that the system certified as these facilities." This argument, being again
having been used in New York was the highly speculative, is without evidentiary value
Dominion Image Cast, a ballot marking device. and hardly provides a ground for the Court to
nullify the automation contract. Surely, a
Petitioners have obviously inserted, at this stage possible breach of a contractual stipulation is not
of the case, an entirely new factual dimension to a legal reason to prematurely rescind, much less
their cause. This we cannot allow for compelling annul, the contract.
reasons. For starters, the Court cannot plausibly
validate this factual assertion of petitioners. As it Finally, petitioners argue that, based on news
is, private respondents have even questioned reports,28 the TIM-Smartmatic joint venture has
the reliability of the website24 whence entered into a new contract with Quisdi, a
petitioners base their assertion, albeit the Shanghai-based company, to manufacture on its
former, citing the same website, state that the behalf the needed PCOS machines to fully
Image Cast Precinct tabulation device refers to automate the 2010 elections.29 This
the D ini n’s COS ac ines arrangement, petitioners aver, violates the bid
rules proscribing sub-contracting of significant
Moreover, as a matter of sound established components of the automation project.
practice, points of law, theories, issues, and
arguments not raised in the original proceedings The argument is untenable, based as it is again
The resolution in effect implements the Phase 3
of the automation though the COMELEC dubbed
the electronic transmission of results as an “un
on news reports. Surely, petitioners cannot
icia ”’ quic c unt
expect the Court to act on unverified reports
foisted on it. The petitioners assail the above resolution
because here is no provision under Rep. Act No.
8436 which authorizes the COMELEC to engage
BRILLANTES ET. AL. V. COMELEC in the biometrics/computerized system of
validation of voters (Phase I) and a system of
FACTS: Republic Act No. 8436 mandates the electronic transmission of election results (Phase
use by the COMELEC of Automated Election III). Even assuming for the nonce that all the three
System for the national and local elections. By (3) phases are duly authorized, they must
virtue of this law, the COMELEC promulgated a complement each other as they are not distinct
resolution for the implementation of this law. and separate programs but mere stages of one
Under the said resolution the automation of whole scheme. Consequently, considering the
election was divided into 3 phases namely: failed implementation of Phases I and II, there is
Phase 1, for the computerized registration of no basis at all for the respondent COMELEC to still
voters and validation of voters; Phase 2 is for the push through and pursue with Phase III.
computerized voting and counting of votes; and
Phase 3 concerns the electronic transmission of The petitioner essentially posits that the counting
results. Phase 1 was implemented while on the and consolidation of votes contemplated under
other hand, due to certain controversies Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 8436 refers to the
surrounding the implementation of Phase 1 the official COMELEC count under the fully
same was not implemented. automated system and not any kind of
"unofficial" count via electronic transmission of
This petition concerns Resolution No. 6712 advanced results as now provided under the
issued by the COMELEC en banc promulgated assailed resolution. On the other hand,
by the COMELEC barely two weeks before the petitioner-intervenors assail the constitutionality
May 2004 Synchronized residential and local
elections mandating the electronic transmission
of the election results for the national elections.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) COMELEC’s e ecuti e ad inist ati e p we
as a secause t e issue in es a “p itica
question. It likewise challenges the standing of
of Resolution 6712 effectively preempts the sole all the petitioners to file the present petition.
and exclusive authority of Congress under
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution to COMELEC also denied the resolution aims to
canvass the votes for President and Vice- implement the Phase 3 of the election
President. automation system. They also argue that what is
contemplated in the assailed resolution is not a
Further, as there has been no appropriation by canvass of the votes but merely consolidation
Congress for the respondent COMELEC to and transmittal thereof. As such, it cannot be
conduct an "unofficial" electronic transmission of made the basis for the proclamation of any
results of the May 10, 2004 elections, any winning candidate. Emphasizing that the project
expenditure for the said purpose contravenes is "unofficial" in nature, the COMELEC opines
Article VI, Section 29 (par. 1) of the Constitution. that it cannot, therefore, be considered as
preempting or usurping the exclusive power of
All of them likewise assail the legality of the Congress to canvass the votes for President and
resolution on the ground that it encroaches upon Vice-President.
t e aut it N MFREL, as t e citizens’ accredited ISSUE: Whether the petitioners have standing to
arm, to conduct the "unofficial" quick count as file the petition
provided under pertinent election laws. It also
violates Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election HELD: Yes. Since the implementation of the
Code, relating to the requirement of notice to the assailed resolution obviously involves the
political parties and candidates of the adoption expenditure of funds, the petitioner and the
of technological and electronic devices during petitioners-in-intervention, as taxpayers, possess
the elections. the requisite standing to question its validity as
they have sufficient interest in preventing the
COMELEC counters by saying that the Court illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. In
has no jurisdiction to pass upon the assailed essence, taxpayers are allowed to sue where there
reso uti n’s a idit c ai ing t at it was is a claim of illegal disbursement of public
promulgated in the exercise of the respondent
esp ndent COMELEC’s ad inist ati e issuance
will not preclude this Court from exercising its
power of judicial review to determine whether or
funds, or that public money is being deflected to not there was grave abuse of discretion
any improper purpose, or where the petitioners amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
seek to restrain the respondent from wasting part of the respondent COMELEC in issuing
public funds through the enforcement of an Resolution No. 6712. Indeed, administrative
invalid or unconstitutional law. issuances must not override, supplant or modify
the law, but must remain consistent with the law
Some of the petitioners are also representatives they intend to carry out.27 When the grant of
of major political parties that have participated in power is qualified, conditional or subject to
the May 10, 2004 elections. Some represent the limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed
N MFREL, w ic is t e citizens’ a , aut ized to qualifications or conditions have been met or the
conduct an "unofficial" quick count during the limitations respected, is justiciable – the problem
said elections. They have sufficient, direct and being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom.28
personal interest in the manner by which the In the present petition, the Court must pass upon
respondent COMELEC would conduct the t e petiti ne ’s c ntenti n t at Res uti n N 6712
elections, including the counting and canvassing does not have adequate statutory or
of the votes cast therein. Drilon and De Venecia constitutional basis.
are, respectively, President of the Senate and
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the ISSUE: Whether the respondent COMELEC
heads of Congress which is exclusively committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
authorized by the Constitution to canvass the to lack or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating
votes for President and Vice-President. They the assailed resolution
have the requisite standing to prevent the
usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of HELD: Yes. First. The assailed resolution
Congress. usurps, under the guise of an "unofficial"
tabulation of election results based on a copy of
ISSUE: Whether the petition involves a
justiciable controversy
HELD: Yes. Petitioner and the petitioners-in-

intervention are questioning the legality of the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) including the encoding process. Hence, it would
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever necessarily involve the disbursement of public
funds for which there must be the corresponding
the election returns, the sole and exclusive appropriation.
authority of Congress to canvass the votes for
the election of President and Vice-President. Third. It disregards existing laws which
authorize solely the duly-acc edited citizens’ a to
Second. The assailed COMELEC resolution conduct the "unofficial" counting of votes. Under
contravenes the constitutional provision that "no Section 27 of Rep. Act No. 7166, as amended
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in by Rep. Act No. 8173, and reiterated in Section
pursuance of an appropriation made by law. By 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436, the acc edited citizen’s
its very terms, the electronic transmission and a - in this case, NAMFREL
tabulation of the election results projected under - is exclusively authorized to use a copy of the
Resolution No. 6712 is "unofficial" in character, election returns in the conduct of an "unofficial"
meaning "not emanating from or sanctioned or counting of the votes, whether for the national or
acknowledged by the government or the local elections. No other entity is authorized to
government body. Any disbursement of public use a copy of the election returns for purposes of
funds to implement this project is contrary to the conducting an "unofficial" count. In addition, the
provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No.
second or third copy of the election returns, while
9206, which is the 2003 General Appropriations
required to be delivered to the COMELEC under
Act. The use of the COMELEC of its funds
the aforementioned laws, are not intended for
appropriated for the AES for the "unofficial"
undertaking an "unofficial" count. The aforesaid
quick count project may even be considered as
COMELEC copies are archived and unsealed only
a felony under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
when needed by the respondent COMELEC to
Code, as amended. The implementation of the
verify election results in connection with resolving
assailed resolution would entail, in due course,
election disputes that may be imminent. However,
the hiring of additional manpower, technical
in contravention of the law, the assailed Resolution
services and acquisition of equipment, including
authorizes the so-called Reception Officers (RO),
computers and software, among others.
to open the second or third copy intended for the
According to the COMELEC, it needed
respondent
P55,000,000 to operationalize the project,
COMELEC to conduct two kinds of electoral
counts – a slow but "official" count, and an
alleged quicker but "unofficial" count, the results
COMELEC as basis for the encoding and of each may substantially differ.
transmission of advanced "unofficial" precinct
results. This not only violates the exclusive
prerogative of NAMFREL to conduct an
"unofficial" count, but also taints the integrity of
JOSELITO R. MENDOZA VS. COMMISSION
the envelopes containing the election returns, as
ON ELECTIONS AND ROBERTO M.
well as the returns themselves, by creating a
PAGDANGANAN
gap in its chain of custody from the Board of
EN BANC
Election Inspectors to the COMELEC.
[G.R. No. 191084, March 25, 2010 ]
Fourth. Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election
PEREZ, J.:
Code does not cover the use of the latest
technological and election devices for "unofficial"
FACTS: This case involves the election protest
tabulations of votes. Moreover, the COMELEC
filed with the Commission on Elections against
failed to notify the authorized representatives of
Joselito R. Mendoza (Mendoza), who was
accredited political parties and all candidates in
proclaimed elected Governor of Bulacan in the
areas affected by the use or adoption of
14 May 2007 elections. Mendoza garnered
technological and electronic devices not less
364,566 votes while private respondent Roberto
than thirty days prior to the effectivity of the use
M. Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan) got 348,834
of such devices.
votes, giving Mendoza a winning margin of
15,732 votes.
Fifth. There is no constitutional and statutory
basis for the respondent COMELEC to
undertake a separate and an "unofficial" After the appreciation of the contested ballots,
tabulation of results, whether manually or the COMELEC Second Division deducted a total
of 20,236 votes from Mendoza and 616 votes
electronically. Indeed, by conducting such
"unofficial" tabulation of the results of the
election, the COMELEC descends to the level of
a private organization, spending public funds for
the purpose. Besides, it is absurd for the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) HELD: Indeed, the grave abuse of discretion of the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever COMELEC is patent in the fact that despite the
existence in its books of the clearly worded
from Pagdanganan. As regards the claimed Section 6 of Rule 18, which incidentally has been
ballots, Mendoza was awarded 587 ballots acknowledged by this Court in the recent case of
compared to Pagdanganan's 586 ballots. Thus, [5]
Marcoleta v COMELEC, it completely ignored
the result of the revision proceedings showed
and disregarded its very own decree and
that Pagdanganan obtained 342,295 votes,
proceeded with the questioned Resolution of 8
which is more than Mendoza's 337,974 votes. In
February 2010 and Order of 4 March 2010, in all,
its Resolution dated 1 December 2009 (Division
annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R.
Resolution), the COMELEC Second Division
Mendoza as the duly elected governor of Bulacan,
annulled the proclamation of Mendoza and
declaring respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan as
proclaimed Pagdanganan as the duly elected the duly elected governor, and ordering petitioner
Governor of Bulacan with a winning margin of Joselito R. Mendoza to cease and desist from
4,321 votes. performing the functions of the Governor of
Bulacan and to vacate said office in favor of
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan.
Resolution on 8 February 2010. On 4 March
2010, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC
denying Mendoza's Motion for Reconsideration is underscored by the fact that the protest that
and granting Pagdanganan's Motion for petitioner Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007
Execution of the Division Resolution overstayed with the COMELEC until the present
election year when the end of the term of the
ISSUE: contested office is at hand and there was hardly
 Whether or not, the COMELEC gravely enough time for the re-hearing that was
abuse its discretion when it failed to credit conducted only on 15 February 2010. As the
petitioner's claims? YES hearing time at the division had run out, and the
 Whether or not, the COMELEC en banc has re-hearing time at the banc was fast running out,
the power to hear and decide the case. NO the unwanted result came about: incomplete
appreciation of ballots; invalidation of ballots on
MBC headed by Sansarona, private respondent
objected to the inclusion of 4 election returns
from 4 precincts on the grounds of duress, for
general and unspecific grounds; unrebutted being spurious returns and for not being an
presumption of validity of ballots. authentic copy. The Sansarona MBC issued its
ruling on the 3 objection setting aside the
Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 election returns from a precinct for further
Constitution, the COMELEC, sitting en banc, investigation or to go deeper into the
does not have the authority to decide election contradicting testimonies of the Chairman and
cases in the first instance as this authority the watchers or to summon the 2 BFIs who
belongs to the divisions of the COMELEC failed to affix their signature and explain the
Specifically. alleged increase of votes of a candidate. The
MBC composition was changed with Macadato
Sec.3. The Commission on Elections may sit en as its head. It denied the exclusion of return from
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its precinct.
rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre- Private respondent Balindong appealed to the
proclamation controversies. All such election COMELEC the ruling of the Macadato MBC.
cases shall be heard and decided in division, Petitioner also appealed to the COMELEC
provided that motions for reconsideration of challenging the Sansarona MBC rulings. While
decisions shall be decided by the Commission these 2 cases were still pending in the
En Banc. COMELEC, the Macadato MBC proclaimed
petitioner Jamil and other winning candidates.
The COMELEC Second Division issued an
JAMIL vs. COMELEC Order directing the MBC to reconvene and
G.R. No. 123648, December 15, 1997 proclaim the winning candidate for Mayor of
Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur. The Macadato
FACTS: Petitioner Jamil and Private respondent MBC proclaimed petitioner Jamil as duly elected
Balindong were among the mayoralty candidates Mayor. Private respondent filed with the
in the Municipality of Sultan Gumander, Lanao
del Sur during the May 1998 elections. During
the canvassing of the election returns by the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) candidate as winner where returns are
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever contested, unless authorized by the COMELEC.
COMELEC an u gent ti n t annu petiti ne ’s It is readily observed that the May 23, 1995
proclamation on the ground that the issuances cannot be considered as "rulings"
proclamation was without authority of the within the contemplation of law; they are not
COMELEC, and to constitute a new Board of definitive rulings of exclusion by the MBC
Canvasser. The COMELEC Second division because they merely deferred the inclusion of
annu ed petiti ne Ja i ’s p c a ati n and directed the election returns pending "further
the constitution of a new MBC. The newly investigation." Hence, they are not "rulings" of
constituted MBC headed by Cariga proclaimed the board of canvassers that are deemed
private respondent Balindong as the newly affirmed within the purview of Comelec's
elected Mayor. Omnibus Resolution on pending cases dated
June 29, 1995. The proclamation of the
The COMELEC en banc affirmed the decision of petitioner is invalid due to the provisions of the
the Second Division. Petitioner Jamil asked the said code which prohibits the MBC to proclaim a
Supreme Court to revise and reverse the candidate with a pending case thereof unless
decision of the COMELEC en banc authorized by the COMELEC, there was none
based on the facts. On the other hand, the
ISSUE: Which of the 2 proclamations is valid. proclamation of the private respondent was also
invalid it was not predicated on a complete and
HELD: The Supreme Court held that both valid canvass, but on supposed "rulings" of the
proclamations are not valid. The Macadato and Sansarona MBC which merely "set aside for
Cariga MBC did not make definite rulings or further investigation" the three challenged
pronouncement on the inclusion or exclusion of election returns from Precinct Nos. 5, 10-1 and
returns so that there was no complete and valid 20-1. Said proclamation had clearly no basis in
canvass which is pre-requisite to a valid p c a ati fact and in law. It is a settled rule that an
n etiti ne Ja i ’s p c a ati n incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot
the MBC had no authority from COMELEC. The be the basis of a valid proclamation.
Omnibus Election Code prohibits the
proclamation by the Board of Canvassers of a COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 73
Instead of submitting a Motion for

Reconsideration (MFR), the petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court,
BERNARDO VS ABALOS
claiming that the said resolution of the en banc
{Antonio M. Bernardo, Ernesto A. Domingo,
was made with grave abuse of discretion.
Jr. and jesus C. Cruz vs. Benjamin S. Abalos,
r Benjamin “Benhur” balos Jr r Eden C.
The petitioners are claiming that they would
Diaz, Romeo F. Zapanta, Arcadio S. De Vera
rather go directly to the Supreme Court as a
and The COMELEC}
MFR at the COMELEC level would be dilatory.
G.R. No. 137266, December 5, 2001
E: W/ the petitioner’s certiorari should
FACTS: In 1998, a criminal complaint for be given due course. NO
violation of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election
Code on vote-buying was charged against
HELD: The petitioners should have sought a
respondents. Abalos was running for the position
reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC En
of Mayor at the time.
Banc Resolution as required by Section 1, Rule
13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
It was alleged that a few weeks before the thus:
elections, Abalos hosted an all-expense paid trip Section 1. What Pleadings are not
for Mandaluyong City public school teachers at a Allowed.- The following pleadings are not
beach resort. During this outing, Abalos made a a wed: …
speech where he promised the teacher an
d) motion for reconsideration of an en
increase in their allowances.
banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except
in election offence cases;
COMELEC’s Law Depa t ent c nducted a
Preliminary Investigation, but recommended to
etiti ne s’ ai u e t i e t e equired MFR utterly
the en banc to dismiss said complaint due to
disregarded the COMELEC Rules intended to
lack of evidence.
Thereafter, the en banc issued a Resolution

dis issing t e c p aint “insu icienc
e idence t esta is a p i a acie case ”
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) c p ainants;” and t at t e e idence su itted
petiti ne s a e “ e e se -serving statements,
and uncorroborated audio and visual recording
achieve an orderly, just expeditious and and a p t g ap ”
inexpensive determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought before the NB: Sec. 28 of RA 6646 states that a complaint
Commission. for vote-buying must be supported by affidavits
of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or
C nt a t petiti ne s’ state ent t at a es t t a MFR is p ise t e te ’s acceptance money or other
‘di at ,’ it ea s st essing t at t e consideration from the relatives, leaders or
purpose of said motion is to give the COMELEC symphatizers of candidate. Such affidavit was
an opportunity to correct the error imputed to it. clearly missing in the complaint, warranting its
If the error is immediately corrected by way of a dismissal.
MFR, then it is the most expeditious and
inexpensive recourse. But if the COMELEC
refuses to correct a patently erroneous act, then COQUILLA v COMELEC
it commits a grave abuse of discretion justifying {Tedulo M. Coquilla vs COMELEC and Neil M.
a recourse by the aggrieved party to a petition Avarez}
for certiorari. G.R. No. 15194, July 31, 2002
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 FACTS: Coquilla was naturalized as a US
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, can only Citizen sometime around 1965. He returned to
be resorted to if there is no appeal, or any plain, the Philippines in 1998, and subsequently was
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary repatriated under RA 8171. He took his oath and
course of law. Having failed to file the required was issued his Certificate of Repatriation on
MFR t e c a enged Res uti n, petiti ne s’ instant November 2000.
petition is certainly premature.
Thereafter, Coquilla was registered as a voter of
The COMLEC also found that the evidence of Oras, Eastern Samar on January 2001. On
t e esp ndents a e e ‘p ati e a ue and
believable than the evidence of the
Division. This makes the said Motion pro
forma.
February 2001, he filed his Certificate of On February 11, 2002, Coquilla filed a petition
Candidacy to run for the position of Mayor. nd
for certiorari assailing the resolution of the 2
Division as we as t e en anc’s denia is MFR.
However, incumbent re-electionist Neil Alvarez s
ug t t e cance ati n C qui a’s COC n t e ground
that Coquilla made a material misrepresentation a ez n t e t e and c ai s t at C qui a’s
that he had been living in Oras for two years, petition be dismissed as it was filed out of time:
when really, he had only been for 6 months. nd
Coquilla received the 2 Division Resolution on
July 28, 2001, so that Coquilla only had until
The COMELEC however failed to render
August 2001 to file the petition. Alvarez
judgment on the case before the elections, additionally maintains that since the en banc
where Coquilla was elected mayor. und C qui a’s MFR t e p -forma, the filing of the
nd MFR with the en banc did not suspend the 30-
On July 19, 2001, the 2 Division issued a day prescriptive period to question the 2
nd
Res uti n w ic g anted a a ez’s petiti n and Division ruling.
de ed t e cance ati n C qui a’s COC 5
days after receiving the Resolution, Coquilla filed ISSUES:
a MFR but the en banc denied it on January 30,
1. W/N C qui a’s petition was barred by
2002 for being pro-forma.
prescription. NO
The COMELEC en banc said in its decision: 2. W/N C qui a’s MFR was p -forma. NO
An incisive examination of the allegations HELD:
in the Motion for Reconsideration shows Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
that the same are a mere rehash of his provides in pertinent parts:
averments contained in his Verified Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for
Answer and Memorandum. Neither did Reconsideration. – A motion to reconsider
respondent raise new matters that would
sufficiently warrant a reversal of the
assailed resolution of the Second
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) petiti ne ’s ti n ec nside ati n t e resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division, as well as his
petition for certiorari to set aside of the order of
a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a the COMELEC en banc, was filed within the
Division shall be filed within five days period provided for in Rule 19, Sec. 2 of the
from the promulgation thereof. Such COMELEC Rules of Procedure and in Art. IX(A),
motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the Sec. 7 of the Constitution.
execution for implementation of the
decision, resolution, order, or ruling. On the contention that said motion was pro-
forma, the Court held that the motion for
Sec. 4. Effect of Motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and its filing
Reconsideration on Period to Appeal. – A did suspend the period for filing the petition for
motion to reconsider a decision, certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a
resolution, order, or ruling, when not promotion for reconsideration of the issues raised
forma, suspends the running of the period by the parties and passed upon by the court
to elevate the matter to the Supreme does not make a motion pro forma; otherwise,
Court. t e ant’s e ed w u d n t e a reconsideration of the
decision but a new trial or some other remedy.
The five-day period for filing a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 19, Sec. 2 should be
counted from the receipt of the decision, In the cases where a motion for reconsideration
resolution, order, or ruling of the COMELEC was held to be pro forma, the motion was so
Division. In this case, petitioner received a copy held because (1) it was a second motion for
of the resolution of July 19, 2001 of the reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the
COMELEC’s Sec nd Di isi n n Ju 28, 2001 Five rule that the motion must specify the findings
days later, on August 2, 2001, he filed his motion and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or
for reconsideration. On February 6, 2002, he not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to
received a copy of the order, dated January 30, substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely
2002, of the COMELEC en banc denying his alleged that the decision in question was
motion for reconsideration. Five days later, on
February 11, 2002, he filed this petition for
certiorari. There is no question, therefore, that
Meanwhile, the proceedings for disqualification
of candidates or for the cancellation or denial of
certificates of candidacy, which have been
contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not begun before the elections, should continue
given notice thereof. The 16-page motion for even after such elections and proclamation of
reconsideration filed by petitioner in the the winners.
COMELEC en banc suffers from none of the
foregoing defects, and it was error for the The SC however found that the cancellation of C
COMELEC en banc t u e t at petiti ne ’s motion nd
qui a’s COC t e 2 Div was justified since he
for reconsideration was pro forma because the misrepresented a material fact on his COC.
allegations raised therein are a mere "rehash" of
his earlier pleadings or did not raise "new
matters." Hence, the filing of the motion
ANGELIA V COMELEC
suspended the running of the 30-day period to
{Dioscoro O. Angelia vs COMELEC and
file the petition in this case, which, as earlier
Florentino R. Tan}
shown, was done within the reglementary period
G.R. No. 135468, May 31, 2000
provided by law.
FACTS: Angelia and Tan were Sangguniang
Additionally, COMELEC still has jurisdiction over
Bayan candidates in the 1998 elections in
the case even if Coquilla was successfully Abuyog Leyte. During canvass, Angelia was
elected. According to RA 6646, the rule is that proclaimed as the eighth SB member, with only
candidates who are disqualified by final th
judgment before the election shall not be voted a 4-vote advantage from Tan, who ranked 9 .
for and the votes cast for them shall not be
Tan later filed a petition for quo warranto with
counted. But those against whom no final
the RTC alleging that there were clerical errors
judgment of disqualification had been rendered
in the counting of votes to his prejudice.
may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, on
Meanwhile, Angelia took his oath and assumed
motion of the complainant, the COMELEC
office.
suspends their proclamation because the
grounds for their disqualification or cancellation
of their certificates of candidacy were strong.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever HELD: Angellia acted correctly in filing the
present petition because the resolution of the
Tan eventually withdrew his quo warranto COMELEC in question is not subject to
petition and filed instead a petition for annulment reconsideration and, therefore, any party who
of proclamation with the COMELEC. disagreed with it had only one recourse, and that
was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
The COMELEC through a Resolution dated of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
August 18, 1998, annu ed nge ia’s proclamation
and ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers As the case before the COMELEC did not
to make the necessary corrections in the involve an election offense, reconsideration of
Election Returns in the contested precincts. The the COMELEC resolution was not possible and
MBOC reconvened and later declared Tan as petitioner had no appeal or any plain, speedy,
th and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
the 8 SB Member.
law. For him to wait until the COMELEC denied
Angelia filed a MFR with the COMELEC en banc his motion would be to allow the reglementary
and alleged that he was not given due notice period for filing a petition for certiorari with this
and hearing. Without waiting for resolution on his Court to run and expire.
MFR, Angelia filed a petition for certiorari against
the August 18, 1998 Resolution of the As to the contention that Tan committed forum
COMELEC. shopping, the Court held this deserves no merit.
Tan however claims that the certiorari petition First, private respondent withdrew the quo
should be dismissed as it is premature, as he warranto case before filing the petition for
had a pending MFR with the en banc. annulment of proclamation. Second, while the filing
of a petition for quo warranto precludes the
ISSUES: subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation
1. W/N nge ia’s i ing ce ti a i is p pe controversy, this principle admits of several
YES exceptions, such as when such petition is not the
2. W/N nge ia’s petiti n ce ti a i s ud proper remedy. Under Sec. 253 of the Omnibus
be dismissed. YES COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 76
BANAGA V COMELEC
Election Code, the grounds for a petition for quo
{Tomas T. Banaga vs COMELEC & Florencio
warranto are ineligibility or disloyalty to the
M. Bernabe Jr.}
Republic of the Philippines of the respondent.
G.R. No. 134696, July 31, 2000
Since in the present case, private respondent
alleged the existence of manifest errors in the
FACTS: Banaga and Bernabe were vice-mayor
preparation of election returns, clearly, the
candidates in the city of Paranaque during the
proper remedy is not a petition for quo warranto
1998 elections, where the CBOC proclaimed
but a petition for annulment of proclamation.
Bernabe as the winner.
On the argument involving clerical errors, the
Banaga then filed an action with the COMELEC
proper procedure is to reconvene the BOC, and
den inated as a “petiti n t dec a e ai u e
not to annul the proclamation without notice and
e ecti ns and/ annu ent e ecti ns,”
hearing.
alleging that the elected was tainted with
widespread fraud, vote-buying and flying voters.
In Castromayor v. COMELEC, we held that, as
Banaga also claimed that there were
the case involved a manifest error, although the
‘disc epancies and issi ns’ du ing t e
COMELEC erred in annulling the proclamation
canvassing stage. Banaga also prayed for the
of petitioner without notice and hearing, the
holding of a special election for the Vice-Mayor
expedient course of action was for the Municipal
position.
Board of Canvassers to reconvene and, after
notice and hearing in accordance with Rule 27,
COMELEC en anc dis issed anaga’s acti n,
Sec. 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to
holding that the grounds cited do not fall under
effect the necessary corrections on the
certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning the circumstances enumerated in Section 6 of
the Omnibus Election Code that would warrant
candidate or candidates on the basis thereof.
the declaration of failure of elections.
T e Cut t ee e di ied t e en anc’s
u ing and de eted t e annu ent nge ia’s
proclamation, while ordering the BOC to
reconvene.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Rules of Procedure as amended. An election
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever protest is governed by Rule 20 on ordinary
actions, while a petition to declare failure of
elections is covered by Rule 26 under special
Banaga then filed a timely petition for certiorari actions.
with the SC. Banaga claimed that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it In this case, petitioner filed his petition as a
dismissed his petition motu proprio and without special action and paid the corresponding fee
giving him the benefit of a hearing. Banaga also therefor. Thus, the petition was docketed as
claimed that his previously filed action should be SPA-98-383 T is c n s t petiti ne ’s categorization
considered as an election protest. of his petition as one to declare a failure of
elections or annul election results. In contrast,
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC committed grave an election protest is assigned a docket number
abuse of disc eti n w en it dis issed anaga’s starting with "EPC", meaning election protest
complaint. NO case.
HELD: anaga’s acti n c u d n t e c nside ed an Third, petitioner did not comply with the
election protest. First, his petition before the requirements for filing an election protest. He
COMELEC was instituted pursuant to Section 4 failed to pay the required filing fee and cash
of Republic Act No. 7166 in relation to Section 6 deposits for an election protest. Failure to pay
of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 4 of RA filing fees will not vest the election tribunal
7166 refers to "postponement, failure of election jurisdiction over the case. Such procedural lapse
and special elections" while Section 6 of the on the part of a petitioner would clearly warrant
Omnibus Election Code relates to "failure of the outright dismissal of his action.
election". It is simply captioned as "Petition to
Declare Failure of Elections and/or For Fourth, an en banc decision of COMELEC in an
Annulment of Elections". ordinary action becomes final and executory
after thirty (30) days from its promulgation, while
Second, an election protest is an ordinary action an en banc decision in a special action becomes
while a petition to declare a failure of elections is final and executory after five (5) days from
a special action under the 1993 COMELEC
could only be any of the following: force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous circumstances.
promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme
Court. For that reason, a petition cannot be
Banaga did not allege at all that elections were
treated as both an election protest and a petition
either not held or suspended. Neither did he
to declare failure of elections.
aver that although there was voting, nobody was
elected. On the contrary, he conceded that an
Fifth, the allegations in the petition decisively
election took place for the office of vice-mayor of
determine its nature. Petitioner alleged that the
Parañaque City, and that private respondent
local elections for the office of vice-mayor in
was, in fact, proclaimed elected to that post.
Parañaque City held on May 11, 1998,
While petitioner contends that the election was
denigrates the true will of the people as it was
tainted with widespread anomalies, it must be
marred with widespread anomalies on account
noted that to warrant a declaration of failure of
of vote buying, flying voters and glaring
election the commission of fraud must be such
discrepancies in the election returns. He averred
that it prevented or suspended the holding of an
that those incidents warrant the declaration of a
election, or marred fatally the preparation and
failure of elections.
transmission, custody and canvass of the
election returns. These essential facts ought to
Given these circumstances, public respondent have been alleged clearly by Banaga, but he did
cannot be said to have gravely erred in treating not.
petiti ne ’s acti n as a petiti n t dec a e ai u e of
elections or to annul election results.
Finally, Banaga claims that COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion when it dismissed his
There was no failure of election as well. Before
petition motu propio. However, the fact that a
the COMELEC can act on a verified petition
verified petition has been filed does not mean
seeking to declare a failure of election, two
that a hearing on the case should first be held
conditions must concur: 1. No voting took place
before COMELEC can act on it. The petition to
in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by
law, or even if there was voting, the election
resulted in a failure to elect; and 2. The votes not
cats would have affected the result of the
election. The cause of such failure of election
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) admitted that it had made a mistake in crediting
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever private respondent with only 858 votes when he
was entitled to 915 votes in the Statement of
declare a failure of election and/or to annul Votes. On June 23, 1992, trial court rendered its
election results must show on its face that the decision annulling the proclamation of petitioner
conditions necessary to declare a failure to elect and declaring private respondent as the eight
are present. In their absence, the petition must winning candidate for the position of councilor.
be denied outright. COMELEC had no recourse
but to dismiss petition. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the
REYES V RTC OF ORIENTAL MINDORO COMELEC and in addition filed a petition for
244 SCRA 41 mandamus and prohibition in the CA. The CA
dismissed the petition because of the petitioner's
FACTS: Petitioner Aquiles Reyes and private pending appeal in the COMELEC. On the other
respondent Adolfo Comia were candidates for hand, the COMELEC's First Division dismissed
the position of Sanggunian Bayan of Naujan, the petitioner's appeal on the ground that he had
Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1992 elections. failed to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed
On May 13, 1992, during the proceedings of the period.
Municipal Board of Canvassers, private
respondent moved for the exclusion of certain Hence this instant petition, petitioner contends
election returns, on the ground of serious that the COMELEC's First Division committed
irregularity in the counting in favor of petitioner grave abuse of discretion.
qui es Rees tes “Re es” n , c nside ing that the
was another candidate (Epitacio Reyes) bearing ISSUE: Whether this petition for certiorari would
the same surname. Without resolving his prosper?
petition, the Municipal Board of Canvassers
proclaimed on the same day petitioner as the HELD: NO. The filing of the present petition,
eight winning candidate. without petitioner first filing a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc,
On June 1, 1992, private respondent filed an violates Art. IX, A, Sec 7 of the Constitution
election protest before the trial court. Municipal because under this provision only decisions of
Board of Canvassers file its answer in which it
“M s Lucita Ga ces E R Guta ac, Za anga de N
te” w ic Garces interpreted to mean as
superseding the deferment order. Meanwhile,
the COMELEC en banc may be brought to the since Concepcion continued occupying the
Supreme Court on certiorari. Gutalac office, the COMELEC en banc cancelled
his appointment to Liloy.
LUCITA Q. GARCES vs. THE HONORABLE
Garces filed before the RTC a petition for
COURT OF APPEALS, SALVADOR
mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and
EMPEYNADO and CLAUDIO CONCEPCION
mandatory injunction and damages against
Empeynado and Concepcion. Meantime, the
FACTS: Lucita Garces was appointed Election COMELEC en banc resolved to recognize
Registrar of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte on respondent Concepcion as the Election
July 27, 1986. She was to replace respondent Registrar of Gutalac and ordered that the
Election Registrar Claudio Concepcion, who, in appointments of Garces be cancelled.
turn, was transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del
Norte. Empeynado moved to dismiss the petition for
mandamus alleging that the same was rendered
Both appointments were to take effect upon moot and academic by the said COMELEC
assumption of office. Concepcion, however, Resolution, and that the case is cognizable only
refused to transfer post as he did not request for by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the
it. Garces was directed by the Office of Assistant 1987 Constitution. Empeynado argues that the
Director for Operations to assume the Gutalac matter should be raised only on certiorari before
post. But she was not able to do so because of a the Supreme Court and not before the RTC, else
Memorandum issued by respondent Provincial the latter court becomes a reviewer of an en
Election Supervisor Salvador Empeynado that banc COMELEC resolution contrary to Sec. 7,
prohibited her from assuming office as the same Art. IX-A.
is not vacant.
Garces received a letter from the Acting

Manager, Finance Service Department, with an
enclosed check to cover for the expenses on
construction of polling booths. It was addressed
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever t i t da s eceipt ac p t ee ”
RTC dismissed the petition for mandamus on This provision is inapplicable as there was no
two grounds, viz., (1) that quo warranto is the case or matter filed before the COMELEC. On t
proper remedy, and (2) t at t e “cases” e c nt a , it was t e COMELEC’s es uti n that
“ atte s” e e ed unde t e c nstituti n pe tain only to triggered this Controversy.
those involving the conduct of elections.
T e “case” “ atte ” e erred to by the
C a i ed t e RTC’s dis issa t e case constitution must be something within the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain
ISSUE: Whether or not the case is cognizable to an election dispute. The settled rule is that
by the Supreme Court? “decisi n, u ings, de ” t e COMELEC t at
may be brought to the Supreme Court
HELD: No. The case is cognizable in the RTC. on certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides: e ate t te COMELEC’s e e cise
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving
“Eac c issi n s a decide a “e ecti e egi na , p incia and cit icia s ”
majority vote of all its members any case or In this case, what is being assailed is the
matter brought before it within sixty days COMELEC’s c ice an app intee t occupy
from the date of its submission the Gutalac Post which is an administrative duty
for decision or done for the operational set-up of an agency.
resolution. A case or matter is deemed The controversy involves an appointive, not an
submitted for decision or resolution upon elective, official. Hardly can this matter call for
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
memorandum required by the rules of the
commission or by the commission itself. To rule otherwise would surely burden the Court
Unless otherwise provided by this with trivial administrative questions that are best
constitution or by law, any decision, order, ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law
or ruling of each commission may be vests with the power to exercise original
brought to the Supreme Court
that ACME submitted lower bid and has
improved the sample submitted according to the
specifications required by COMELEC.
u isdicti n e “a cases n t wit in t e
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
COMELEC issued a final resolution awarding the
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-udicia contract to ACME.
uncti ns ”
FILIPINAS filed an injunction suit with the court
*Petition denied
of the first instance of Manila against COMELEC
and CME T e c u t’s decisi n t at we c u t has no
jurisdiction over the nature of the suit and
FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE complaint state no cause of action.
SHOP V. FERRER
135 SCRA 25 ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit involving
FACTS: In preparation for the national elections an order of the COMELEC dealing with an award
of November 11, 1969, then respondent of contract arising from its invitation to bid
Commissioners of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) issued an INVITATION TO BID on HELD: That it is the Supreme Court, not the
September 16, 1969 calling for the submission Court of First Instance, which has exclusive
of sealed proposals for the manufacture and jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions,
delivery of 1 1,000 units of voting booths. Among orders or rulings of the COMELEC relative to the
the 17 bidders , two bidders responded to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election
said invitation, the Filipinas and ACME steel. laws.
ACME steel bid was rejected by COMELEC COMELEC resolution awarding the contract in
bidding committee due to low quality of samples, favor of Acme was not issued pursuant to its
hence the commission recommended the award quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident
to Filipinas of the contract to manufacture and
supply the voting boots.
After final inspection of all the samples by

COMELEC Commissioners, they have noted
On May 5, 1992, this Court issued a resolution
in GR No. 104704. The above mentioned
of its inherent administrative functions over the resolution was received by respondent
conduct of elections, and hence, the said COMELEC on May 6, 1992 and on the same
resolution may not be deemed as a "final order" day, petitioner filed an urgent motion to
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court. disseminate through the fastest available means
Being non-judicial in character, no contempt may and order said Election Officials to delete the
be imposed by the COMELEC from said order, name Melchor Chavez as printed in the certified
and no direct and exclusive appeal by certiorari list of candidates tally sheets, election returns
to this Tribunal lie from such order. Any question and count all votes in favor of Fransisco I.
arising from said order may be well taken in an Chavez. But petitioner assailed that COMELEC
ordinary civil action before the trial courts. failed to perform its mandatory function thus the
name of Melchor Chavez remained undeleted.
What is contemplated by the term "final orders,
rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC Petitioner prays not only for a restraining order
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court but the judgment be rendered requiring the
as provided by law are those rendered in actions COMELEC to reopen the ballot boxes in 80,348
or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken precincts in 13 provinces including Metro Manila,
cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of scan t e a ts “C a ez” tes w ic we e
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. invalidated or declared stray and credit said
scanned “C a ez” tes in a petiti ne
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ V COMMISSION ON ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court has

ELECTIONS jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
FACTS: This case was originally an urgent HELD: It is quite i us t at petiti ne ’s p a e
petition ad cautelam praying, among others, for d es n t ca t e c ecti n “ ani est
the issuance of a temporary restraining order e s” in t e ce ti icates of canvass or election
enjoining respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) from proclaiming the 24th highest
senatorial candidate.
canvassing the same and proclamation of the
winning candidates.
returns before the COMELEC but for the ballots
Premises considered, the Court resolved to
contained therein. Indeed, petitioner has not e dismiss the instant petition for lack of merit.
en p inted t an “ ani est e ” in t e certificates of
canvass or election returns he desires to be
rectified. There being none, petitioners proper
SALVA V. MAKALINTAL
recourse is to file a regular election protest
G.R. No. 132603
which, under the constitution and the Omnibus
September 18, 2000
Election code, exclusively pertains to the Senate
Electoral Tribunal.
FACTS:
• In 1998, the Sangguinang Panlalawigan of
Thus, Sec. 17 Art. Vl of the constitution provides
t at “t e Senate and t e House of Batangas enacted Ordinance 05, which
Representatives shall each have an Electoral abolished Brgy. San Rafael and ordered its
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all merger with Brgy. Dacanlao.
contest relating to the election, returns, and • The Governer of Batangas vetoed the
qua i icati ns t ei especti e e e s…” ordinance as it was not shown that it
(Emphasis supplied). The word sole complied with the requisites in Sections 7 & 9
underscores the exclusivity of t e t i una ’s u
isdicti n e election contest relating to their t e LGC T e g e n ’s et was overridden by
respective members. It is therefore crystal clear Resolution 345.
that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the • Consequently, the COMELEC promulgated
instant petition. It is the Senate Electoral Resolution 2987 to govern the conduct of the
Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to act needed plebiscite.
on the complaint of petitioner relating to the • The petitioners, officials and residents of
election of a member of the Senate.
Brgy. San Rafael, filed for the issuance of a TRO
As the authenticity of the certificates of canvass against the plebiscite with the trial court.
or election returns are not questioned, they must
be prima facie considered valid for purposes of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) “SEC 7 Un ess t e wise p ided
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each
The trial court denied their petition, claiming Commission may be brought to the
that it had no jurisdiction over acts, Supreme Court on certiorari by the
resolutions, or decisions of the COMELEC. aggrieved party within thirty days from
The trial court directed the petitioners to bring eceipt a c p t e e ”
the case to the Supreme Court.
 Apparently, the plebiscite was conducted In the case of Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer, it
was held that what is contemplated by the
during the pendency of the case. term ‘final orders rulings and decisions’ of
• The petitioners maintain that since their the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the
action is based on the validity of Ordinance 05 Supreme Court are those rendered in actions
and Resolution 345 (basis of COMELEC Res. or proceedings before the COMELEC and
2987) the trial court had jurisdiction. taken cognizance of by the said body in the
• They further maintained that the SC only had exclusive jurisdiction exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
when COMELEC exercises its quasi‐ judicial functions. powers. In this case, Resolution 2987 was only
However, when the COMELEC acts in a issued after the COMELEC took cognizance of
purely ministerial manner, the case may be Ordinance 05 and Resolution 345.
subject to the RTC.
Resolution No. 2987 is thus a ministerial duty
of the COMELEC that is enjoined by law and
ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the
is part and parcel of its administrative
case. YES
functions. It involves no exercise of
discretionary authority on the part of the
HELD: COMELEC Resolutions on the respondent COMELEC; let alone an exercise of
conduct of plebiscites are administrative in its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power to hear
nature and subject to RTC and resolve controversies defining the rights and
Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution
provides in part that:
• Bulaong was proclaimed by the PBC as the
duly elected governor. Accordingly, Bulaong took
duties of party litigants, relative to the conduct of his oath of office.
elections of public officers and the enforcement • On July 9, 1992, Villafuerte filed an
of the election laws. election protest questioning the precinct results
of ten (10) Municipalities and the City of Iriga.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides Subsequently, on August 21, 1992, Villafuerte
for the rules and regulations governing the
filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the venue
conduct of the required plebiscite, was not
issued pu suant t t e COMELEC’s quasi-judicial for the ballot revision proceedings be conducted
functions but merely as an incident of its at the main office of the Comelec in Intramuros,
inherent administrative functions over the Manila. Bulaong opposed citing the ballot
conduct of plebiscites, thus, Resolution 2987 revision proceedings need not be held in Manila
may not be deemed as a “final order” since there was no untoward incident that
reviewable by certiorari by this court. Any happened during the canvassing of votes in
question pertaining to the validity of said
Naga City.
resolution may be well taken in an ordinary
civil action before the trial courts. • In an Order dated September 9, 1992, the
First Division of the COMELEC granted
Vi a ue te’s p a e a e isi n of ballots to be held
BULAONG V. COMELEC in Manila. This Order was received by
220 SCRA 745 Bulaong on September 16. On September
G.R. No. 107987
22, Bulaong filed his MR dated September
March 31, 1993
21.
FACTS: • On October 19, COMELEC thru its First
• Petitioner Dr. Jose Bulaong, and private Division denied his MR. On the same day,
respondent Luis Villafuerte were both candidates
for the office of the Provincial Governor of
Camarines Sur in the May 1992 elections.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) 2 of Rule 3 in conjunction with Section 5 (c) of
the same Rule would reveal that it is the duty of
Bulaong also filed an Omnibus Motion the First Division to refer his MR to the En Banc,
st
praying that his 2 MRs (1 MR – on the order since the matter concerning the venue of the
nd revision of ballots is a substantial issue which
g anting Vi a ue te’s p a e , 2 MR –
den ing u a ng’s u gent ti n 1 da the latter should review.
extension) be certified to the Comelec en • Bulaong prays that a writ of mandamus be
banc pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 19 of the issued directing the First Division to certify and
Comelec Rules of Procedure. elevate his MRs to the En Banc.
• Later, Bulaong filed with the Comelec en
ISSUE: WON the First Division of the
banc a manifestation and motion praying that his COMELEC committed GAOD when it refused to
MRs and his Omnibus motion filed with e e u a ng’s MRs t t e En anc notwithstanding
the First Division be ordered certified to it for the mandate of Section 5, Rule 19 of the
resolution. The First Division denied u a COMELEC Rules. NO
ng’s ani estati n t at its MRs e
certified to the En Banc because the Order HELD:
SC dismissed the petition. It is not
directing the Provincial Election Supervisor of
mandatory on the part of a division of the
Camarines Sur to immediately send the 649 COMELEC to refer all pending MRs to the En
ballot boxes to Manila is merely interlocutory. Banc.
• Hence, Bulaong filed a petition for certiorati Section 5, Rule 19 provides:
and mandamus with prayer for a TRO to enjoin
the order to the First Division dated September “How motion for reconsideration
9, 1992. While Bulaong concedes that the order disposed of – Upon the filing of a motion
to reconsider a decision, resolution, order
of the Comelec designating Manila as the venue
or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court
of the revision proceedings is interlocutory, he concerned shall within twenty-four (24)
nonetheless contends that a reading of Section COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 82
to be brought before the Commission, and
shall order the revision
t e a ts…
hours from the filing thereof, notify the
Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall
… T e e isi n a ts s a e ade in
within two (2) days thereafter, certify the
the office of the Clerk of Court concerned
case t t e C issi n en anc ”
or at such places as the Commission or
Division shall designate, and shall be
For said the motion to be referred to the en
completed within 3 months from the date
banc, it requires the unanimous vote of the
of the order, unless otherwise directed by
Members of the Division as mandated by
the Commission.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the
case at bar, there was an absence of such vote.
COMELEC cannot be compelled thru
mandamus where it exercises its
COMELEC did not commit GAoD in refusing
discretionary power
to refer petitioner's MR to the COMELEC en
A mandamus proceeding involving a
banc because it exercised its discretionary
discretionary power of the COMELEC does not
power under Sec 6 Rule 20 of the Comelec
lie. A perusal of the aforecited section impliedly
Rules.
reveals the discretionary power of the Division or
Instead of withholding its decision on such
the En Banc to order a revision of ballots. This
interlocutory matter, the First Division decided to
can be gleamed from the use of the phrase,
exercise its power under Section 6, Rule 20
“whenever in the opinion of the Commission
which states:
or Division the interest of justice so demands
”
“W en t e a egati ns in a p test counter-
protest so warrant, or whenever in the
Although in most instances the revision of ballots
opinion of the Commission or Division
takes place in the office of the Clerk of Court
the interest of justice so demands, it
concerned, revision of ballots may also be held
shall immediately order the ballot boxes
in “such places as the ommission or
containing ballots and their keys, list of
voters with voting records, book of voters
and other documents used in the election
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Saulong filed with the RTC of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro an election protest against
Soller.
ivision shall designate ” Bulaong is to be
reminded that mandamus, as a remedy, is • Soller filed his answer with counter-protest.
available to compel the doing of an act He a s ed t dis iss Sau ng’s p test
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, forum-
compel the doing of an act involving the exercise shopping, and failure to state cause of action.
of discretion one way or the other. Undoubtedly, • COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation
the First Division was within its powers in
case filed by Saulong.
designating Manila as the venue of the revision
of ballots. • On Oct e 1, 1998, RTC denied S e ’s motion
to dismiss. Soller moved for reconsideration but
said motion was again denied. He then filed
SOLLER V. COMELEC with the Comelec a petition for certiorari
339 SCRA 685 contending that the
G.R. No. 139853, RTC acted with GAOD in not dismissing Sau
September 5, 2000
ng’s e ecti n p test
FACTS: • On August 31, 1999, the COMELEC en banc
• Ferdinand Thoms Soller and Angel Saulong dis issed S e ’s suit T e e ecti n t i una held
were both candidates for mayor of the that Saulong paid the required filing fee. It
municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the also declared that the defect in the
May 1998 elections. On May 14, 1998, the verification is a mere technical defect which
Municipal BOC proclaimed Soller duly elected should not bar the determination of the merits
mayor. of the case. The election tribunal stated that
• On May 19, Saulong filed with the COMELEC there was no forum shopping to speak of.
a “petiti n annu ent t e p c a ati n/
e c usi n e ecti n etu n” On Ma 25,

“T e C issi n n Elections may sit en banc or in
two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite the disposition of
ISSUES: election cases, including pre-proclamation
1. WON Soller properly filed the petition for controversies. All such election cases shall be
certiorari before the SC. YES heard and decided in division, provided that
2. WON the COMELEC committed GAOD in not motions for reconsideration of decision shall be
orde ing t e dis issa Sau ng’s e ecti n decided by the ommission en banc ”
protest. YES
Thus, in Sarmiento v. COMELEC and in
HELD: subsequent cases, SC ruled that the COMELEC,
Procedure: MR of En Banc decision is a sitting en banc, does not have the requisite
prohibited pleading, unless relating to authority to hear and decide election cases
election offenses. including pre-proclamation controversies in
the first instance. This power pertains to the
Under the COMELEC Rules, an MR of its en divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the
banc ruling is prohibited except in a case Commission en banc as regards election cases
involving an election offense. Since the present decided by it in the first instance is null and
controversy involves no election offense, void.
reconsideration is not possible and Soller has no
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate So e ’s petiti n wit t e COMELEC was n t
remedy in the ordinary course of law. referred to a division but was instead submitted
Accordingly, Soller properly filed the instant directly to the en banc. The petition for certiorari
petition for certiorari with the SC. assai s t e t ia c u t’s de den ing t e ti n
t dis iss Sau ng’s e ecti n p test T e
COMELEC en banc does not have authority questioned order of the trial court is interlocutory
to hear and decide election cases in the first ecause it d es n t end t e t ia c u t’s tas
instance. This power pertains to the ad udicating t e pa ties’ c ntenti ns and
Divisions of the Comelec. determining their rights and liabilities as regards
Section 3 (c), Art. IX of the Constitution reads:
• Sadikul Sahali and Matba were gubernatorial
eac te In SC’s iew, the authority to
candidates in Tawi-tawi during the 2010
resolve the petition for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protest, like the elections; while Ruby Sahali and Usman ran for
questioned order of the trial court, falls Vice Governor. Both Sahalis were declared the
within the division and not the en banc. winners by the PBOC.
• Alleging that the Sahalis rigged the election,
Note that the order denying the motion to Matba and Usman both filed separate Election
dismiss is but an incident of the election protest. Protests Ad Cautelam with the COMELEC,
If the principal case, once decided on its merits,
wherein they contested the results in 39 out of
is cognizable on appeal by the division of the
Comelec, then there is no reason why petitions the 282 precincts.
for certiorari relating to incidents of election • Both their protests were raffled off to the
protest should not be referred first to a division st
COMELEC 1 Div, who consolidated their
for resolution. Clearly, the COMELEC en banc petitions. It then ordered the retrieval of all ballot
acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of boxes and election documents of the 39
S e ’s petiti n in t e i st instance
precincts.
Note: SC also ruled in this case that the RTC • Soon after, Matba and Usman filed a
erred and committed GAOD in failing to dismiss Manifestation and Ex-parte Motion wherein they
Sau ng’s e ecti n p test against S e SC prayed that instead of a mere recounting of the
reiterated that COMELEC en banc has no ballots, the COMELEC should order the
jurisdiction to affirm the refusal of RTC to technical examination of the ballots, the Election
dis iss Sau ng’s e ecti n p test Day Computerized Voters List (EDCVL), the
Voters Registration Record (VRR) and the Book
of Voters.
SAHALI V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 201796
January 15, 2013
HELD:
he ME E ’s rder was interlocutory
Technical examination: comparing the
and therefore not subject to review for
signatures and thumb marks on the certiorari.
EDCVL vs. the VRRs/Books of Voters, Sadikul and Ruby cannot resort to the
etc. extraordinary remedy of certiorari to assail an
st interlocutory order issued by the COMELEC
• The 1 Div. granted the motion and ordered
the conduct of the technical examination. First Division.
Note: this Order is interlocutory.
st A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order
• Sadikul and Ruby filed with the 1 Div. a issued by a Division of the COMELEC in an
Strong Manifestation of Grave Concern and election protest may not directly assail the order
MFR, stating that such order by the in this Court through a special civil action for
COMELEC was issued without due process; certiorari. The remedy is to seek the review of
st
that the 1 Div. cannot just order a technical the interlocutory order during the appeal of
examination in the absence of published the decision of the Division in due course.
Rules.
Under the Constitution, the power of this Court
• The COMELEC averred that it can order a to review election cases falling within the original
technical examination as per Section 1, Rule 18 exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC only
of COMELEC Res. 8804. extends to final decisions or resolutions of the
• Sadikul and Ruby filed the present petition for COMELEC en banc, certainly not to interlocutory
certiorari before the SC, alleging that the orders issued by a Division thereof.
st
COMELEC 1 Div. committed GAOD in
Here, the Orders dated March 5, 2012 and May
promulgating the said order.
3, 2012 issued by the First Division of the
COMELEC were merely interlocutory orders
ISSUE:
1. WON the petition for certiorari is proper. NO
2. WON the COMELEC can order the technical
examination of ballot boxes. YES
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) b. A Division is not authorized to act
c. The members of the Division
since they only disposed of an incident in the unanimously vote to refer to the COMELEC en
main case i.e. the propriety of the technical banc
examination of the said election paraphernalia.
Procedure: In election disputes, COMELEC not duty ‐ bound to notify and direct a party
Thus, the proper recourse for the petitioners is to
await the decision of the COMELEC First to file an opposition to a motion filed by the
Division in the election protests filed by Matba other party; ahalis’ right to due process not
and Usman, and should they be aggrieved violated.
thereby, to appeal the same to the COMELEC The COMELEC, in election disputes, is not duty-
en banc by filing a motion for reconsideration. bound to notify and direct a party therein to file
an opposition to a motion filed by the other party.
Exceptions when SC can review interlocutory It is incumbent upon the party concerned, if
orders: he/she deems it necessary, to file an opposition
Exceptionally, this Court may take cognizance of to a motion within five days from receipt of a
a certiorari action directed against an copy of the same without awaiting for the
interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC’s di ecti e t d s
COMELEC when the following circumstances
are present: It should be stressed that one of the factors
that should be considered in election
1. First, the order was issued without protests is expediency. Proceedings in
election protests are special and expeditious and
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with
the early resolution of such cases should not be
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or hampered by any unnecessary observance of
excess of jurisdiction procedural rules. "The proceedings should not
2. Second, under the COMELEC Rules of be encumbered by delays.
Procedure, the subject of the controversy is a
matter which:
a. The COMELEC en banc may not sit
and consider
Otherwise stated, the express grant of power to
the COMELEC to resolve election protests
carries with it the grant of all other powers
Here, the Sahalis did not file an opposition to the necessary, proper, or incidental to the effective
said motion for technical examination that was and efficient exercise of the power expressly
filed by Matba and Usman on February 24, granted. Verily, the exclusive original jurisdiction
2012. It was only after the COMELEC First conferred by the constitution to the COMELEC
Division issued its March 5, 2012 Order that the to settle said election protests includes the
petitioners decided to register their opposition to authority to order a technical examination of
the intended technical examination, albeit in the relevant election paraphernalia, election
form of a motion for reconsideration of the said returns and ballots in order to determine
Order. whether fraud and irregularities attended the
canvass of the votes.
Procedure: the COMELEC has power to order
technical examinations even in the absence
Of published rules to the effect; exercise of
quasi ‐ judicial powers AMBIL JR V. COMELEC
While Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 8804 does not explicitly provide FACTS: Petitioner Ambil and respondent
for the rule on the technical examination of Ramirez were candidates for the position of
election paraphernalia, it does not mean, Governor, Eastern Samar, during the May 11,
however, that the COMELEC First Division does 1998 elections. On May 16, 1998, the Provincial
not have the power to order the conduct of such Board of Canvassers proclaimed Ambil as the
technical examination. duly elected Governor.
The power of the COMELEC First Division to Respondent Ramirez who obtained the second
order the technical examination election highest number of votes, filed an election protest
paraphernalia in election protest cases stems (EPC Case No. 98-29) challenging the results in
from its "exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contest relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial
and city officials".
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) filed a motion to cancel promulgation challenging
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever the validity of the purported Guiani resolution.
The Comelec, First Division, acting on the
a total of 201 precincts. The case was assigned motion, on the same date, postponed the
to the First Division, Comelec. promulgation until this matter is resolved.
Commissioner Guiani prepared a proposed The two members of the First Division, sent a
resolution in the case. To which the ponencia, joint memorandum to Commissioner Desamito
Commissioner Desamito dissented. the presiding Commissioner, recommending that
Commissioner Tancangco at first did not indicate they proceed with the promulgation of the Guiani
her vote. subject resolution and let the aggrieved party
challenge it through a Motion for
On February 15, 2000, Commissioner Guiani Reconsideration before the Commission en banc
retired from the service and Commissioner or through a certiorari case before the Supreme
Javier was appointed. Court.
On February 24, 2000, petitioner Ambil and On June 15, 2000, the Comelec, First Division,
respondent Ramirez received a resolution issued an order setting the promulgation of the
promulgated on February 14, 2000 (Guiani resolution in the case on June 20, 2000.
resolution), signed by Commissioner Guiani and But on June 19, 2000, petitioner interposed the
Tancangco, with Commissioner Desamito instant petition, seeking to:
dissenting. It declared respondent Ramirez as - annul the order dated June 15, 2000
winner. On February 28, 2000, the Comelec, setting the promulgation of the resolution of the
First Division, declared that the Feb. 14 case (EPC Case No. 98-29) on June 20, 2000,
resolution is a useless scrap of paper which and
should be ignored by the parties. -prohibiting the Comelec, First Division,
from promulgating the purported Guiani
Comelec, First Division, issued an order setting resolution and
the promulgation of the resolution in the case -directing the Comelec, First Division, to
(EPC Case No. 98-29) on April 6, 2000. deliberate anew on the case and to promulgate
However, on the same date, petitioner Ambil
without such motion for reconsideration having
been filed and resolved by the Division.
the resolution reached in the case after such
The instant case does not fall under any of the
deliberation.
recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari
cases dispensing with a motion for
ISSUE: Whether Comelec, First Division, in reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. In
scheduling the promulgation of the resolution in truth, the exceptions do not apply to election
the case (EPC Case No. 98-29) acted without cases where a motion for reconsideration is
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the
amounting to lack of jurisdiction NO case to the Comelec en banc, whose final
decision is what is reviewable via certiorari
HELD: The case at bar is an election protest before the Supreme Court.
involving the position of Governor, Eastern
Samar. It is within the original jurisdiction of the We must emphasize that what is questioned
Commission on Elections in division. Admittedly, here is the order dated June 15, 2000, which is
petitioner did not ask for a reconsideration of the a mere notice of the promulgation of the
divisions resolution or final decision. In fact, resolution in EPC Case No. 98-29.
there was really no resolution or decision to
speak of because there was yet no
Consequently, the filing of the instant petition
promulgation, which was still scheduled on June
before this Court was premature. Petitioner
20, 2000. Petitioner went directly to the Supreme failed to exhaust adequate administrative
Court from an order of promulgation of the remedies available before the COMELEC.
Resolution of this case by the First Division of
the Comelec.
This Court has held consistently that before a
party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a court, it is a pre-condition that he should have
party to an election case within the jurisdiction of availed of all the means of administrative
the Comelec in division cannot dispense with
the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a
decision, resolution or final order of the Division
of the Commission on Elections because the
case would not reach the Comelec en banc
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) resolutions, Bautista filed an electoral protest on
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever May 24, 2010 which was raffled to the
COMELEC First Division.
processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy
within the administrative machinery can still be Petitioner averred as his special affirmative
resorted to by giving the administrative officer defenses that Bautista did not make the requisite
concerned every opportunity to decide on a cash deposit on time; and that Bautista did not
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then render a detailed specification of the acts or
such remedy should be exhausted first before omissions complained of.
the courts judicial power can be sought. The
premature invocation of courts intervention is COMELEC First Division denied the special
fatal to ones cause of action. affirmative defenses of the petitioner as there
was a substantial compliance with the
Hence, the petition at bar must be dismissed for requirement of COMELEC.
prematurity. Failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is fatal to a party's cause of action and ISSUES:
a dismissal based on that ground is tantamount 1. Whether a party aggrieved by an interlocutory
to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action. order, issued by a Division of the Comelec in an
election protest, may directly assail the order in
this Court through a special civil action for
DOUGLAS CAGAS V. COMELEC and certiorari. NO
BAUTISTA 2. Whether the case should be referred to the
Comelec en banc. NO
FACTS: The petitioner Cagas and respondent
Bautista contested the position of Governor of HELD:
the Province of Davao del Sur in the May 10, 1. The remedy is to seek the review of the
2010 automated national and local elections. interlocutory order during the appeal of the
Petitioner was proclaimed the winner. decision of the Division in due course. The court
may have the power to review any decision,
Alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote- order or ruling of the COMELEC, limits such
buying and violations of election laws, rules and
banc. Clearly, the Commission en banc, under
the circumstances shown above, cannot be the
proper forum which the matter concerning the
power to a final decision or resolution of the assailed interlocutory orders can be referred to.
COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an
interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
In a situation such as this where the Commission
COMELEC.
in division committed grave abuse of discretion or
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing
Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to
interlocutory orders relative to an action pending
review on certiorari an interlocutory order or
before it and the controversy did not fall under any
even a final resolution issued by a Division of the
of the instances mentioned in Section 2, Rule 3 of
COMELEC. Where the Commission in division
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the remedy of
committed grave abuse of discretion or acted
the aggrieved party is not to refer the controversy
without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing
to the Commission en banc as this is not
interlocutory orders relative to an action pending
permissible under its present rules but to elevate it
before it and the controversy did not fall under
to this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule
any of the instances mentioned in Section 2,
65 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to refer
the controversy to the Commission en banc as
CAYETANO V. COMELEC and TINGA
this is not permissible under its present rules but
to elevate it to this Court via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. FACTS: In the automated national and local
elections held on May 10, 2010, petitioner and
private respondent were candidates for the
2. It does not appear that the subject
position of Mayor of Taguig City. Petitioner was
controversy is one of the cases specifically
proclaimed the winner thereof.
provided under the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure in which the Commission may sit en
banc. Neither is it shown that the present
controversy a case where a division is not
authorized to act nor a situation wherein the
members of the First Division unanimously voted
to refer the subject case to the Commission en
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) ruling of a COMELEC Division shall be elevated
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever to the COMELEC En Banc.
However, a motion to reconsider an interlocutory
The private respondent filed an Election Protest order of a COMELEC Division shall be resolved
against petitioner before the COMELEC for by the division which issued the interlocutory
allegedly committing election frauds and order, except when all the members of the
i egu a ities w ic t ans ated t t e atte ’s division decide to refer the matter to the
ostensible win as Mayor of Taguig City. On the COMELEC En Banc.
whole, private respondent claims that he is the
actual winner of the mayoralty elections in Thus, in general, interlocutory orders of a
Taguig City. COMELEC Division are not appealable, nor can
they be proper subject of a petition for certiorari.
In t e petiti ne ’s nswe wit C unte -Protest and This does not mean that the aggrieved party is
Counterclaim, she raised, among others, the without recourse if a COMELEC Division denies
affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and the motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved
content of the Election Protest and prayed for party can still assign as error the interlocutory
the immediate dismissal thereof. However, it order if in the course of the proceedings he
was denied by the COMELEC. Her Motion for decides to appeal the main case to the
Reconsideration was also denied. COMELEC En Banc. The exception enunciated
is when the interlocutory order of a COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC Division is a patent nullity because of absence of
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, as
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to where a COMELEC Division issued a temporary
dismiss the protest of private respondent, to restraining order without a time limit, or where a
allow its review by this Court NO COMELEC Division admitted an answer with
counter-protest which was filed beyond the
HELD: The general rule is that a decision or an reglementary period.
order of a COMELEC Division cannot be
elevated directly to this Court through a special The Court has no jurisdiction to review an order,
civil action for certiorari. Furthermore, a motion whether final or interlocutory, even a final
to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or
case to the COMELEC En Banc. Moreover, the
protest filed by private respondent and the
counter-protest filed by petitioner remain
resolution of a division of the COMELEC. Stated pending before the COMELEC, which should
otherwise, the Court can only review via afford petitioner ample opportunity to ventilate
certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the her grievances. Thereafter, the COMELEC
COMELEC en banc. In short, the final order of should decide these cases with dispatch.
the COMELEC (Second Division) denying the
affirmative defenses of petitioner cannot be
questioned before this Court even via a petition
GUIEB V. FONTANILLA 247 SCRA 348
for certiorari. Although the rule admits of
exceptions as when the issuance of the assailed
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were
interlocutory order is a patent nullity because of
candidates for the position of Punong Barangay
the absence of jurisdiction to issue the same.
of Barangay Nilombot, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan
However, none of the circumstances permitting
in the barangay election of May 1994. Petitioner
an exception to the rule occurs in this instance.
was proclaimed as the winning candidate to
which the latter seasonably filed an election
In addition to that, certiorari will not lie in this protest with the Municipal Trial Court.
case. The issuance of a special writ of certiorari
has two prerequisites: (1) a tribunal, board, or
The Municipal Trial Court confirmed the
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
proclamation of the petitioner and dismissed the
functions has acted without or in excess of its or
protest to which private respondent appealed to
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
the Regional Trial Court, which gave a favorable
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
decision by reversing the court a quo.
(2) there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with
the High Court regarding the decision.
Although it is not the duty of the Court to point
petitioner, or all litigants for that matter, to the
appropriate remedy which she should have
taken. The aggrieved party can still assign as
error the interlocutory order if in the course of
the proceedings he decides to appeal the main
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) with a margin of only twenty-two votes over the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever former.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC is the proper forum for Unwilling to accept defeat, the Relampagos filed
the appeal and has jurisdiction on election an election protest with theRTC of Agusan del
contests involving barangay positions NO Norte.
HELD: The RTC had absolutely no jurisdiction On 29 June 1994, the trial court, per Judge
over the appeal from the decision of the MTC. Rosario F. Dabalos, found the Relampagos to
Under Article IX, Section 2, Paragraph 2-C of the have won with a margin of six votes over the
Constitution, it is the COMELEC, and not the Cumba and rendered judgement in favor of the
Regional Trial Courts, that has exclusive Relampagos declaring him as having won the
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective mayoralty election and as duly elected Mayor of
barangay officials decided by courts of limited the Municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del
jurisdiction, which are the Metropolitan Trial Norte in the local election held on May 11, 1992,
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal the protestant having obtained six (6) votes
Circuit Trial Courts. more than that of the protestee's votes.
Copies of the decision were sent to and received

G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995 EMMANUEL by the Relampagos and Cumba on 1 July 1994.
M. RELAMPAGOS vs. ROSITA C. CUMBA and
the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS On 4 July 1994, the Cumba appealed the
decision to the COMELEC by filing her notice of
appeal and paying the appellate docket fees.
DAVIDE, JR., J.: The trial court gave due course to the appeal.
FACTS: In the synchronized elections of 11 May On 12 July 1994, Relampagos filed with the trial
1992, the Relampagos and Cumba were court a motion for execution pending appeal,
candidates for the position of Mayor in the which Cumba opposed on 22 July 1994.
municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte.
Cumba was proclaimed the winning candidate,
COMELEC maintains that there is a special law

granting it such jurisdiction (Section 50 of B.P.
On 3 August 1994, the trial court granted
Blg. 697) which remains in full force as it was not
Relampagos's motion for execution pending
expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election
appeal. The writ of execution was issued.
Code (B.P. Blg. 881),and that it is not exactly
Thereafter, Cumba filed a motion for a
correct that this law self-destructed after the May
reconsideration of the order of execution and the
1984 election.
sheriff held in abeyance the implementation of
the writ. This motion was denied.
B.P. Blg. 697- AN ACT TO GOVERN THE
ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE
The Cumba then filed with the respondent BATASANG PAMBANSA ON MAY 14, 1984
COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the AND THE SELECTION OF SECTORAL
order of the trial court granting the motion for REPRESENTATIVES THEREAFTER,
execution pending appeal and the writ of APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
execution. FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 50
provides:
On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC
promulgated its resolution granting the petition, Sec. 50. Definition.— Pre-proclamation
stating COMELEC has exclusive authority to controversy refers to any question
hear and decide petitions for certiorari, pertaining to or affecting the proceedings
prohibition and mandamus in election cases as of the Board of Canvassers which may be
authorized by law, and therefore, assumes raised by any candidate, political party or
jurisdiction of the instant petition for certiorari coalition of political parties before the
which is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the board or directly with the Commission.
court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby declared
NULL and VOID and the Writ of Execution The Commission Elections shall be the
issued on August 4, 1994 LIFTED. Rosita sole judge and shall have exclusive
Cumba is ordered restored to her position as
Municipality Mayor of Magallanes, Agusan del
Norte, pending resolution of the appeal before
this Commission in the case of Relampagos vs.
Cumba.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) and mandamus because it has appellate
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever jurisdiction in election cases granted by the
Constitution itself. The Court of Appeals has no
jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation more appellate jurisdiction over such cases And
controversies. in the case of the Supreme Court, Justice de
Castro in the Pimentel case pointed out, in his
The Commission is hereby vested with dissenting opinion that under the Constitution
exclusive authority to hear and decide the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and election cases should properly be limited to
mandamus involving election cases. decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission
(Emphasis supplied). on Elections, not from lower courts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Commission on The Court agrees with the respondent
Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over COMELEC that there are provisions in B.P. Blg.
petitions for, certiorari, prohibition, and 697 whose lifetime go beyond the 14 May 1984
mandamus in election cases where it has election or the subsequent selection of sectoral
exclusive appellate jurisdiction. YES representatives.
RULING: The authority granted to the ISSUE: But did not the Omnibus Election Code
Commission under B.P. Blg. 697 is not (B.P. Blg. 881) repeal B.P. Blg. 697? NO
inconsistent with our election laws.
HELD: By the tenor of the Repealing Clause in
Clearly the intent of the law was to give BP 881, it does not evidently appear that the
certiorari, jurisdiction to the Commission on Batasang Pambansa had intended to codify all
Elections because the Pimentel case said there prior election statutes and to replace them with
was none, to fill a void in the law, and avoid an the new Code.
incongruous situation.
Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code is not
The Commission is the most logical body inconsistent with BP 881.
whenever it performs judicial functions to take
jurisdiction of petitions for certiorari, prohibition
motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion
to dismiss. Petitioner elevated the order to the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) on petition
The Court must, as it now does, abandon the for certiorari and prohibition, which, however,
ruling in the Garcia and Uy and Veloria has remained unresolved.
cases, We now hold that the last paragraph of
Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 remains in full force
On May 12, 1999, petitioner filed a consolidated
and effect but only in such cases where, under
motion that included a prayer for authority to
paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the
photocopy all the official copies of the revision
Constitution, it has exclusive appellate
reports in the custody of the trial court. However,
jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the
the trial court denied the issuance of such
authority to issue the extraordinary writs of
authorization. The court likewise denied a motion
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in
for reconsideration of the denial. Then petitioner
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
raised the denial to the COMELEC on petition for
certiorari and mandamus, which also remains
unresolved.
CARLOS vs ANGELES
The Revision results showed the final tally:
FACTS: Carlos and Serapio were candidates for
(a) protestant Serapio - 66,602 votes.
the position of mayor of the municipality of
(b) protestee Carlos - 83,609 votes,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila (later converted into a
giving the latter a winning margin of 17,007
City) during the May 11, 1998 elections.
votes.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers Carlos as
RTC: On the basis of the badges of fraud, the
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela having
trial court declared that there was enough
obtained 102,688 votes, the highest number of
pattern of fraud in the conduct of the election for
votes in the election returns.
mayor in Valenzuela hence it set aside the
proclamation of protestee Jose Emmanuel
Serapio filed with the RTC Valenzuela an
election protest challenging the results.
On June 26, 1998, petitioner filed with the trial

court an answer with affirmative defenses and
ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to review, by petition for certiorari as
Carlos by the Municipal Board of Canvassers a special civil action, the decision of the regional
and declared protestant Antonio M. Serapio as trial court in an election protest case involving an
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela City. elective municipal official considering that it has
no appellate jurisdiction over such decision. YES
On may 4, 2000, Petitioner filed a notice of
appeal from the decision of the trial court to the RULING: The Supreme Court is vested with
Commission on Elections. original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the decision
On May 8, 2000, petitioner filed with the SC of the regional trial court in the election protest
special civil action for Certiorari. case before it, regardless of whether it has
appellate jurisdiction over such decision.
Respondent submitted that Comelec and not the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the present Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987 Constitution
petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the provides that:
regional trial court. Assuming that this Court and Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
Comelec have concurrent jurisdiction and the following powers:
applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases ...
Comelec has jurisdiction since petitioner has over petitions for certiorari, prohibition…
perfected his appeal therewith before the filing of
the instant petition. Certiorari cannot be a In like manner, the Comelec has original
substitute for an appeal; the present petition is jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition
violative of Revised Circular No. 28-91 on forum- and mandamus involving election cases in aid of
shopping; issues raised are factual, not its appellate jurisdiction. This point has been
correctible by certiorari; and that the temporary settled in the case of Relampagos vs. Cumba.
restraining order should be lifted, the petition
dismissed, and petitioner and counsel should be Consequently, both the Supreme Court and
made to explain why they should not be
Comelec have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
punished for contempt of court.
and Vice Mayor, respectively, of Antipolo, Rizal.
They were proclaimed as such on 22 January
1988.
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
over decisions of trial courts of general
Respondents Ernesto DE JESUS and Cecilia
jurisdiction (regional trial courts) in election
DAVID instituted an election protest before the
cases involving elective municipal officials. The
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo where the
Court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise
results in twenty-five (25) precincts were put in
exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
issue.
Ergo, this Court has jurisdiction over the present
On 25 July 1988, the RTC issued an Ordered re-
petition of certiorari as a special civil action examination and recounting of the votes.
expressly conferred on it and provided for in the
Constitution.
On 26 September 1988, Petitioners GARCIA
and O' HARA filed before the RTC a "Motion
To Dismiss Opening of Ballot Boxes And/Or
(This is an ABANDONED DOCTRINE as laid
To Dismiss The Protest" which was premised
down in Relampagos vs Cumba) on the ground that the allegations in the election
GARCIA vs DE JESUS protest were merely self-serving.
G.R. No. 97108-09 March 4, 1992
DANIEL GARCIA and TEODORO O' HARA vs.
RTC issued an Order limiting the opening of
ERNESTO DE JESUS and CECILIA DAVID, and
ballot boxes to only nine (9) precincts out of the
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
25 protested ones, and limiting the examination
of the ballot boxes only to those anomalies
G.R. Nos. 97108-09 March 4, 1992 TOMAS specified in the annexes attached to the election
TOBON UY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS protest by Respondents DE JESUS and DAVID.
and JOSE C. NEYRA
FACTS: Garcia v De Jesus (The Antipolo

Case)
In the 18 January 1988 local elections.
Petitioners Daniel GARCIA and Teodoro O'
HARA were the winning candidates for Mayor
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Uy vs Neyra (The Isabela Case)
After the canvass of election returns was made
The latter moved for reconsideration thereof in the same local elections, Respondent Jose C.
which was denied by the RTC, in an Order dated NEYRA was proclaimed Mayor of Gamu, Isabela
27 December 1988. On 9 January 1989, over Petitioner Tomas TOBON UY, with a
Respondents DE JESUS and DAVID filed a plurality of 28 votes.
Petition for certiorari and mandamus before
the COMELEC which sought to nullify the RTC Petitioner TOBON UY filed an election protest
Order limiting the examination of ballot boxes to before the RTC. The RTC declared TOBON UY
only 9 precincts. the winner "by a majority of five (5) votes" over.
On the same date that said RTC Decision was
On 13 January 1989, respondent COMELEC promulgated, NEYRA filed a "Notice of Appeal,"
temporarily restrained the proceedings before and TOBON UY, a "Motion for Execution
the RTC and set for hearing Respondents Pending Appeal," with the latter pleading set for
DAVID and DE JESUS' application for hearing on 10 January 1991.
Preliminary Injunction on 29 January 1989.
The day before, or on 9 January 1991,
Petitioners GARCIA and O' HARA, meanwhile, NEYRA filed before the COMELEC a Petition
registered their objection to the assumption of for Certiorari and/or Prohibition seeking to
jurisdiction by the COMELEC over the Petition enjoin the RTC from further acting on TOBON
for certiorari and mandamus through their UY's aforesaid "Motion for Execution Pending
"Manifestation With Motion To Dismiss." It was Appeal."
their contention that the COMELEC was not On 10 January 1991, the RTC gave due course
empowered to take cognizance of Petitions for to NEYRA's appeal, granted execution pending
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. appeal stating the special reasons therefor, and
required TOBON UY to post a bond in the
The COMELEC issued the questioned Decision, amount of P300,000.00. On the same date, the
dated 27 April 1989, which directed the RTC to COMELEC issued a TRO enjoining the RTC
open all the ballot boxes in the 25 protested from further proceeding with the case. NEYRA's
precincts.
ISSUE: Whether the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) has jurisdiction to issue Writs
application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in
was likewise set for hearing by the COMELEC
electoral contests involving municipal and
on 24 January 1991.
barangay officials – NO (However, this does
not hold true now. Refer to Relampagos vs
On 15 January 1991, NEYRA filed a second
Cumba)
Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition
before the COMELEC. He sought to set aside
RULING: In the Philippine setting, the authority
the RTC Order, dated 10 January 1991, which
to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and
granted TOBON UY's "Motion for Execution
Mandamus involves the exercise of original
Pending Appeal.
jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always
been expressly conferred, either by the
The COMELEC took cognizance of both
Constitution or by law. As a mater of fact, the
Certiorari Petitions and, on 15 February 1991,
well-settled rule is that jurisdiction is conferred
issued the questioned Resolution declaring as only by the Constitution or by law. It is never
null and void and Writ of Execution Pending
derived by implication. Indeed, "(w)hile the
Appeal granted by the RTC, premised on Rule power to issue the writ of certiorari is in some
35, Section 18, of its Rules of Procedure, and
instance conferred on all courts by constitutional
enjoining TOBON UY from "assuming the office or statutory provisions, ordinarily, the particular
and performing in whatever and however
courts which have such power are expressly
manner the duties of Mayor of Gamu, Isabela, designated".
until the final disposition of the appeal.
Thus, our Courts exercise the power to issue
BOTH Petitioners submit that COMELEC has no
Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus by
jurisdiction over Certiorari, anchoring their claim
virtue of express constitutional grant or
in the doctrine laid in Pimentel Case.
legislative enactment.
Both respondents submit that under the
constitution, COMELEC has appellate
jurisdiction and shall not diminish substantive
rights.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) 296) and Section 9(1) of the Judiciary
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129). It
does not follow that just because the 1987
Constitution, without more, it can issue such
Significantly, what the Constitution granted the Writs in aid of that appellate jurisdiction.
COMELEC was appellate jurisdiction. The
Constitution makes no mention of any power
given the COMELEC to exercise original The view that the subject Writs are but common-
jurisdiction over Petitioners law Writs not owing their existence to any
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike constitutional provision or statutory enactment may
in the case of the Supreme Court which was be true in foreign jurisdictions but not in the
specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII, Philippine judicial system where such Writs are
Sec. 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that specifically characterized as original Special Civil
jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue Actions (Rule 65, Rules of court). It is original
such Writs can not be implied from the mere jurisdiction that is exercised in the issuance of said
existence of appellate jurisdiction. Just as Writs. And although there may be authorities in
implied repeal of statutes are frowned upon, so other jurisdictions which maintain that such Writs
also should the grant of original jurisdiction by are inherent in the power of higher Courts
mere implication to a quasi-judicial body exercising appellate jurisdiction, the same refers to
tabooed. If appellate jurisdiction has to be judicial tribunals, which the COMELEC is not.
statutorily granted, how much more the original What this agency exercises are administrative and
jurisdiction to issue the prerogative Writs? quasi-judicial powers.
Apparently, the COMELEC Rule on The power vested in the COMELEC to
its certiorari jurisdiction is patterned after the promulgate its Rules of procedure neither
previous authorization to the Court of Appeals to confers upon itself the jurisdiction to issue the
issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and prerogative Writs. Procedure, as distinguished
Mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. from jurisdiction, is the means by which the
That authority, however, was not inherent in the power or authority of a Court to hear and decide
Court of Appeals but was specifically conferred a class of cases is put into action (Manila
by Section 30 of the Judiciary Act (Rep. Act No.
FACTS: Petitioner Jose "Peping" Navarro and
private respondent Jose "Pempe" Miranda were
mayoralty candidates in Santiago, Isabela during
Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523). the synchronized elections held on May 11,
Rules of procedure are remedial in nature and 1992.
not substative. They cover only rules on
pleadings and practice. And in respect of the Petitioner lost to private Respondent.
COMELEC, the authority to promulgate its rules
of procedure was specifically "in order to
On May 21, 1992, petitioner filed with the
expedite disposition of cases" (Section 3, Article
COMELEC an appeal to annul and set aside the
IX-C). That limited purpose cannot be expanded
rulings of the Board of Canvassers of Santiago,
to include the conferment upon itself of
Isabela and the order of Manuel Agpalo, the
jurisdiction which is substantive in nature and
acting Provincial Election Supervisor in the
can only be fixed by law.
canvassing of votes in the mayoralty contest.
The petition alleged that:
The doctrine laid down in Pimentel, supra,
holding that the COMELEC has not been
1) The respondent Board erred in not issuing to
invested with jurisdiction to issue the Writs in
the appellant a written notice of the Canvassing
question, therefore, still finds application under
as required under Sec 228 of OEC;
the 1987 Constitution. Said case also involved
2) The respondent Board erred in continuing with
an elective municipal official except that it was
the canvassing of the election returns despite
decided under the regime of the 1973
appe ant’s petiti n t disqua i D ing
Constitution and the 1978 Election Code (Pres.
Gorospe and Rodrigo Santos to sit in the board
Decree No. 1296).
of canvassers, whose integrity have been
assailed for obvious partiality towards the
candidacy of Jose Miranda;
JOSE "PEPING" NAVARRO v. COMMISSION
3) The respondent Board erred in continuing with
ON ELECTIONS and JOSE "PEMPE"
the canvassing of contested returns despite
MIRANDA
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 106019. December 17, 1993.]
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) their objections to the regularity of the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever proceedings; d) that also present at the meeting
were several supporters of petitioner; and e)
verbal and written petitions to exclude, that, at any rate, such failure of the Board of
supported by clear and convincing evidence; Canvassers to give notice of the initial meeting
4) The respondent Board erred in continuing was not his fault and a ground for a pre-
with the canvassing of contested election returns proclamation controversy.
despite the filing of notices of appeal by
appellant and for failure to observe the In its Resolution dated June 29, 1992, the
provisions of Section 20, R.A. 7166; COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition
5) Respondent Agpalo erred in issuing an order without prejudice to the filing of a regular
setting aside appe ant’s n tice appea , a electoral protest.
denia due p cess”
In his Answer/Opposition, private respondent Hence, this petition for special civil action for
alleged that: certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a
1) Petitioner failed to make a timely temporary restraining order or a preliminary
objection to the 118 returns from the 118 mandatory injunction, to enjoin: (a) respondent
precincts subject matter of the appeal COMELEC from implementing its questioned
2) The affidavits submitted by petitioner in Resolution dated June 29, 1992, and (b) the
support of his written objections to the 118 proclamation of private respondent as Mayor of
precincts do not make out a prima facie case Santiago, Isabela.
showing the existence of fraud, irregularity or
other circumstances constituting the ground for The COMELEC found that petitioner failed to
the objection make timely objections to the alleged illegal acts
committed by the Board of Canvassers, as well
Private respondent further alleged: a) that like as to its composition and proceedings.
petitioner, he was not given a written notice by
the Board of Canvassers of its initial meeting; b) The COMELEC resorted to the minutes of the
that two lawyers appeared in representation of respondent board and found nothing in the said
petitioner at the meeting of the Board of minutes will show any such objection by
Canvassers; c) that said lawyers did not register
ISSUE: Whether factual matters (non notice,
etc) are proper for consideration in a petition for
certiorari – NO
petitioner or his counsels of the said respondent
a d’s ai u e t send n tices t t e candidates RULING: The finding that petitioner failed to
or political parties as required under Section 228 make timely objections to the composition and
of the Omnibus Election Code. Or that if such the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers
objections were raised, the same was pursued involves a question of fact, which is left to the
to the end. Neither is there in the Minutes any determination of the COMELEC.
s wing t at petiti ne ’s ecti n t t e
composition of respondent Board particularly The Constitution did not intend to place the
Chairman Gorospe and Vice Chairman Santos COMELEC — explicitly made independent by
was made pursuant to the procedural the Constitution itself — on a lower level than
requirement provided for by Section 19, R.A. No. that of statutory administrative agencies, whose
7166. Failing thus, petitioner cannot now raise factual findings are generally not disturbed by
and pursue said objections for the first time in the courts except when there is no substantial
this appeal. evidence to support such findings. Factual
matters are not proper for consideration in
The only objections raised before it by the proceedings brought either as an original
Petitioner were as to action for certiorari or as an appeal by
1. Misreading of ballots; certiorari. The main issue in the former case
2. Interchanging of results; is one of jurisdiction — lack of jurisdiction or
3. Tampering/falsification of election grave abuse of discretion amounting to
returns; excess of jurisdiction; while in the latter
4. Discrepancies in the Returns; case, the issues are limited to the
5. Election Returns prepared under consideration of questions of law.
duress; threats, coercion or
intimidation; In the absence of jurisdictional infirmity or error of
6. Substitute/fraudulent returns will law, the conclusion reached by the COMELEC
materially affect the standing of the aggrieved
candidate
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Forthwith, nine informations for violation of
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election were filed
with Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of
on a matter that falls within its competence is Alien, Northern Samar.
entitled to utmost respect.
In an Order issued on 25 August 1997,
Petitioner, more particularly, failed to follow the respondent Judge Tomas B. Noynay, as
procedure laid down in Section 244 of the presiding judge of Branch 23, motu proprio
Omnibus Election Code, that is to appeal the ordered the records of the cases to be
matter to the Commission within three (3) days withdrawn and directed the COMELEC Law
from a ruling thereon. The Commission shall Department to file the cases with the appropriate
summarily decide the case within five days from Municipal Trial Court on the ground that
t e i ing t e e ” pursuant to Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, the Regional Trial
Court has no jurisdiction over the cases since
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS vs. HON. the maximum imposable penalty in each of the
TOMAS B. NOYNAY G.R. No. 132365 July cases does not exceed six years of
9, 1998 imprisonment.
FACTS: In its Minute Resolution No. 96-3076 of The two motions for reconsideration separately
29 October 1996, the Commission on Elections filed by the COMELEC Regional Director of
(COMELEC) resolved to file an information for Region VIII and by the COMELEC itself through its
violation of Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Legal Department having been denied by the
Election Code against private respondents public respondent in the Order of 17 October 1997,
Diosdada Amor, a public school principal, and the petitioner filed this special civil action. It
Esbel Chua and Ruben Magluyoan, both public contends that public respondent "has erroneously
school teachers, for having engaged in partisan misconstrued the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7691
political activities. The COMELEC authorized its in arguing that the Municipal Trial Court has
Regional Director in Region VIII to handle the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide
prosecution of the cases. election offenses" because pursuant to
Among the offenses punished under the Election

Code are those enumerated in Section 261
Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code and
thereof. The offense allegedly committed by
this Court's ruling in "Alberto [sic] vs. Judge Juan
private respondents is covered by paragraph (i)
Lavilles, Jr.," Regional Trial Courts have the
of said Section, thus:
exclusive original jurisdiction over election
Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The
offenses.
following shall be guilty of an election
offense:
In their Comment, private respondents maintain
(i) Intervention of public officers and
that R.A. No. 7691 has divested the Regional
employees. — Any officer or employee in the
Trial Courts of jurisdiction over offenses where
civil service, … directly or indirectly, intervenes
the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years
in any election campaign or engages in any
of imprisonment; moreover, R.A. 7691 expressly
partisan political activity.
provides that all laws, decrees, and orders
(ii) Under Section 264 of the Code the
inconsistent with its provisions are deemed
penalty for an election offense under the Code,
repealed or modified accordingly. They then
except that of failure to register or failure to vote,
conclude that since the election offense in
is "imprisonment of not less than one year but
question is punishable with imprisonment of not
not more than six years" and the offender shall
more than 6 years, it is cognizable by Municipal
not be subject to probation and shall suffer
Trial Courts.
disqualification to hold public office and
deprivation of the right of suffrage.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court
has no jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A.
No. 7691.
HELD: Under Section 268 of the Omnibus

Election Code, Regional Trial Courts have
exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide
any criminal action or proceedings for violation
of the Code except those relating to the offense
of failure to register or failure to vote.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) cases enumerated in Section 5(2) of Article VIII
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by jurisdiction of various courts. Congress may thus
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691, provides as follows: provide by law that a certain class of cases
should be exclusively heard and determined by
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Court, one court. Such law would be a special law and
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial must be construed as an exception to the
Courts in Criminal Cases. — Except in cases general law on jurisdiction of courts, namely, the
falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and the
Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. R.A. No.
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial 7691 can by no means be considered as a
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall e special law on jurisdiction; it is merely an
e cise… amendatory law intended to amend specific
sections of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
By virtue of the exception provided for in the 1980.
opening sentence of Section 32, the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Hence, R.A. No. 7691 does nut have the effect
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit of repealing laws vesting upon Regional Trial
Trial Courts does not cover those criminal cases Courts or the Sandiganbayan exclusive original
which by specific provisions of law fall within the jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases therein
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial specified. That Congress never intended that
Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, regardless of R.A. No. 7691 should repeal such special
the penalty prescribed therefor. provisions is indubitably evident from the fact
that it did not touch at all the opening sentence
Undoubtedly, pursuant to Section 268 of the of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for the
Omnibus Election Code, election offenses also exception.
fall within the exception.
As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred

by the Constitution or by Congress. Outside the
The resolution, in turn, is based on the
constitutional mandate that the COMELEC is
charged with the enforcement and administration
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for
HONORABLE ENRIQUE B. INTING G.R. No. the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest
88919 July 25, 1990 elections (sec. 2, Article XII-C of the 1973
Constitution) and on the Omnibus Election Code
FACTS: On February 6, 1988, Mrs. Editha which implements the constitutional provision.
Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor The Resolution authorized Regional Election
Dominador Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental Directors and Provincial Election Supervisors to
with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), conduct preliminary investigations of election
for allegedly transferring her, a permanent offenses committed in their respective
Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the jurisdictions, file the corresponding complaints
Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay and and/or informations in court whenever
without obtaining prior permission or clearance warranted, and to prosecute the same pursuant
from COMELEC as required by law. to Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Acting on the complaint, COMELEC directed After a preliminary investigation of Barba's
Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, Provincial Election complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima facie
Supervisor of Dumaguete City: case. Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed
with the respondent trial court a criminal case for
(1) to conduct the preliminary investigation of the violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus
case; Election Code against the OIC-Mayor.
(2) to prepare and file the necessary information
in court; In an Order dated September 30, 1988, the
(3) to handle the prosecution if the evidence respondent court issued a warrant of arrest
submitted shows a prima facie case and (3) to against the accused OIC Mayor.
issue a resolution of prosecution or dismissal as
the case may be.
The directive to conduct the preliminary

investigation was pursuant to COMELEC
Resolution No. 1752 dated January 14, 1986.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever HELD: Article IX C Section 2 of the Constitution
provides:
However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and
before the accused could be arrested, the trial Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall
court set aside its September 30, 1988 order on exercise the following powers and functions
the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized (1) Enforce and administer all laws and
to determine probable cause pursuant to Section regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
In another order dated November 22, 1988, the initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
court gave Atty. Lituanas fifteen (15) days from exclusion of votes, investigate and, where
receipt to file another information charging the appropriate, prosecute cases of violation of
same offense with the written approval of the election laws, including acts or omission
Provincial Fiscal. constituting election frauds, offenses, and
practices.
Atty. Lituanas failed to comply with the order.
Hence, in an order dated December 8, 1988, the In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates the
trial court quashed the information. A motion for COMELEC not only to investigate but also to
reconsideration was denied. prosecute cases of violation of election laws.
This means that the COMELEC is empowered to
The respondent trial court justifies its stand on conduct preliminary investigations in cases
the ground that the COMELEC through its involving election offenses for the purpose of
Provincial Election Supervisor lacks jurisdiction helping the Judge determine probable cause
to determine the existence of probable cause in and for filing an information in court. This power
an election offense which it seeks to prosecute is exclusive with COMELEC.
in court.
The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among
ISSUE: Whether or not a preliminary others, to enforce and administer all laws relative
investigation conducted by a provincial election
supervisor involving an election offense has to
be coursed through the provincial prosecutor.
COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power
over the conduct of elections.
to the conduct of election and the concomitant
Hence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes
authority to investigate and prosecute election
no role in the prosecution of election offenses. If
offenses is not without compelling reason. The
the Fiscal or Prosecutor files an information
evident constitutional intendment in bestowing
charging an election offense or prosecutes a
this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free,
violation of election law, it is because he has
orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure
been deputized by the COMELEC. He does not
of which would result in the frustration of the true
do so under the sole authority of his office.
will of the people and make a mere idle
ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every
The Commission may avail of the assistance of
qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC
other prosecuting arms of the government.
of the authority to investigate and prosecute
offenses committed by public officials in relation
It is only after a preliminary examination
to their office would thus seriously impair its
conducted by the COMELEC through its officials
effectiveness in achieving this clear
or its deputies that section 2, Article III of the
constitutional mandate.
1987 Constitution comes in. This is so, because,
when the application for a warrant of arrest is
An examination of the provisions of the
made and the information is filed with the court,
Constitution and the Election Code of 1978
the judge will then determine whether or not a
reveals the clear intention to place in the
probable cause exists for the issuance of a
COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate
warrant of arrest.
and prosecute election offenses committed by
any person, whether private individual or public
officer or employee, and in the latter instance,
irrespective of whether the offense is committed
in relation to his official duties or not. In other
words, it is the nature of the offense and not the
personality of the offender that matters. As long
as the offense is an election offense jurisdiction
over the same rests exclusively with the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever On October 30, 1996, Tanciongco and Castillo
filed a joint "Omnibus Motion for Examination of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS vs. HON. Evidence to Determine the Existence of
LORENZO R. SILVA G.R. No. 129417 Probable Cause; Suspension of Issuance of
February 10, 1998 Warrant of Arrest; and Dismissal of the Cases."
Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño, who had
FACTS: Pursuant to its power under Art. IX-C, § been designated by the Commission on
2(6) of the Constitution, the COMELEC charged Elections to prosecute the cases, filed a
private respondents Erasto Tanciongco and comment joining in private respondents' request.
Norma Castillo with violations of §27 of R.A. No. On the other hand, the complainant, Aquilino Q.
6646, together with Zenon Uy, in twelve Pimentel, Jr. expressed no objection to the
separate informations filed with the Regional dismissal of the cases against the two.
Trial Court of Bataan. Tanciongco, who is
provincial prosecutor of Bataan, was vice In orders dated March 31, and April 7, 1997,
chairman, while Castillo, who is division respectively, Judges Silva and Vianzon
superintendent of schools, was secretary of the summarily dismissed the cases against private
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan. Uy, respondents.
who is assistant regional director of elections,
was chairman of the board. In each information, The COMELEC sought to appeal the dismissal
the three were accused of having tampered, in of the cases to the Court of Appeals by filing
conspiracy with one another, with the certificates notices on April 18, 1997, but the judges denied
of canvass by increasing the votes received by due course to its appeal. The sole basis for the
then senatorial candidate Juan Ponce Enrile in denials was the fact that the prosecutor, whom
certain municipalities of Bataan in the May 8, the COMELEC had deputized to prosecute the
1995 elections. cases, had earlier taken a contrary stand against
the COMELEC.
The twelve cases were raffled to three branches
of the court presided over the respondent
judges, Honorable Lorenzo R. Silva Jr.
(Branches 2 and 3) and Honorable Benjamin T.
Vianzon (Branch 1).
cause for the filing of the cases and, if it found
none, whether the cases should be dismissed.
Those cases were filed by the COMELEC after
Hence, this petition
appropriate preliminary investigation. If the Chief
for certiorari and mandamus seeking the State Prosecutor thought there was no probable
nullification of the orders of the two judges, cause for proceeding against private
denying due course to the Notices of Appeal of respondents, he should have discussed the
the COMELEC. matter with the COMELEC and awaited its
instruction. If he disagreed with the COMELEC's
ISSUE: Who as between the COMELEC or its findings, he should have sought permission to
designated prosecutor has authority to decide withdraw from the cases. But he could not leave
whether or not to appeal from the orders of the determination of probable cause to the
dismissal? courts and agree in advance to the dismissal of
the cases should the courts find no probable
HELD: The authority to decide whether or not to cause for proceeding with the trial of the
appeal the dismissal belongs to the COMELEC. accused. It was, therefore, grave abuse of
Art. IX-C, § 2(6) of the Constitution expressly discretion on the part of the respondent judges
vests in it the power and function to "investigate to rely on the manifestation of Chief State
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of Prosecutor Zuño as basis for denying due
violations of election laws, including acts or course to the notices of appeal filed by the
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, COMELEC.
and malpractices."
Whether the orders of dismissal should be
Prosecutors designated by the COMELEC to appealed is for the COMELEC to decide, not for
prosecute the cases act as its deputies. They Chief State Prosecutor Zuño whom it has merely
derive their authority from it and not from their deputized to represent in it court.
offices. Consequently, it was beyond the power
of Chief State Prosecutor Zuño to oppose the Their sole contention is that the petition should
appeal of the COMELEC. For that matter, it was be dismissed because, so it is argued, it should
beyond his power, as COMELEC-designated
prosecutor, to leave to the trial courts the
determination of whether there was probable
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever The documented admission of Secretary of
Budget Salvador Enriquez, in the October 5,
have been brought in the name of the People of 1993 hearing of the Commission on
the Philippines and have been filed by the Appointments, that the amount of P70 million
Solicitor General. was released by his department, shortly before
the elections of May 11, 1992, in favor of a
This contention is without merit. This is not the private entity, the so-called "Philippine Youth,
first time the COMELEC has come to this Court Health and Sports Development Foundation,"
in its own name in regard to an action taken headed by Mr. Ronaldo Puno, who had been
against it in cases filed by it in the lower courts. repeatedly identified by columnist Teodoro
Benigno as a key member of the Sulu Hotel
The COMELEC has sufficient interest in filing the Operation (SHO), which had reportedly engaged
petition [for certiorari] to set aside the decision of in dirty election tricks and practices in said
the Court of Appeals having sustained the elections. . . .
demurrer to evidence in the criminal case against
private respondent for violation of the Election The illegal diversion of P330 million by
Laws. This is so, for it is not only entrusted with the Malacanang from the Countryside Development
duty to enforce the said law but also to prosecute Fund to the Department of Interior and Local
all election offenses. Government which disbursed this huge amount
shortly before the May 11, 1992 elections, as
revealed by DILG Budget Officer Barata, in a
KILOSBAYAN vs.COMMISSION ON hearing of the Senate Finance Committee,
ELECTIONS chaired by Sen. Vicente Sotto III, held last
G.R. No. 128054 October 16, 1997 November 22, 1993.
FACTS: On December 14, 1993, public On December 14, 1993, then Comelec
respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Christian Monsod called a meeting of
received from petitioner Kilosbayan a letter the Comelec En Bancwhich resolved to refer
informing the former of "two . . . serious petitioner Kilosbayan's letter-complaint to the
violations of election laws", thus: COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 99
an alleged commission of an election offense. A
complainant, who in effect accuses another
person of having committed an act constituting
Law Department for comment and/or an election offense, has the burden, as it is his
recommendation. Said letter-complaint was responsibility, to follow through his accusation
docketed as E.O. Case No. 93-193. and prove his complainant. If the complainant
fails to proffer the necessary evidence to show
The evidence proffered by Kilosbayan in support probable cause, notwithstanding the lack of
of its letter-complaint consisted of the published denial or any evidence in controversion, of the
writings of Teodoro Benigno in his column in the accusation, the complaint must be dismissed,
Philippine Star newspaper imputing to the so- since any person accused of a crime is
called Sulo Hotel Operation (SHO) headed by presumed innocent and does not at all have to
PYHSDFI's chairman, Ronaldo Puno, the make a response or reaction to the charges
commission of illegal election activities during against him.
the May 11, 1992 elections, including the
obtention of government funds for electioneering
The Comelec, in acting upon an election offense
purposes.
complaint in the course of preliminary
investigation, initially facilitates the confrontation
Kilosbayan did not submit evidence to prove its process between the complainant and the
case which ended in the dismissal of the same. respondents by requiring the submission of and
interfacing, their respective evidences.
Petitioner Kilosbayan contended that it is the
Ultimately, the Comelec passes upon the
Comelec that is duty-bound to search for
contending parties' respective submission and
evidence to prove its letter-complaint.
proofs and weighs the fact and circumstances
established therefrom. Contrary to the
ISSUE: Whether or not it is the Comelec that is asseveration of petitioner Kilosbayan, the
duty-bound to search for evidence to prove a preliminary investigation is not an occasion for
letter-complaint. the Comelec to, as a duty, spoonfeed the
HELD: The task of the Comelec as investigator
and prosecutor, acting upon any election offense
complaint, is not the physical searching and
gathering of proof in support of a complaint for
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) (2) petitioners name was repeatedly mentioned
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever over the microphone during the games; (3) the
tournament was widely published in the local
complainant with evidence needed to prove its newspaper; and (4) a raffle sponsored by Cecilio
case. Gillamac was held with home appliances given
away as prizes.
EUGENIO "JING-JING" FAELNAR vs. Petitioner denied participation in the tournament
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON and claimed that its major sponsor was Gillamac
CODILLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge Marketing, Inc. He contended that the same was
of the RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City, and purely a sporting event for the benefit of the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS youth. The complaint was investigated by Atty.
Edwin Cadungog, election officer of Cebu City,
FACTS: On April 8, 1997, pet Eugenio Faelnar who later recommended the dismissal of the
filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of charges against petitioner and Gillamac. On the
Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, other hand, the Law Department of the
Cebu City in the May 12, 1997 barangay COMELEC recommended the filing of a case
elections. The following day, on April 9, 1997, a against petitioner and Gillamac for violation of
basketball tournament, dubbed the "2nd JING- 80, in relation to 262, of the Omnibus Election
JING FAELNARS CUP," opened at the Code, and 50 of COMELEC Resolution No.
Guadalupe Sports Complex and lasted up to 2888, in relation to 12 of Republic Act No. 6679.
April 30, 1997. This gave rise to a complaint for
electioneering filed against petitioner and Cecilio The COMELEC en banc resolved to dismiss the
Gillamac by Antonio Luy. The complaint alleged case. However, on motion of Antonio Luy, the
that the basketball tournament was actually a COMELEC reconsidered its action. Accordingly,
campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign pet and Gillamac were formally charged in the
period which officially started on May 1, 1997, in Regional Trial Court, Cebu City under two
violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-49941
and CBU-49942. Petitioner moved to quash the
Luy alleged that: (1) during the tournament, a
streamer bearing petitioners name was placed on
the facade of the Guadalupe Sports Complex;
Faelnar, likewise, invokes Rule 34, Section 10 of

the same Rules which states that:
information or, in the alternative, for
reinvestigation of the case, contending that
SEC. 10. Appeals from the Action of the
Resolution No. 97-3040, which dismissed the
State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal.
complaint against him, was immediately
Appeals from the resolution of the State
executory and could no longer be reconsidered.
Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Fiscal on
Petition was denied.
the recommendation or resolution of
investigating officers may be made only to
ISSUE: WON the first resolution of the
the Commission within ten (10) days from
COMELEC is final and executory.
receipt of the resolution of said officials,
provided, however that this shall not divest
HELD:
the Commission of its power to motu
1. The first resolution of COMELEC (dismissing
proprio review, revise, modify or reverse the
the case against Faelnar) was not final and may
resolution of the chief state
be subject to a Motion for Reconsideration.
prosecutor and/or provincial/city
prosecutors. The decision of the
Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 COMELEC
Commission on said appeals shall be
Rules of Procedure provide for an exception in
immediately executor and final.
what pleadings are not allowed:
(Emphasis added)
“M ti n econsideration of an en banc
However, this section does not apply to
ruling, resolution, order or decision, e cept
investigations conducted by COMELEC, but to
in e ecti n ense cases”
the resolutions of the State Prosecutor, or
Provincial or City Fiscal, who has the delegated
An MR of a ruling, resolution or decision of the
power to conduct preliminary investigation of
COMELEC en banc is allowed in cases involving
election offense cases. But if COMELEC
election offenses. There is no question that what
is involved in this case is a resolution in an
election offense. Therefore, an MR is allowed
under the Rules.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) During en banc, COMELEC resolved to file the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever necessary information against respondent and to
file a criminal complaint against respondent for
conducts the investigation through its own falsification. Director Balbuena filed an
investigating officer, the section does not apply. information for Violation of Section 74, in relation
to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.
2 H we e , e en i it was ina , Fae na ’s ti n to Plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition, seeking the
quash was not the proper remedy as it was an inhibition of the entire COMELEC because of its
attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the bias in rendering a resolution.
COMELEC. The proper remedy would have
been a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash
which must be filed within 30 days from notice of alleging lack of jurisdiction and lack of authority
judgment. In this case, Faelnar filed his motion on the part of Director Balbuena to file the
to quash more than a year after. information. However, it was denied which
prompted him to file a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals.
LAUREL V. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and
FACTS: Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified ruled that the proper procedure was followed by
letter-complaint to Jose P. Balbuena charging the COMELEC but directed the trial court to
Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of Public remand the case to the COMELEC for reception
Documents" and violation of [Section 74] of the of petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the
Omnibus Election Code. It alleged that both his COMELEC resolution dated January 25, 1996,
father and mother were Chinese citizens but which approved the filing of a criminal complaint
when petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for against petitioner.
the position of Senator he stated that he is a
natural-born Filipino citizen. ISSUE: WON the CA erred in holding that there
was no flaw in the procedure followed by the
An investigation was conducted by the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary
COMELEC Law Department and a Report was investigation.
made recommending the filing of Information.
conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he
himself were the complainant in his private
capacity.
HELD:
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
1. It was error for the Court of Appeals to hold
petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having
there was no flaw in the procedure followed by acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor,
the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary judge and executioner in the conduct of the
investigation. preliminary investigation ring hollow.
There are two ways through which a complaint -No. the records show that there is basis to at
for election offenses may be initiated. It may be least find probable cause to indict the petitioner
filed by the COMELEC motu proprio, or it may for violation of the Omnibus Election Code and it
be filed via written complaint by any citizen of appears from the records that Chairman Pardo
the Philippines, candidate, registered political had no other participation in the proceedings
party, coalition of political parties or which led to the filing of the Information.
organizations under the partylist system or any
accredited citizens arms of the Commission.
-The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be
restrained from investigating the complaint filed
- Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the against petitioner, as the latter would like the
Chairman of the COMELEC and need not be
courts to do. The COMELEC is mandated by no
verified.
less than the Constitution to investigate and
prosecute, when necessary, violations of
On the other hand, complaints filed by parties election laws. This power is lodged exclusively
other than the COMELEC must be verified and with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission
supported by affidavits and other evidence. The to inhibit itself from investigating the complaint
complaint in question in this case is one filed by against petitioner would be nothing short of an
Pardo in his personal capacity and not as
chairman of the COMELEC. There is nothing in
the rules that require that only the COMELEC en
banc may refer a complaint to the Law
Department for investigation. There is no rule
against the COMELEC chairman directing the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) erroneous, incomplete and irregular canvass."
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Meanwhile, the electoral protest of private
respondent Alterado was dismissed by the
abandonment of its mandate under the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code ("HRET"). The criminal complaint for
"Falsification of Public Documents and Violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act"
TAN VS. COMELEC before the Office of the Ombudsman was
237 SCRA 353, OCTOBER 4, 1994 likewise dismissed on the ground of lack of
criminal intent on the part of therein
FACTS: On May 10, 1992, the petitioner, as an respondents. Still pending is an administrative
incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City, was charge, instituted in the COMELEC against the
designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman City Board of Canvassers, including herein
of the City Board of Canvassers in the said area petitioner, for "Misconduct, Neglect of Duty,
for the May 11, 1992, synchronized national and Gross Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the
local elections conformably with the provisions of Service."
Section 20 (a) of Republic Act 6646 and Section
221 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner moved to dismiss the administrative
complaint against him for alleged lack of
On the basis of the votes canvassed by the jurisdiction of the COMELEC thereover, he being
Board of Canvassers, Manuel Garcia was under the Executive Department of the
proclaimed the winning candidate for a government. The COMELEC denied petitioner's
congressional seat to represent the Second motion to dismiss.
District of Davao City in the House of
Representatives. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the
jurisdiction to take action on the
Private respondent Alterado, himself a candidate administrative case when in fact the
for the position, filed a number of cases petitioner as a City prosecutor is under the
questioning the validity of the proclamation of Administrative jurisdiction.
Manuel Garcia and accusing the members of the
City Board of Canvassers of "unlawful, COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 102
FACTS: RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and

SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for mayor
HELD: T e COMELEC’s aut it unde Secti n 2 (6-
in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995
8), Article 9 of the Constitution is virtually all-
elections. After obtaining a majority of some
encompassing when it comes to election
24,000 votes, Lajara was proclaimed winner by
matters, also Section 52, Article 7 of the
the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May
Omnibus Election Code. It should be stressed
1995 Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a
that the administrative case against petitioner is
Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to
in relation to the performance of his duties as an
Declare Null and Void the Canvass and
Election canvasser and not as a City Prosecutor.
Proclamation because of alleged widespread
T e COMELEC’s andate inc udes its aut it to
frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of
exercise direct and immediate suspension and
votes, preparation of election returns, violence,
control over national and local officials or
threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered
employees, including members of any national
voters voting, and delay in the delivery of
and local law enforcement agency and
election documents and paraphernalia from the
instrumentality of the government, required by
precincts to the Office of the Municipal
law to perform duties relative to the conduct of
Treasurer.
elections. To say that the COMELEC is without
jurisdiction to look into charges of election
Canicosa particularly averred that: (a) the names
offenses committed by officials and employees
of the registered voters did not appear in the list
of government outside the regular employ of the
of voters in their precincts; (b) more than one-
COMELEC would be to unduly deny to it the
half of the legitimate registered voters were not
proper and sound exercise of such
able to vote with strangers voting in their stead;
recommendatory power and, perhaps more than
(c) he was credited with less votes than he
that, even a possible denial of the process to the
official or employee concerned. actually received; (d) control data of the election
returns was not filled up in some precincts; (e)
ballot boxes brought to the Office of the
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA
LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) cases the failure or suspension of election would
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever affect the result of the election, the Commission
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., interested party and after due notice and
without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; hearing, call for the holding or continuation of
and, (f) there was delay in the delivery of the election not held, suspended or which
election returns. resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably
close to the date of the election not held,
But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect
petition on the ground that the allegations therein but not later than thirty days after the cessation
did not justify a declaration of failure of election. of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
ISSUE: WON the grounds cited by Canicosa
warrants a declaration of failure of election. Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where
a failure of election may be declared, namely:
HELD: NO. Indeed, the grounds cited by (a) the election in any polling place has not
Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of failure been held on the date fixed on account of force
of election. Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election analogous causes;
Code, reads: (b) the election in any polling place had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of closing of the voting on account of force
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
other analogous causes the election in any analogous causes; or
polling place has not been held on the date (c) after the voting and during the preparation
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour and transmission of the election returns or in the
fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after custody or canvass thereof, such election results
the voting and during the preparation and the in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
transmission of the election returns or in the violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
custody or canvass thereof, such election causes.
results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
Canicosa also avers that more than one-half
(1/2) of the legitimate registered voters were not
able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their
behalf. Again, this is not a ground which
None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls warrants a declaration of failure of election.
under any of those enumerated. Canicosa was allowed to appoint a watcher in
every precinct. The watcher is empowered by
Canicosa bewails that the names of the law to challenge any illegal voter. In fine, the
registered voters in the various precincts did not grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not
appear in their respective lists of voters. But this fall under any of the instances enumerated in
is not a ground to declare a failure of election. Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The filing of a petition for declaration of failure of
election therefore is not the proper remedy.
JOSEPH PETER SISON V. COMELEC
Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on G.R. NO. 134096, MARCH 3, 1999
8 May 1995 the final list of voters was posted in
each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No. FACTS: It appears that while the election returns
7166. Based on the lists thus posted Canicosa were being canvassed by the Quezon City Board
could have filed a petition for inclusion of of Canvassers but before the
registered voters with the regular courts. The winning candidates were proclaimed,
question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of petitioner commenced suit before the COMELEC
voters involves the right to vote which is not by filing a petition seeking to suspend the
within the power and authority of COMELEC to canvassing of votes and/or proclamation in
rule upon. The determination of whether one has Quezon City and to declare a failure of elections.
the right to vote is a justiciable issue properly The said petition was supposedly filed pursuant
cognizable by our regular courts. to Section 63 of the Omnibus Election Code
(Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended) on the
On the other hand, Canicosa could have also ground of "massive and orchestrated fraud and
filed with the COMELEC a verified complaint acts analogous
seeking the annulment of the book of voters
pursuant to Sec. 10, of RA No. 7166.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) (b) the election in any polling place had been
closing of the voting on account of force
thereto which occurred after the voting and majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
during the preparation of election returns and in analogous causes; or
the custody or canvass thereof, which resulted in (c) after the voting and during the preparation
a failure to elect. and transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof such election result
While the petition was pending before the in a failure to elect on account of force majuere,
COMELEC, the City Board of Canvassers violence, terrorism , fraud, or other analogous
proclaimed the winners of the elections in causes.
Quezon City, including the winning candidate for
the post of vice mayor. On June 22, 1998, the We have painstakingly examined petitioner's
COMELEC promulgated its challenged petition before the COMELEC but found nothing
resolution dismissing the petition before it on the therein that could support an action for
ground (1) that the allegations therein were not declaration of failure of elections. He never
supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) the alleged at all that elections were either not held
grounds recited were not among the pre or suspended. Furthermore, petitioner's claim of
proclamation issues set forth in Section 17 of failure to elect stood as a bare conclusion bereft
Republic Act No. 7166 of any substantive support to
describe just exactly how the failure to elect
ISSUE: WON the grounds are valid? came about.
HELD: Under the pertinent codal provision of the
Omnibus Election Code, there are only three (3)
instances where a failure of elections may be
declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not

been held on the date fixed on account of force
analogous causes;
trial courts of general jurisdiction (RTCs) in
election cases involving elective municipal
officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first
CARLOS V. ANGELES shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
G.R. NO. 142907, NOV. 29, 2000 case. Relative to the appeal that petitioner filed
with the COMELEC, the same would not bar the
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were present action as an exception to the rule
candidates for the position of mayor of the because under the circumstances, appeal would
municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila (later not be a speedy and adequate remedy in the
converted into a City) during the May 11, 1998 ordinary course of law.
elections. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed
petitioner as the mayor. The private respondent The power to nullify an election must be
filed an election protest with the RTC. The court exercised with the greatest care with a view not
came up with revision reports, which also to disenfranchise the voters, and only under
showed that the petitioner got the highest circumstances that clearly call for such drastic
number of votes. Nevertheless, in its decision, remedial measure. More importantly, the trial
the trial court set aside the final tally of valid court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of
votes because of its finding of "significant election. It is the COMELEC en banc that is
badges of fraud," which it attributed to the vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a
present petitioner. The court then declared failure of election. Assuming that the trial court
private respondent as the winner. The petitioner has jurisdiction to declare a failure of election,
appealed to the COMELEC, and also filed a the extent of that power is limited to the
petition to the SC questioning the decision of the annulment of the election and the calling of
RTC. The private respondent questioned the special elections. The result is a failure of
jurisdiction of the SC. election for that particular office. In such case,
the court cannot declare a winner.
ISSUE: As to the jurisdiction of Comelec and
the Courts
HELD: Both the SC and COMELEC have

concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) since November 10, 2000, when he took his
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever oath as a citizen of the Philippines. The Comelec
was unable to render judgment on the case
TEODULO M. COQUILLA VS. before the election.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND MR. NEIL ALVAREZ Meanwhile, petitioner was voted for and
G.R. 151914, JULY 31, 2002 proclaimed mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar. On
July 19, 2001, the Comelec (2nd Div)
FACTS: Petitioner Coquilla was born on ordered t e cance ati n t e petiti ne ’s certificate
February 17, 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, of candidacy. Comelec en banc affirmed the
Eastern Samar. In 1965, he joined the US Navy order, thus this petition.
and was naturalized as a US Citizen. On
October 15, 1998, petitioner came back to the ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner had been a
Philippines and took a residence certificate. resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least one (1)
Subsequently, petitioner applied for repatriation year before the elections held on May 14, 2001.
under R.A. No. 8171 to the special committee on
naturalization. His application was approved on RULING: The Supreme Court held that the term
November 7, 2000, and on November 10, 2000, “ esidence” is t e unde st d not in its
he took oath as citizen of the Philippines. On common acceptation as e e ing t “dwe ing”
November 21, 2000, petitioner applied for or “ a itati n”, ut at e t “D ici e” legal
registration as a voter of Oras, Eastern Samar, residence, that is, the place where a party
in addition, on February 27, 2001, he filed his actually or constructively has his permanent
certificate of candidacy stating therein that he home, where he, no matter where he may be
had been a resident thereof for 2 years. On found at any given time, eventually intends to
March 5, 2001, Mr. Alvarez filed for return and remain (animus manendi). A domicile
the cance ati n petiti ne ’s ce ti icate of of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is
candidacy on the ground of material usually the place w e e t e c i d’s parents reside
misrepresentation by stating thereat that the and continues until the same is abandoned by
latter has been a resident of Oras, Eastern acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice).
Samar for two years, when in truth and in fact he In the case at bar, petitioner
had resided therein for only about six months
special election. Biliwag contends that the
ground of terrorism cannot be invoked in pre-
proclamation controversy.
lost his domicile of origin by becoming a US
citizen after enlisting in the US Navy in 1965.
ISSUE: WON fraud and terrorism is considered
From then on and until November 10, 2000,
a pre-proclamation controversy to justify the
when he reacquired Philippine citizenship,
resolution of declaring that there was a failure of
petitioner was an alien without any right to reside
election in San Fernando Pampanga.
in the Philippines. Indeed, residence in the
United States is a requirement for naturalization
HELD: Election is not complete until all the
as a US citizen. Wherefore, the petition is
essential acts thereof are concluded. In this
without merit and DISMISSED."
case, election is not complete unless there is a
proclaimed winner. The matter involves a failure
to elect based on the ground that the election
SANCHEZ v. COMELEC
was marred by massive terrorism. The 1973
153 SCRA 67
Constitution vests power to the COMELEC to be
the sole judge of all election contest and
FACTS: In the mayoral contest in Pampanga, controversy and that it had the power to declare
Biliwang was proclaimed winner. Sanchez filed
a failure of election and call
an action to annul the proclamation with the
for a special election.
COMELEC and to declare that there was a
failure of election and to call for a special
election. This was based on the ground that
massive terrorism was made by the incumbent
mayor in ordering armed men to hold at gunpoint
teachers who were counting the ballots and
replacing the ballots with pre- prepared ones in
favor of Baliwag. Baliwag denied the allegations.
The COMELEC issued a resolution declaring
that there was failure of elections in San
Fernardo Pampanga and referred the same to
the President and Batasang Pambansa so that
the necessary law would be passed for holding a
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Cabasaran, Barangay Deromoyod, Lamin,
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Barangay Wago, Barangay Meniros, Barangay
Bualan, and Barangay Pantaon, all of
BAGO P. PASANDALAN V. COMMISSION ON Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur.
ELECTIONS and BAI SALAMONA L. ASUM
[G. R. No. 150312. July 18, 2002] Petitioner alleged that while voting was going on,
some Cafgus stationed near Sultan Gunting
CARPIO, J.: Elementary School indiscriminately fired their
firearms causing the voters to panic and leave
Doctrine: A petition for declaration of failure of the polling center without casting their votes.
election must specifically allege the essential Taking advantage of the confusion, supporters
grounds that would justify the exercise of this of Asum allegedly took the official ballots, filled
extraordinary remedy. Otherwise, the them up with the name of Asum and placed
S ND L N’S can dis iss ut ig t t e them inside the ballot boxes. In another
petition for lack of merit. No grave abuse of barangay, the members of the Board of Election
discretion can be attributed to the Inspectors (BEI) allegedly failed to sign their
S ND L N’S in suc a case because the initials at the back of several official ballots and
S ND L N’S ust e e cise wit ut st to remove the detachable coupons. The BEI
circumspection the power to declare a failure of members allegedly affixed their initials only
election to prevent disenfranchising voters and during the counting of votes.
frustrating the electorates will.
asanda an c ai s t at su ’s supp te s,
FACTS: Bago Pasandalan and private ta ing ad antage t e ist ig t etween su ’s
respondent Bai Salamona L. Asum were nephew and the supporters of candidate Norania
candidates for mayor in the Municipality of Salo, grabbed the official ballots and filled them
Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur during the May up with the name of Asum, in another polling
14, 2001 elections. place. Pasandalan contends that a technical
examination of several official ballots from the
On May 23, 2001, Pasandalan filed a petition contested precincts would show that only a few
e e pu ic esp ndent S ND L N’S seeking to persons wrote the entries.
nullify the election results in Barangay COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 106
evidence in support of his allegations of
terrorism and fraud since the evidence consisted
n a ida its e ecuted asanda an’s wn
p watc e s T e S ND L N’S c nside ed these
On June 26, 2001, Asum filed an Answer affidavits self-serving and insufficient to annul
denying Pasandalan’s a egati n t at t e e of shots the results of the election.
fired on May 14, 2001 disrupted the voting.
Private respondent countered that the gunshots ISSUE: Whether or not there was a failure of
were heard around 2:35 p.m. and not at the start election--- There was none.
of the voting. On June 30, 2001, Asum was
sworn into office and assumed the position of HELD: We rule that the petition is without merit.
municipal mayor of the Lumbayanague, Lanao
T e S ND L N’S c ect dis issed t e petition for
del Sur.
declaration of failure of election because the
irregularities alleged in the petition should have
On Oct e 12, 2001, t e S ND L N’S been raised in an election protest, not in a
issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for petition to declare a failure of election.
ac e it T e S ND L N’S u ed t at the
power to declare a failure of election, being an Under Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known
extraordinary remedy, could be exercised only in as The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991, the
three instances: (1) the election is not held; (2) S ND L N’S en anc is e p we ed t declare
the election is suspended; or (3) the election a failure of election under Section 6 of the
results in a failure to elect. The third instance is Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881).
understood in its literal sense, that is, nobody Section 6 of the Code prescribes the conditions
was elected. for the exercise of this power, thus:
The S ND L N’S dis issed t e petiti n SEC. 6. Failure of Election. - If, on account of
because none of the grounds relied upon by force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
Pasandalan falls under any of the three other analogous causes the election in any
instances justifying a declaration of failure of polling place has not been held on the date
e ecti n T e S ND L N’S u ed t at is
allegations are better ventilated in an election
c ntest It did n t gi e c edence t asanda an’s
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) (c) after the voting and during the preparation
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever and transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election results
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
fixed by law for closing of the voting, or after violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
the voting and during the preparation and the causes.
transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election What is common in these three instances is the
results in a failure to elect, and in any of such resulting failure to elect which means nobody
cases the failure or suspension of election emerged as a winner.
would affect the result of the election, the
Commission shall, on the basis of a verified asanda an’s a egati ns d n t a unde an the
petition by any interested party and after due instances that would justify the declaration of
notice and hearing, call for the holding or failure of election. The election was held in the
continuation of the election not held, 16 protested precincts as scheduled. At no point
suspended or which resulted in a failure to was the election in any of the precincts
elect but not later than thirty days after the suspended. Nor was there a failure to elect
cessation of the cause of such postponement because of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
or suspension of the election or failure to elect. fraud or other analogous causes during the
Based on the foregoing provision, three preparation, transmission, custody and canvass
instances justify a declaration of failure of of the election returns. The alleged terrorism
election. These are: was not of such scale and prevalence to prevent
the holding of the election or to cause its
(a) the election in any polling place has not suspension. In fact, the casting and counting of
been held on the date fixed on account of force votes, the preparation, transmission and
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other canvassing of election returns and the
analogous causes; proclamation of the winning candidate took place
(b) the election in any polling place has been in due course.
analogous causes; or
terrorism and irregularities. His evidence
consisted of mere affidavits which are
insufficient.
Courts exercise the power to declare a failure of
election with deliberate caution so as not to
asanda an ewai s t e S ND L N’Ss
disen anc ise t e e ect ate asanda an’s
dismissal of his petition without first conducting a
allegations of terrorism and fraud are not
technical examination of the questioned
sufficient to warrant a nullification of the election
p ecincts T e S ND L N’S is n t andated
in the absence of any of the three instances
to conduct a technical examination before it
justifying a declaration of failure of election.
dismisses a petition for nullification of election
when the petition is, on its face, without merit. In
To warrant a declaration of failure of election on Typoco, petitioner Typoco buttressed his petition
the ground of fraud, the fraud must prevent or with independent evidence that compelled the
suspend the holding of an election, or mar fatally S ND L N’S t c nduct a tec nica
the preparation, transmission, custody and examination of the questioned returns. In the
canvass of the election returns. The allegations present case, Pasandalan failed to attach
of massive substitution of voters, multiple voting, independent and objective evidence other than
and other electoral anomalies should be the self-serving affidavits of his own poll
resolved in a proper election protest in the watc e s In Mit ug S ND L N’S, we
absence of any of the three instances justifying a
u ed t at t e SNDL N’S c u d dis iss
declaration of failure of election.
outright a petition for nullification of election if it
is plainly groundless and the allegations therein
The nullification of elections or declaration of could be better ventilated in an election protest.
failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy.
The party who seeks the nullification of an Clearly, the fact that a verified petition is filed
election has the burden of proving entitlement to
wit t e S ND L N’S d es n t necessa i
this remedy.
mean that a technical examination or a hearing
on the case should be conducted first before the
In the instant case, it is apparent that the
S ND L N’S can act n the petition. There
allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds
for the nullification of the election. Pasandalan
even failed to substantiate his allegations of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) failure of election only if the will of the electorate is
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the
people is determinable, the same must be
is no grave abuse of discretion if the respected as much as possible.
S ND L N’S dis isses t e petiti n e en
without a technical examination or hearing if the
petition fails to show on its face the existence of JE Y J ’
any of the three instances required by law to EN BANC, AND JESUS EMMANUEL
declare a failure of election. The PIMENTEL
S ND L N’S in t is case c ect dis issed GR 136191, November 29, 1999
the petition.
FACTS: Jesus O. Typoco and Jesus Emmanuel
Pasandalan believes that notwithstanding the Pimentel were both candidates for the position of
fact that actual voting took place in the Governor in Camarines Norte during the May 11,
questioned precincts, the election in this case, 1998 elections. On June 10, 1998, TYPOCO
just like in Basher v. Commission on Elections, filed a petition alleging that massive fraud and
was illegal, irregular, and void. Citing Basher, irregularities attended the preparation of the
Pasandalan argues that the peculiar set of facts election returns considering that upon technical
in this case do not merely show a failure of examination, 305 election returns were found to
election but the absence of a valid electoral have been prepared in group by one person. A
exercise. The fact that an election is actually ep t t e S ND L N’S’s ERSD V te s
held prevents as a rule a declaration of failure of Identification Division disclosed, among others,
election. It is only when the election is attended t at t e “ andwritten entries on278
by patent and massive irregularities and S ND L N’S c pies e ecti n etu ns
illegalities that this Court will annul the election particularly under the columns
Congressman/Governor/Vice-
Basher does not apply to this case. Unlike in Governor/Nickname or Stage Name, were
Basher, the election in this case proceeded as written by one and the same person in groups.
scheduled, in accordance with law and
S ND L N’S u es N ne t e ete e
circumstances that marred the election in Basher
is present in this case. We have ruled that there is
there was voting, the election nevertheless
resulted in a failure to election; and
(2) the votes cast would affect the result of
T e S ND L N’S En anc p u gated a
the election.
resolution dis issing TY OCO’s petiti n t e
Declaration of Failure of Elections and/or In Loong v. Commission on Elections, the Court
Annulment of Elections in Camarines Norte for added that the cause of such failure of election
lack of merit, claiming that the grounds cited by should have been any of the following: force
TYPOCO do not fall under any of the instances majeur, violence, terrorist, fraud of other
enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus analogous cases.
Election Code.
Further in Borja, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,
ISSUE: Whether or not the findings of the ERSD t e C u t stated t at “T e S ND L N’S can
Voters Identification Division can warrant the
call for the holding or continuation of election by
declaration of a Failure of Elections and/or
reason of failure of election only when the
Annulment of Elections?
election is not held, is suspended or results in a
failure to elect. The latter phrase, in turn, must
HELD: NO. First, the Court pointed to Section 4
be understood in its literal sense, which is
of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as
“n d was e ected ”C ea t en, t e C u t
“T e S nc nized E ecti ns Law 1991,”
held that there are only three instances where a
w ic t e S ND L N’S de i es its aut it
failure of election may be declared, namely:
to declare a failure of elections. Second, the
court quoted Section 6 of the same law, which
(a) the election in any polling place has not
enumerates the causes for a declaration of a
been held on the date fixed on account of force
Failure of Election. These are explained in the majeure ,violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
case of Mitmug v. Commission on Elections, analogous cases;
wherein the Court held that two conditions must
(b) the election in any polling place had been
concur:
(1) no voting has taken place in the precincts
concerned on the date fixed by law, or even if
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) subject of an election contest. The PASANDAL
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever N’S, t e e e, ad n c ice ut
t dis iss TY OCO’s petiti n in acc dance with
majeure,, violence, terrorism, fraud or other clear provisions of the law and jurisprudence.
analogous causes;
(c) after the voting and during the preparation
and transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election results HADJI RASUL BATADOR BASHER vs.
in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous ABULKAIR AMPATUA
causes. In all instances there must have been EN BANC [G.R. No. 139028. April 12, 2000]
failure to elect.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
This is obvious in the first scenario where the
election was not held and the second where the Doctrine: An election must be held at the place,
election was suspended. As to the third date and time prescribed by law. Likewise, its
scenario, the preparation and transmission of suspension or postponement must comply with
the election returns, which gave rise to the legal requirements. Otherwise, it is irregular and
consequence of a failure to elect must as void.
aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that
nobody emerged as a winner. While fraud is a FACTS: Petitioner Hadji Rasul Batador Basher
ground to declare a failure of election, the and Private Respondent Abulkair Ampatua were
commission of fraud must be such that it both candidates for the position of Punong
prevented or suspended the holding of an Barangay in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao
election including the preparation and del Sur during the May 12, 1997 barangay
transmission of the election returns. The ground election. The election was declared a failure and
invoked by TYPOCO is not proper in a a special one was set for June 12, 1997. Again,
dec a ati n ai u e e ecti n TY OCO’s the election failed and was reset to August 30,
e ie was S ND L N’S t de a 1997.
recount of the votes cast, on account of the
falsified election returns, which is properly the
the acting station commander (OIC) of the
Philippine National Police (PNP). The following
day, petitioner and the third candidate were
Election Officer Diana DatuImam reported that surprised to learn that the election officer had
she was allegedly advised by some religious directed the Board of Election Tellers to conduct
leaders not to proceed with the election because the election and to fill up the election returns and
"it might trigger bloodshed." She also claimed certificates of canvass on the night of August 30,
that the town mayor yelled at and threatened her 1997 at the residence of the former mayor.
to declare a failure of election in Maidan. Petitioner also stated that no announcement to
Subsequently, the election officer proceeded to hold the election at the former mayors house
Maidan to conduct the election starting at 9:00 that night was ever made.
p.m. until the early morning of the following day.
The holding of the election at that particular time
As earlier stated, the COMELEC dismissed the
was allegedly announced "over the mosque."
Petition. The COMELEC ruled against a failure
of election because the two conditions laid down
The tally sheet for the said "election" showed the
in Mitmug v. COMELEC were not established. It
following results: private respondent 250 votes;
held that the "election was conducted on the
petitioner 15 votes; and Baulo Abdul Razul, a
scheduled date. The precinct functioned. Actual
third candidate 10 votes. Private respondent was
voting took place, and it resulted not in a failure
proclaimed winner.
to elect."
Petitioner then filed a Petition before the
ISSUE: Whether the "election" held on the date,
COMELEC praying that the election be declared
at the time and in the place other than those
a failure. Alleging that no election was officially designated by the law and by the
conducted in the place and at the time COMELEC was valid
prescribed by law, petitioner narrated that there
was a dispute that day among the candidates
HELD: No. Citing Mitmug v. COMELEC, the
regarding the venue of the election in the lone
COMELEC points out that a failure of election
voting precinct of the barangay. In order to avoid
bloodshed, they ultimately agreed that no
election would be conducted. Accordingly, the
election officer turned over for safekeeping the
ballot box containing election paraphernalia to
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the officially designated polling precinct at
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Cagayan Elementary School. While the BET
members later repudiated their Affidavit,
requires the concurrence of two conditions, however, they failed to specify the exact venue.
namely (1) no voting took place in the precinct or This glaring omission definitely raises serious
precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if questions on whether the election was indeed
there was voting, the election resulted in a held in a place allowed by law.
failure to elect; and (2) the votes not cast would
have affected the result of the election. It ruled b. Voting Time Was Likewise Irregular - The law
that these requirements were not met. provides that the casting of votes shall start at
seven o'clock in the morning and shall end at
We do not agree. The peculiar set of facts in the three o'clock in the afternoon, except when there
present case show not merely a failure of are voters present within thirty meters in front of
election but the absence of a valid electoral the polling place who have not yet cast their
exercise. Otherwise stated, the disputed votes, in which case the voting shall continue but
"election" was illegal, irregular and void. only to allow said voters to cast their votes
without interruption." Section 22, Article IV of
a. Election Situs Was Illegal - The place where COMELEC Resolution No. 2971 also specifies
the voting was conducted was illegal. Section 42 that the voting hours shall start promptly at 7:00
of the Omnibus Election Code provides that the a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. of the same day.
chairman of the board of election tellers shall
designate the public school or any other public However, the "election" for Barangay Maidan
building within the barangay to be used as officials was supposed to have been held after
polling place in case the barangay has one 9:00 p.m. of August 30, 1997 until the wee hours
election precinct. Petitioner, citing an Affidavit of the following day. Certainly, such schedule
supposedly executed by the members of the was not in accordance with law or the
Board of Election Tellers (BET) for Barangay COMELEC Rules. The COMELEC erred in
Maidan, alleges that the election of officials for relying on the second sentence of Section 22,
said barangay was held at the residence of Article IV of COMELEC Resolution 2971, which
former Mayor Alang Sagusara Pukunun, which states that "if at three o'clock in the afternoon,
is located at Barangay Pandarianao, instead of
in any barangay, the Commission on Election
motu proprio or upon sworn petition of ten (10)
registered voters of a barangay, after summary
there are still voters within thirty meters in front proceedings of the existence of such grounds,
of the polling place who have not cast their shall suspend or postpone the election therein to
votes, the voting shall continue to allow said a date reasonably close to the date of the
voters to cast their votes without interruption." election that is not held or is suspended or
This sentence presupposes that the election postponed, or which resulted in a failure to elect,
commenced during the official time and is simply but not later than thirty (30) days after the
continued beyond 3:00 p.m. in order to cessation of the cause for such suspension or
accommodate voters who are within thirty postponement of the election or failure to elect,
meters of the polling place, already waiting for and in all cases not later than ninety (90) days
their turn to cast their votes. This is clearly the from the date of the original election."
meaning and intent of the word continue -- "to go
on in a specified course of action or condition."
Election Officer Diana Datu-Imam of Tugaya,
The strained interpretation espoused by the
Lanao del Sur practically postponed the election
COMELEC encourages the conduct of
in Barangay Maidan from the official original
clandestine "elections," for it virtually authorizes
schedule of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. of August 30,
the holding of elections beyond normal hours,
1997 to 10:00 p.m. of August 30, 1997 until the
even at midnight when circumstances could be
early morning of August 31, 1997. She
more threatening and conducive to unlawful
attempted to justify her postponement of the
activities.
election by citing threats of violence and
bloodshed in the said barangay. However, as
c. Election Date Was Invalid - The COMELEC election officer, she has no authority to declare a
scheduled the special election on August 30, failure of election. Indeed, only the COMELEC
1997. Any suspension or postponement of an itself has legal authority to exercise such
election is governed by Section 2 of RA 6679 awesome power. An election officer alone, or
which states that "when for any serious cause even with the agreement of the candidates,
such as rebellion, insurrection, violence,
terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia, and any analogous causes of
such nature that the holding of a free, orderly
and honest election should become impossible
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) allegedly proceeded to conduct the election
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever "after announcing it over the mosque."
cannot validly postpone or suspend the Such abbreviated announcement "over the
elections. mosque" at such late hour did NOT constitute
sufficient notice to the electorate. Consequently,
d. Election Postponement Was Invalid - Datu- not the entire electorate or even a respectable
Imam did not follow the procedure laid down by number could have known of the activity and
law for election postponement or suspension or actually participated therein or voluntarily and
the declaration of a failure of election. It discerningly chosen not to have done so.
appeared from the very report of Datu-Imam to
the COMELEC that she did not conduct any Indeed, the Court in Hassan v. COMELEC held
proceeding, summary or otherwise, to find out that the notice given on the afternoon of the
whether any of the legal grounds for the election day resetting the election to the
suspension or postponement or the declaration following day and transferring its venue was "too
of failure of the election actually existed in the short." In the case at bar, the announcement
barangay concerned. was made only minutes before the supposed
voting. If one-day notice was held to be
e. Notice Was Irregular - The electorate was not insufficient in Hassan, the much shorter notice in
given ample notice of the exact schedule and the present case should all the more be declared
venue of the election, as related by the election wanting. It should in fact be equated with "no
officer herself. As can be gleaned easily from notice."
her report, the electorate of Barangay Maidan
was not given due notice that the election would The "election" supposedly held for officials of
push through after 9:00 p.m. that same day. Barangay Maidan cannot be clothed with any
Apparently, the election officer's decision to hold form of validity. It was clearly unauthorized and
the election on the night of August 30, 1997 was invalid. It had no legal leg to stand on. Not only
precipitate. Only after additional military troops did the suspension/postponement not comply
had arrived at their site in a nearby barangay with the procedure laid down by law and the
about 8:30 p.m. did the election officers proceed COMELEC Rules, neither was there sufficient
to Barangay Maidan. Arriving at Maidan, they
Five (5) of these precincts did not conduct actual
voting at all.
notice of the time and date when and the place
Consequently, the COMELEC ordered the
where it would actually be conducted. It was
holding of a special election on 30 May 1992 in
thus as if no election was held at all. Hence, its
the five (5) precincts which failed to function
results could not determine the winning punong
during election day. On 30 July 1992, another
barangay.
special election was held for a sixth precinct.
The Petition is GRANTED.
In the interim, Sultan Mitmug filed a petition
seeking the annulment of the special election
conducted on 30May 1992 alleging various
SULTAN MUHAMAD MITMUG vs. COMELEC
irregularities such as the alteration, tampering
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Lumba-
and substitution of ballots. But on 13 July 1992,
Bayabao, Lanao del Sur and Datu Gambai
COMELEC considered the petition moot since
Dagalangit
the votes in the subject precincts were already
GR Nos. 106270-73, Feb 10, 1994
counted.
FACTS: Sultan Mitmug and Datu Dagalangit
Other petitions seeking the declaration of failure
were among the candidates for the mayoralty
of election in some or all precincts of Lumba-
position of Lumba-Bayabao during the 11 May Bayabaowere also filed with COMELEC by other
1992 election. Other candidates for the said mayoralty candidates.
position also included Datu Elias Abdusalam and
Datu Bagtao Khalid.
1. On 6 June 1992, Datu Gamba Dagalangit
filed an urgent petition praying for the holding of
There were sixty-seven (67) precincts in the said
a special election in Precinct No. 22-A alleging
municipality.
therein that when the ballot box was opened,
ballots were already torn to pieces. On 14 July
Voter turnout was rather low, particularly in forty- 1992, the petition was
nine (49) precincts where the average voter
turnout was 22.26%, i.e., only 2,330 out of
9,830registered voters therein cast their votes.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) in the main sought the declaration of failure of
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever election in all sixty-seven (67) precincts of
Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur,
granted and a special election for Precinct on the ground of massive
No. 22-A wasset for 25 July 1992. disenfranchisement of voters. On 9 July
1992, COMELEC dismissed the petition,
2. On 16 June 19992, Datu Elias Abdusalam, ruling that the allegations therein did not
another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to support a case of failure of election.
declare failure of election in twenty-nine
(29) more precincts as a result of alleged Subsequently, Sultan Mitmug filed a motion to
tampering of ballots and clustering of precincts. intervene in these four (4) petitions but
On 16 July 1992, the petition was dismissed. COMELEC treated the same as a motion for
COMELEC ruled that there must be a situation reconsideration and promptly denied it
where there is absolute inability to vote before a considering that under the COMELEC Rules of
failure of election can be declared. Since voting Procedure such motion was a prohibited
was actually conducted in the contested pleading.
precincts, there was no basis for the petition.
Thereafter, a new board of Election Inspectors was
3. On 20 June 1992, private respondent filed formed to conduct the special election set for 25
another petition, this time seeking to exclude July1992. Sultan Mitmug impugned the creation of
from the counting the ballots cast in six (6) this Board. Nevertheless, on 30 July 1992, the new
precincts on the ground that the integrity of the Board convened and began the canvassing of
ballot boxes therein was violated. Again, on 14 votes. Finally, on 31 July 1992, Datu Dagalangit
July 1992, COMELEC considered the petition was proclaimed the duly elected Mayor of Lumba-
moot, as the issue raised therein was related to Bayabao,Lanao del Sur.
that of SPA No. 92-311 which on 9 July 1992
was already set aside as moot. On August 3, 1992, Sultan Mitmug filed this
petition for certiorari seeking the declaration of
4. On 1 July 1992, Datu Bagato Khalid Lonta, a failure of election in forty-nine (49) precincts
fourth mayoralty candidate, filed a petition which
Where only an election protest ex abundante ad
cautela is filed, the Court retains jurisdiction to
hear the petition seeking to annul an election. .
where less than a quarter of the electorate were
able to cast their votes. He also prayed for the
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
issuance of a temporary restraining order to
discretion in dismissing the petitions outright.
enjoin Datu Dagalangit from assuming office.
====
On August 10, 1992, Sultan Mitmug lodged an
election protest with the Regional trial Court of
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, within
Lanao del Sur disputing the result not only of
twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of a verified
some but all the precincts of Lumba-Bayabao,
petition to declare a failure to elect, notices to all
del Sur. COMELEC et al. assert that with the
interested parties indicating therein the date of
filing of an election protest, petitioner is already
hearing should be served through the fastest
deemed to havea bandoned the instant petition.
means available. 18 The hearing of the case will
also be summary in nature.
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
Based on the foregoing, the clear intent of the
jurisdiction in denying motu proprio and without
law is that a petition of this nature must be acted
due notice and hearing the petitions seeking to
upon with dispatch only after hearing thereon
declare a failure of election in some or all of the
shall have been conducted. Since COMELEC
precincts in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur
denied the other petitions 20 which sought to
include forty-three (43) more precincts in a
HELD: NO. Sultan Mitmug did not abandon this special election without conducting any hearing,
petition for certiorari when he filed an election it would appear then that there indeed might
protest. have been grave abuse of discretion in denying
the petitions.
When Sultan Mitmug filed his election protest
with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur,
he informed the trial court of the pendency of
these proceedings. Evidently, Sultan Mitmug did
not intend to abandon his recourse with this
Court. On the contrary, he intended to pursue it.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) postponement or suspension of the election or
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever failure to elect.
Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition

However, a closer examination of the COMELEC seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2)
Rules of Procedure, particularly Sec. 2, Rule 26, conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken
thereof which was lifted from Sec. 6, B.P. 881, place in the precinct or precincts on the date
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the
the Philippines, indicates otherwise. It reads election nevertheless results in failure to elect;
— and, second, the votes not cast would affect the
result of the election.
Sec. 2. Failure of election. — If, on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other There being no grave abuse of discretion, the
analogous causes the election in any precinct Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
has not been held on the date fixed, or had been
closing of the voting, or after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of BANAGA JR. VS. COMELEC
the election returns or in the custody of canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, This special civil action for certiorari seeks to
and in any of such cases the failure or annul the en banc resolution of public
suspension of election would affect the result of respondent Commission on Elections
the election, the Commission shall, on the basis promulgated on June 29, 1998, in a COMELEC
of a verified petition by any interested party and special action case, SPA No. 98-383.
after due notice and hearing, call for the holding
or continuation of the election not held,
FACTS: Petitioner Banaga, Jr. and respondent
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect
Bernabe, Jr. were both candidates for vice-
on a date reasonably close to the date of the
mayor of the City of Parañaque in the May 1998
election not held, suspended or which resulted in
election. In said election, the city board of
a failure to elect but not later than thirty (30)
canvassers proclaimed respondent Bernabe, Jr.,
days after the cessation of the cause of such
petition, it is clear that an election took place and
that it did not result in a failure to elect and
therefore, cannot be viewed as an election
as the winner for having garnered 71,977 votes protest.
e petiti ne anaga, J ’s 68,970 tes
Thus, this petition for certiorari alleging that the
Dissatisfied with the result, petitioner filed with respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse
the COMELEC on May 1998, a Petition to of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Declare Failure of Elections and/or For jurisdiction for dismissing his petition motu
Annulment of Elections, alleging that said propio without any basis whatsoever and without
election was replete with election offenses, such giving him the benefit of a hearing.
as vote buying and flying voters. He also alleged
that numerous Election Returns pertaining to the
ISSUE:
position of Vice-Mayor in the City of Parañaque
 WON petition to declare a failure of elections
appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated.
and/or for annulment of election is considered as
an election protest.
In fact, there were people arrested who admitted
 WON respondent COMELEC acted with grave
the said election offenses. Therefore, the
abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners
incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of
petition, in the light of petitioners foregoing
elections because it cannot be considered as the
contentions.
true will of the people.
HELD:
Petitioner Banaga, Jr. is praying that he should
1) N M anaga, J ’s petiti n d c eted as SPA-98-
be adjudged as the duly elected Vice-Mayor in
383 before the COMELEC was a special action
the City of Parañaque, during the May 1998
local elections. under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
An election protest is an ordinary governed by
Rule 20 on ordinary actions, while a petition to
Respondent COMELEC dis issed petiti ne ’s suit
declare failure of elections is covered
and held that the election offenses relied upon
by petitioner do not fall under any of the
instances enumerated in Section 6 of the
Omnibus Election Code. The election tribunal
concluded that based on the allegations of the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) (c) after the voting and during the preparation
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever and transmission of the election returns or in the
by Rule 26 under special actions. Petitioner also in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
did not comply with the requirements for filing an violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
election protest such as failing to pay filing fee causes.
and cash deposits for an election protest.
The instances being not present in the petition of
2) No. Respondent COMELEC committed no Mr. Banaga, Jr. The respondent COMELEC
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the have no other recourse but to dismiss the
petition to declare failure of elections and/or for petition.
annulment of elections for being groundless. The
petition to declare a failure of election and/or to WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
annul election results must show on its face that DISMISSED. The assailed RESOLUTION of
the conditions necessary to declare a failure to public respondent is AFFIRMED. Costs against
elect are present. Respondent COMELEC only petitioner.
based its decision on the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code with regard to declaring
a failure of election. There are three instances AMPATUAN VS. COMELEC
where a failure of election may be declared,
namely: FACTS: Ampatuan and Candao both run for
governor in Maguindanao in May 14, 2001
(a) the election in any polling place has not Elections. The slate of Ampatuan emerged as
been held on the date fixed on account of force winners as per election returns.
analogous causes; On May 23, 2001, respondents filed a petition
(b) the election in any polling place has been with the Comelec for the annulment of election
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the results and/or declaration of failure of
closing of the voting on account of force elections in several municipalities in the province
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other of Maguindanao. They claimed that
analogous causes; or
June 30, 2001. On July 17, 2001, the Court
resolved to deny respondents petition.
the elections were completely sham and farcical.
Petitioners assumption into office
The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few
notwithstanding, on July 26, 2001,
persons the night before election day, and in
the Comelec ordered the consolidation of
some precincts, the ballot boxes, official ballots
respondents petition for declaration of failure of
and other election paraphernalia were not
elections with SPA Nos. 01-244, 01-332, 01-360,
delivered at all.
01-388 and 01-390. The COMELEC further
ordered a random technical examination on four
On May 25, 2001, the Comelec issued an order
to seven precincts per municipality on the
suspending the proclamation of the winning
thumb-marks and signatures of the voters who
candidates for congressman of the second
voted and affixed in their voters registration
district, governor, vice-governor and board
records, and forthwith directed the production of
members of Maguindanao.
relevant election documents in these
municipalities.
On May 30, 2001, petitioners filed with the
Comelec a motion to lift the suspension of
On August 28, 2001, the Comelec issued
proclamation.
another order directing the continuation of the
hearing and disposition of the consolidated
On June 14, 2001, the Comelec issued an order
SPAs on the failure of elections and other
lifting the suspension of proclamation of the
incidents related thereto. It likewise ordered the
winning candidates for governor, vice-governor
continuation of the technical examination of
and board members of the first and second
election documents as authorized in the July 26,
districts. Consequently, the Provincial Board of
2001 order.
Canvassers proclaimed petitioners winners.
On June 16, 2001, respondents filed with the

Supreme Court a petition to set aside the
Comelec order dated June 14, 2001, and
preliminary injunction to suspend the effects of
the proclamation of the petitioners. Meantime,
petitioners assumed their respective offices on
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the Comelec issued another order lifting the
suspension.
On September 27, 2001, the Comelec issued an ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC had
order outlining the procedure to be followed in u isdicti n t act n esp ndents’ petiti ns e en
the technical examination. after proclamation of petitioners as winners.
On September 26, 2001, petitioners filed the HELD: SC denied the petition. The authorities
present petition. They claimed that by virtue of petitioners relied upon involved pre-proclamation
their proclamation pursuant to the June 14, 2001 controversies.
order issued by the Comelec, the proper remedy
available to respondents was not a petition for In Loong v. Commission on Elections, SC ruled
declaration of failure of elections but an election that a pre-proclamation controversy is not the
protest. The former is heard summarily while the same as an action for annulment of election
latter involves a full-blown trial. Petitioners results, or failure of elections. These two
argued that the manner by which the technical remedies were more specifically distinguished in
examination is to be conducted would defeat the this wise:
summary nature of a petition for declaration of
While, however, the Comelec is restricted, in
pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of
On October 5, 2001, petitioners filed a motion
the election returns on their face and is without
reiterating their request for a temporary
jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and
restraining order to enjoin the implementation of
investigate election irregularities, the Comelec is
the July 26, 2001 and August 28, 2001 Comelec duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud,
orders. terrorism, violence, and other analogous causes
in actions for annulment of election results or for
On October 22, 2001, the Comelec issued an declaration of failure of elections, as the
order suspending the implementation of the two Omnibus Election Code denominates the same.
(2) assailed orders. Thus, the Comelec, in the case of actions for
annulment of election results or
However, on November 13, 2001,
Petitioners likewise rely on the case of Typoco,

Jr. v. Commission on Elections.
declaration of failure of elections, may
conduct technical examination of election
This Court held that Comelec committed no
documents and compare and analyze voters
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a petition
signatures and thumbprints in order to
for declaration of failure of elections. However,
determine whether or not the elections had
we made a pronouncement that the dismissal
indeed been free, honest and clean.
was proper since the allegations in the petition
did not justify a declaration of failure of elections.
The fact that a candidate proclaimed has
Typocos relief was for Comelec to order a
assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of
recount of the votes cast, on account of the
its authority to annul any canvass and illegal
falsified election returns, which is properly the
proclamation. In the case at bar, SC cannot
subject of an election contest.
assume that petitioners proclamation and
assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was
Respondents petition for declaration of failure of
legal precisely because the conduct by which
elections, from which the present case arose,
the elections were held was put in issue by
exhaustively alleged massive fraud and terrorism
respondents in their petition for annulment of
that, if proven, could warrant a declaration of
election results and/or declaration of failure of
elections.
The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul
Respondents allegation of massive fraud and
election results and/or declare a failure of
terrorism that attended the May 14, 2001
elections. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
election in the affected municipalities cannot be
Code further provides that:
taken lightly as to warrant the dismissal of their
petition by the Comelec on the simple pretext
Section 6. Failure of election.- If, on account of
that petitioners had been proclaimed winners.
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
SC have but to reiterate the oft-cited rule that the
validity of a proclamation may be challenged
even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate
has assumed office.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the result of the election. In Loong vs.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Commission on Elections, this Court added that
the cause of such failure of election should have
analogous causes the election in any polling been any of the following: force majeure,
place has not been held on the date fixed, or violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
had been suspended before the hour fixed by cases.
law for the closing of the voting, or after the
voting and during the preparation and the In another case, we ruled that while it may be
transmission of the election returns or in the true that election did take place, the irregularities
custody or canvass thereof, such election results that marred the counting of votes and the
in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the canvassing of the election returns resulted in a
failure or suspension of election would affect the failure to elect.
result of the election, the Commission shall, on
the basis of a verified petition by any interested In the case at bar, the Comelec is duty-bound to
party and after due notice and hearing, call for conduct an investigation as to the veracity of
the holding or continuation of the election not respondents allegations of massive fraud and
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to terrorism that attended the conduct of the May
elect but not later than thirty days after the 14, 2001 election. It is well to stress that
cessation of the cause of such postponement or the Comelec has started conducting the
suspension of the election of failure to elect. technical examination on November 16, 2001.
However, by an urgent motion for a temporary
Elucidating on the concept of failure of election, restraining order filed by petitioners, in virtue of
SC held that: which we issued a temporary restraining order
on November 20, 2001, the technical
xxx before Comelec can act on a verified petition examination was held in abeyance until the
seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) present. In order not to frustrate the ends of
conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken justice, we lift the temporary restraining order
place in the precincts concerned on the date and allow the technical examination to proceed
fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the with deliberate dispatch.
election nevertheless resulted in a failure to
elect; and second, the votes cast would affect
the military-police officials overseeing the Sulu
elections. Among those who attended were
petitioner Tupay Loong and private respondent
LOONG VS. COMELEC Abdusakar Tan and intervenor Yusop Jikiri
(candidates for governor.) The meeting
FACTS: Automated elections systems was used discussed how the ballots in Pata should be
for the May 11, 1998 regular elections held in counted in light of the misaligned ovals. There
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was lack of agreement. Some recommended a
(ARMM) which includes the Province of Sulu. shift to manual count (Tan et al) while the others
Atty. Jose Tolentino, Jr. headed the COMELEC insisted on automated counting (Loong AND
Task Force to have administrative oversight of Jikiri).
the elections in Sulu.
Reports were made stating that the automated
counting of ballots in other municipalities in Sulu
On May 12, 1998, some election inspectors and
was not working well were received by the
watchers informed Atty. Tolentino, Jr. of COMELEC Task Force. Local ballots in five (5)
discrepancies between the election returns and municipalities were rejected by the automated
the votes cast for the mayoralty candidates in machines. These municipalities were Talipao,
the municipality of Pata. To avoid a situation Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul and Jolo. The ballots were
where proceeding with automation will result in rejected because they had the wrong sequence
an erroneous count, he suspended the code.
automated counting of ballots in Pata and
immediately communicated the problem to the
Before midnight of May 12, 1998, Atty. Tolentino,
technical experts of COMELEC and the
Jr. was able to send to the COMELEC en banc his
suppliers of the automated machine. After the
report and recommendation, urging the use of the
consultations, the experts told him that the
manual count in the entire Province of Sulu. 6 On
problem was caused by misalignment of the
the same day, COMELEC issued Minute
ovals opposite the names of candidates in the
Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a manual count
local ballots. They found nothing wrong with the
but only in the municipality of
automated machines. The error was in the
printing of the local ballots, as a consequence of
which, the automated machines failed to read
them correctly. Atty. Tolentino, Jr. called for an
emergency meeting of the local candidates and
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) HELD: The petition of Tupay Loong and the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever petition in intervention of Yusop Jikiri are
dismissed, there being no showing that public
Pata.. The next day, May 13, 1998, COMELEC respondent gravely abused its discretion in
issued Resolution No. 98-1750 approving, Atty. issuing Minute Resolution Nos. 98-1748, 98-
Tolentino, Jr.'s recommendation and the manner 1750, 98-1796 and 98-1798. Our status quo
of its implementation. On May 15, 1998, the order of June 23, 1998 is lifted.
COMELEC en banc issued Minute Resolution
No. 98-1796 laying down the rules for the (1.) Certiorari is the proper remedy of the
manual count. Minute Resolution 98-1798 laid petitioner. The issue is not only legal but one of
down the procedure for the counting of votes for first impression and undoubtedly suffered with
Sulu at the PICC. significance to the entire nation. It is adjudicatory
of the right of the petitioner, the private
COMELEC started the manual count on May 18, respondents and the intervenor to the position of
1998. governor of Sulu. These are enough
considerations to call for an exercise of the
ISSUE: certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.
1. Whether or not a petition for certiorari and
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is (2.) A resolution of the issue will involve an
the appropriate remedy to invalidate the interpretation of R.A. No. 8436 on automated
disputed COMELEC resolutions. election in relation to the broad power of the
2. Assuming the appropriateness of the remedy, COMELEC under Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of
whether or not COMELEC committed grave the Constitution "to enforce and administer all
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
jurisdiction in ordering a manual count. (The an election plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
main issue in the case at bar) recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this
3. Assuming the manual count is illegal and that provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary
its result is unreliable, whether or not it is proper and incidental powers for it to achieve the
to call for a special election for the position of objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
governor of Sulu. peaceful, and credible elections.
Constitution did not envision a COMELEC that
cannot count the result of an election.
It is also important to consider that the failures of

The order for a manual count cannot be
automated counting created post election
characterized as arbitrary, capricious or
tension in Sulu, a province with a history of
whimsical. It is well established that the
violent elections. COMELEC had to act desively
automated machines failed to read correctly the
in view of the fast deteriorating peace and order
ballots in the municipality of Pata. The technical
situation caused by the delay in the counting of
experts of COMELEC and the supplier of the
votes.
automated machines found nothing wrong the
automated machines. They traced the problem
Petitioner Loong and intervenor Jikiri were not
to the printing of local ballots by the National
denied process. The Tolentino memorandum
Printing Office. It is plain that to continue with the
clearly shows that they were given every
automated count would result in a grossly
opportunity to oppose the manual count of the
erroneous count. An automated count of the
local ballots in Sulu. They were orally heard.
local votes in Sulu would have resulted in a
They later submitted written position papers.
wrong count, a travesty of the sovereignty of the
Their representatives escorted the transfer of the
electorate
ballots and the automated machines from Sulu
to Manila. Their watchers observed the manual
In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress obviously
count from beginning to end.
failed to provide a remedy where the error in
counting is not machine-related for human
(3.) The plea for this Court to call a special
foresight is not all-seeing. We hold, however,
election for the governorship of Sulu is
that the vacuum in the law cannot prevent the
completely off-line. The plea can only be
COMELEC from levitating above the problem. .
grounded on failure of election. Section 6 of the
We cannot kick away the will of the people by
Omnibus Election Code tells us when there is a
giving a literal interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A.
failure of election, viz:
8436 did not prohibit manual counting when
machine count does not work. Counting is part
and parcel of the conduct of an election which is
under the control and supervision of the
COMELEC. It ought to be self-evident that the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) their powers and duties. These officials were
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever proclaimed on the basis of the same manually
counted votes of Sulu. If manual counting is
illegal, their assumption of office cannot also be
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of countenanced. Private respondent's election
force majeure, terrorism, fraud, or other cannot be singled out as invalid for alikes cannot
analogous causes, the election in any polling be treated unalikes.
place has not been held on the date fixed, or
had been suspended before the hour fixed by The plea for a special election must be
law for the closing of the voting, or after the addressed to the COMELEC and not to this
voting and during the preparation and the Court.
transmission of the election returns or in the
in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the LUCERO VS. COMELEC
failure or suspension of election would affect the
result of the election, the Commission shall on FACTS: The petitioners were two of the five
the basis of a verified petition by any interested candidates for the Second Legislative District of
party and after due notice and hearing, call for Northern Samar in the synchronized national
the holding or continuation of the election, not and local elections held on 11 May 1992.
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to
elect but not later than thirty days after the The canvass of the Provincial Board of
cessation of the cause of such postponement or Canvassers (PBC) of Northern Samar credited
suspension of the election or failure to elect. Jose L. Ong, Jr. with 24,272 votes and Wilmar
P. Lucero with 24,068 votes, or a lead by Ong of
There is another reason why a special election 204 votes. However, this tally did not include the
cannot be ordered by this Court. To hold a results of Precinct No. 7 of the municipality of
special election only for the position of Governor Silvino Lobos, where the submitted election
will be discriminatory and will violate the right of returns had not been canvassed because they
private respondent to equal protection of the law. were illegible; of Precinct No. 13 of Silvino
The records show that all elected officials in Sulu Lobos, where the ballot boxes were snatched
have been proclaimed and are now discharging
5. Order a recount of the votes for
Representative in the 52 precincts herein above
enumerated in order to correct "manifest errors"
and no election was held; and of Precinct No. pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act 7166 and
16, also of Silvino Lobos, where all copies of the for this purpose order the impounding and
election returns were missing. safekeeping of the ballot boxes of all said
precincts in order to preserve the integrity of the
On 22 May 1992, Lucero asked the Commission ballots and other election paraphernalia
on Elections (COMELEC), in SPA No. 92-282, contained therein.
to:
On 2 June 1992, the COMELEC, acting on
1. Order Respondent Provincial Board of Lucero's urgent manifestation, directed the PBC
Canvassers for Northern Samar to suspend the to desist from reconvening until further orders.
proclamation of Private Respondent Jose L.
Ong, Jr.;
On 8 June 1992, Ong moved to lift the
2. Direct Respondent Provincial Board of suspension of the proceedings by the PBC,
Canvassers for Northern Samar to correct the which Lucero opposed on 10 June 1992 on the
Certificate of Canvass (CEF 20) for Las Navas ground that the canvass could not be completed
and, accordingly, to correct the total votes so far even if the PBC were to reconvene because no
counted by it for Petitioner from 24,068 to election was held in Precinct No. 13 (Barangay
24,088, thus reducing the margin it found in Gusaran) of Silvino Lobos and there was no
favor of Private Respondent Jose L. Ong, Jr. canvassing of the votes in Precinct No. 7
from 204 to 184 votes only; (Barangay Camayaan) and Precinct No. 16
3. Order a special election in Precinct 13, (Barangay Tubgon) both of Silvino Lobos.
Barangay Gusaran, Silvino Lobos, pursuant to
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code; On 13 June 1993, the COMELEC en banc
4. Order a recount of the votes for promulgated a resolution which orders the
Representative of the Second District of Provincial Election Supervisor of Northern
Northern Samar in Precinct 16, Barangay Samar to bring to the Commission within three
Tubgon, and Precinct 7, Barangay Camayaan,
both of Silvino Lobos, pursuant to Section 234 of
the Omnibus Election Code;
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) implementation by the COMELEC of its Order of 2
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever June 1992 and its Resolution of 13 June 1992.
(3) days from receipt hereof the ballot boxes On 23 December 1992, SC promulgated its
from Precinct 7 and 16 of Silvino Lobos. The decision in G. R. No. 105717, the petition for
Municipal Treasurer of said town is directed to certiorari is GRANTED and a writ of preliminary
turn over custody of said ballot boxes to the injunction is hereby ISSUED directing the
Provincial Election Supervisor, and the keys COMELEC to CEASE and DESIST from
thereof shall likewise be turned over by the implementing its order of June 2, 1992 and its
appropriate officials in custody thereof to the resolution dated June 13, 1992, and the same
PES, who shall in turn give one key for each are hereby declared NULLIFIED.
ballot box to the duly authorized representatives
of the petitioner and the respondent. SPA No. 92-282 was raffled to the First Division
of the COMELEC. However, during the
On 15 June 1992, Lucero filed an urgent motion consultations on the case by the Members of the
to constitute a Special Board of Election First Division, the concurrence of at least two of
Inspectors (SBEI) to count the votes of Precincts them could not be obtained; accordingly,
Nos. 7 and 16 of Silvino Lobos. pursuant to the COMELEC Rules, the case was
elevated for proper disposition to the COMELEC
On 20 June 1992, Ong, in a special civil action en banc to which the parties submitted their
for certiorari filed with SC which questioned the respective memoranda on 19 November 1993.
order for the recount of ballots in Precincts No. 7
and 16.
COMELEC en banc promulgated a
Despite the pendency of this petition, the resolution whose dispositive portion reads as
COMELEC ordered the recount of the ballots in follows:
Precinct No. 16 by a SBEI which recorded 43
votes for Lucero and 2 votes for Ong.
1. To direct the special Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Northern Samar (a) to include in
On 25 June 1992, SC issued in G. R. No. 105717 the municipal certificate of canvass of Silvino
a temporary restraining order against the
petitioner Lucero in the Municipality of Las
Navas as corrected. However, under no
circumstances should the Board proclaim any
Lobos the forty-three (43) votes of petitioner winning candidate until instructed to do so by the
Lucero and the two (2) votes of private Commission;
respondent Ong as reflected in the election
returns of Precinct No. 16 (Barangay Tubgon)
2. To issue an Order calling for a special election
prepared by the special Board of Election
Inspectors constituted by the Commission to in the last remaining Precinct No. 13 (Barangay
recount the votes (ballots) in said precinct, as Gusaran) of the Municipality of Silvino Lobos if
canvassed by the special Municipal Board of justified by the result of the canvass by the
Canvassers for Silvino Lobos; (b) to include in Provincial Board of Canvassers for Northern
the municipal certificate of canvass of Silvino Samar, and to notify the parties of the schedule
Lobos, the sixty-one (61) votes of private of election activities for that precinct; and
respondent Ong and 29, 30, or 31 votes of
petitioner Lucero as reflected in the election 3. After including in the tabulation the results of
returns (MBC Copy submitted as "Comelec the special election of Precinct No. 13, to decide
Copy") of Precinct No. 7 (Barangay Camaya-an), the issue of the recount of the votes (ballots) of
as canvassed by the special Municipal Board of Precinct No. 7 of Silvino Lobos, pursuant to
Canvassers for Silvino Lobos; (c) to retabulate Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, to
the total number of votes of petitioner Lucero for resolve the discrepancy of the votes of petitioner
the Municipality of Las Navas and to enter in the Lucero in the same return, if such discrepancy of
provincial certificate of canvass the correct total votes of the candidates concerned would affect
which is two thousand five hundred thirty-seven the over-all results of the election after the
(2,537) as reflected in the Statement of Votes totality of the votes of the contending parties
(C. E. Form 20-A) prepared and submitted by shall have been determined.
the Municipal Board of Canvassers for Las
Navas; and (d) to submit to the Commission a
computation of the votes of the contending
parties including therein all the votes of
petitioner Lucero (with alternative totals) and
private respondent Ong, in Precinct Nos. 7 and
16 of Silvino Lobos and the total votes of
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever HELD: On the authority of the COMELEC to
order the holding of a special election, Section 6
Both Lucero and Ong have come to this Court of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
by way of separate special civil actions for
certiorari to challenge the Resolution. Sec. 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
In G. R. No. 113107, Lucero maintains that (1) other analogous causes the election in any
the count of the ballots in Precinct No. 7 of polling place has not been held on the date
Silvino Lobos must be unconditional because fixed, or had been suspended before the hour
the election returns therefrom are invalid; and (2) fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after
his chances in the special election in Precinct the voting and during the preparation and the
No. 13 of Silvino Lobos would be spoiled if the transmission of the election returns or in the
returns for Precinct No. 7 were to be included custody or canvass thereof, such election results
beforehand in the canvass. in a failure to elect, and if in any of such cases
the failure or suspension of election would affect
In G. R. No. 113509, Ong questions (1) the the result of the election, the Commission shall,
authority of the COMELEC to order the on the basis of a verified petition by any
correction of the alleged manifest error in the interested party and after due notice and
Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Las Navas hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the
despite the absence of any appeal; and (2) the election not held, suspended or which resulted in
authority of the COMELEC to call for a special a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to
election in Precinct No. 13 almost two years the date of the election not held, suspended or
after the regular election. which resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than thirty days after the cessation of the cause
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC acted with of such postponement or suspension of the
grave abuse of discretion in calling for a special election or failure to elect.
election in Precinct No. 13 after almost two (2)
years, or more specifically after one (1) year and The first paragraph of Section 4 of R. A. No.
ten (10) months, following the day of the 7166 likewise provides:
synchronized elections.
(ballots) of Precinct No. 16 (Silvino Lobos), and
the votes reflected in the available copy of the
election returns for Precinct No. 7 (Silvino
Lobos), it is safe to predict that when the special
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Provincial Board of Canvassers will reconvene
Special Elections. — The postponement, to sum up the votes of the contending parties,
declaration of failure of election and the calling the original lead of private respondent Ong of
of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 two hundred four (204) votes against petitioner
and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be Lucero — 24,272 as against 24,068 — will be
decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a reduced to either 175 or 173 depending on
majority votes of its members. The causes for whether Lucero will be credited a low of 29 or a
the declaration of a failure of election may occur high of 31 votes as reflected in the election
before or after the casting of votes or on the day returns of Precinct No. 7.
of the election.
Without preempting the exact figures which only
There are, therefore, two requisites for the the special Provincial Board of Canvassers can
holding of special elections under Section 6 of correctly determine, undoubtedly it is inevitable
the Omnibus Election Code, viz., (1) that there is that a special election will have to be held in
a failure of election, and (2) that such failure Precinct No. 13 (Barangay Gusaran) of the
would affect the results of the election. The Municipality of Silvino Lobos.
parties admit that the failure of the election in
Precinct No. 13 was due to ballot-box snatching
Given the established lead of private respondent
and do not dispute the finding of the COMELEC
Ong over petitioner Lucero, We answer in the
as to the necessity and inevitability of the
affirmative. According to Comelec records, the
holding of a special election in said precinct,
number of registered voters in Precinct No. 13 is
even if the result of Precinct No. 7 should be
two hundred thirteen (213). Since the lead of
based on the questionable "Comelec Copy" of
respondent Ong is less than the number of
its election returns.
registered voters, the votes in that precinct could
The COMELEC held:
Based on the adjudged correction of the votes in
favor of petitioner Lucero in the Municipality of
Las Navas, the results of the recount of votes
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) elect. The first involves questions of fact. The
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever second must be determined in the light of the
peculiar circumstances of a case. In the instant
affect the existing result because of the case, the delay was not attributable to the poor
possibility that petitioner Lucero might get a voters of Precinct No. 13 or to the rest of the
majority over Ong in that precinct and that electorate of the Second Legislative District of
majority might be more than the present lead of Northern Samar. The delay was, as stated in the
Ong. opening paragraph of this ponencia, primarily
caused by the legal skirmishes or maneuvers of
On the basis of the additional votes credited so the petitioners which muddled simple issues. The
far to the parties, the following computation is in Court takes judicial notice of the fact that G. R. No.
order: to Ong's 24,272 votes will be added 2 113509 is the third case Ong has brought to this
more from Precinct No. 16, to make a total of Court. Considering then that the petitioners
24,274, while to Lucero's 24,068 votes will be themselves must share the blame for the delay,
added 20 more from Las Navas and 43 from and taking into account the fact that since the term
Precinct No. 16, for a total of 24,131. Ong's of the office of the contested position is only three
earlier lead will thus be reduced to 143, which is years, the holding of a special election in Precinct
admittedly less than the 213 registered voters in No. 13 within the next few months may still be
Precinct No. 13. considered "reasonably close to the date of the
election not held." Ong's postulation should then
The two requirements then for a special election be rejected.
under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
have indeed been met. Another serious obstacle to Ong's proposition is
that, considering the COMELEC's disposition of
In fixing the date of the special election, the Precinct No. 7 in the challenged Resolution, he
COMELEC should see to it that: (1) it should be would then be declared and proclaimed the duly
not later than thirty days after the cessation of the elected Representative of the Second Legislative
cause of the postponement or suspension of the District of Northern Samar despite the fact that as
election or the failure to elect, and (2) it should be earlier observed, there was no counting of the
reasonably close to the date of the election not votes of Precinct No. 7, and the results of the
held, suspended, or which resulted in failure to
instances we e n t a eged in a’s petiti n
Borja claims that the COMELEC en banc

district elections for Representative would be
committed a grave abuse of discretion by
affected by the failure of the election in Precinct
deciding on his petition, claiming that it should
No. 13. To accept the proposition is to allow a
have been heard by a Division first. His basis
proclamation based on an incomplete canvass
was Article 9C of the 1987 Constitution, which
where the final result would have been affected
states:
by the uncanvassed result of Precinct No. 7 and
by the failure of the election in Precinct No. 13
SEC.3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
and to impose upon the people of the Second
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
Legislative District of Northern Samar a
rules of procedure in order to expedite
Representative whose mandate is, at the very
disposition of election cases, including pre-
least, uncertain, and at the most, inexistent.
proclamation controversies. All such election
cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration shall
BORJA VS COMELEC
be decided by the Commission en banc.
FACTS: Borja and Capco were municipal mayor
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC En Banc had
candidates during the 1995 elections in Pateros.
committed a grave abuse of discretion in
Capco was proclaimed winner. Borja then filed a
dis issing a’s etiti n? (NO)
petition to declare a failure of elections and to
nullify the canvass/proclamation a’s grounds
HELD: A petition to declare a failure of
were the following:
elections is not an election protest, nor is it a
1. Lack of notice of date and time of canvass
pre-proclamation case, which is the it is
2. Fraud
important to distinguish.
3. Violence or terrorism
4. Flying voters and unqualified board of
In order to resolve the issue, there must first be
election inspectors
The COMELEC En Banc dismissed the petition

in the assailed Resolution, finding that there
were grounds for an election protest. The 3
It must be remembered that Capco was duly
elected and proclaimed as Mayor of Pateros.
a determination as to whether a petition to Such proclamation enjoys the presumption of
declare a failure of election qualifies as an regularity and validity. To destroy the
election case or a pre-proclamation controversy. presumption, Borja must convincingly show that
If it does, the Constitution mandates that it be is pp nent’s ict was p cu ed t ug extra-legal
heard and adjudged by the COMELEC through means. This he tried to do by alleging matters in
any of its Divisions. Recall that the COMELEC his petition which he thought constituted failure
en banc is only empowered to resolve motions of elections.
for reconsideration of cases decided by a
Division. The COMELEC can call for the holding or
continuation of election by reason of failure of
A petition to declare a failure of election is election only when the election is not held, is
neither a pre-proclamation controversy as suspended or results in a failure to elect, and the
classified under Section 5(h), Rule 1 of the latter phrase must be understood in its literal
Revised COMELEC Rules of Procedure, nor an sense, w ic is “n d was e ected a’s petition was
election case. Furthermore, under RA 7166, only nothing but a simple election protest involving an
the COMELEC en banc has the authority to elective municipal position, which under Sec 251
decide on the existence of a failure of elections. of the Election Code, falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the appropriate RTC.
Borja’s grounds are grounds for an election
protest; the proper action of election Borja was accorded due process when the
protests is with the RTC. en banc reviewed and evaluated his petition.
a’s g unds (t e ac n tice t e date Nor can Borja claim that he was denied due
and time of canvass, fraud, violence, terrorism, process because when the COMELEC en banc
disenfranchisement of voters, presence of flying reviewed and evaluated his petition, the same
voters, and unqualified members of the BEI) are was tantamount to a fair hearing of his case. The
proper grounds only in an election contest but
not in a petition to declare a failure of election
and to nullify a proclamation.
petiti ns, u ing t at a ind ng’s p pe acti n
would be an election protest. This was affirmed
by the COMELEC En banc.
fact that Capco was not even ordered to rebut
the allegations therein certainly did not deprive
The COMELEC en banc held that the transfer of
him of his day in court. If anybody here was
the polling place of Precinct 4 was illegal
aggrieved by the alleged lack of notice and
because it was made only by the parties, without
hearing, it was Capco whose arguments were
notice and hearing. This transfer was in violation
never ventilated.
of the prohibition against transfers less than 45
days before a regular election, as provided in
Sections 153-154 of the OEC. The COMELEC,
BALINDONG VS COMELEC therefore, ordered its Law Department to
investigate the matter and determine the parties
FACTS: Balindong and Tanog were municipal responsible for it.
mayor candidates in Lanao del Sur during the
1995 elections. Tanog won by a margin of 149
However the en banc held that there was no
votes, and was subsequently proclaimed.
failure of election (due to the lack of 2
Balindong then filed a petition to suspend or
conditions). Despite the illegal transfer of venue,
annul proclamation against Tanog. He alleged
an election actually took place in Precinct 4. And
that the polling place in Precinct 4 had been
even then, only 66 people were not able to vote,
transferred rom one barangay to another. Due to
w ic is n t en ug t e c e Tan g’s margin of 149
this transfer, he claims that some of his
votes.
supporters were not able to cast their votes.
Despite his objection to the inclusion of Precinct
Balindong filed a petition for certiorari with the
4’s e eti n etu ns, the MBOC included the sa e, w
SC, claiming that the COMELEC committed a
ic ed t Tan g’s ict
grave abuse of discretion in refusing to annul the
results of the elections in precinct 4.
One month later, Balindong filed a supplemental
petition wherein he prayed for the conduct of a
ISSUE: W/N Tan g’s p c a ati n s ud e
technical examination to prove that the ER of
Precinct 4 was manufactured. The COMELEC
nd
2 Division dis issed t a ind ng’s
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Technical examination of ballots not proper
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever as long as the returns appear to be authentic
and duly accomplished on their face.
annulled on the ground of the illegal transfer of s u ed t e SC in L ng COMELEC, “as long as
polling venue? (No) the returns appear to be authentic and duly
W/N a technical examination is proper? (No) accomplished on their face, the Board of
Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them
HELD: The transfer of the polling place is to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting
illegal but is not a ground for a declaration of or the counting of the votes. Corollarily, technical
a failure of elections. examination of voting paraphernalia involving
The mere fact that the transfer of polling place analysis and comparison of voters signatures
was not made in accordance with law does not and thumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre-
warrant a declaration of failure of election and proclamation cases which are mandated by law
the annulment of the proclamation of the winning to be expeditiously resolved without involving
candidate, unless the number of uncast votes evidence aliunde and examination of voluminous
will affect the result of the election. In the case at documents which take up much time and cause
bar, although the COMELEC declared the delay in defeat of the public policy underlying the
transfer of the polling place to be illegal, the fact summary nature of pre-proclamation
is that only 66, out of 255 registered voters in controversies. If the technical examination of the
Precinct No. 4, were not able to vote. Assuming Voters List and Voters Affidavits was sustained
that all the 63 signatures on the affidavit in that case, it was because even before the
submitted by petitioner were authentic and that technical examination was conducted, the
the 63 voters who signed the complaint-affidavit Commission already noted certain badges of
would have voted for petitioner, their votes fraud just by looking at the election results of
would increase petitioners 2,122 votes to 2,185 a ang, Su u ”
only, which is still less than private respondents
total of 2,271 votes. The additional votes would In the case at bar, there is no prima facie case of
not have materially affected the results of the fraud. Indeed, what Balindong wants is a
election so as to warrant a declaration of failure technical examination of the signatures so that
of election. he can prove fraud. Balindong must find his own
FACTS: Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong and private
respondent Luis R. Villafuerte were candidates
for Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur in the
evidence rather than fish for it in this manner. To elections held on May 11, 1992, private
allow election documents to be examined on a respondent being, at the time, the incumbent
mere hunch or at the whim of a losing candidate Governor. Petitioner was proclaimed elected by
without any factual basis would be to allow him the Provincial Board of canvassers.
to trifle with the will of the people.
Private respondent filed an election protest,
The proper remedy is to file an election
alleging fraud and other irregularities in 594
protest with the RTC. precincts located in 10 municipalities and one
He can there show if the illegality of the transfer city (Iriga City) of Camarines Sur. He prayed that
of the polling place, as determined by the a revision of the ballots and other election
COMELEC, in any way affected the result of the documents and their technical examination be
voting in the precint and ultimately the result of ordered, that the results of the elections be
the election in Pualas, Lanao del Sur. annulled and that he be declared the duly
elected Governor of Camarines Sur. Petitioner
Procedure: Filing of petition for annulment of filed his answer denying that any irregularity
proclamation tolled the period for filing an attended the conduct of the elections.
election protest.
As his petition was not acted upon by the On motion of private respondent the
Municipal Board of Canvassers, he filed a Commission on Elections ordered the revision of
petition for the annulment of private respondents the ballots to be held in Manila. Petitioner
proclamation in the COMELEC. Pursuant to 248 questioned the order but this Court upheld the
of the OEC, the filing of this case for suspension ordered the Commission's order. The revision of
or annulment of the proclamation of Tanog ballots then proceeded. The revision of ballots in
suspended the running of the period for filing an 594 precincts resulted in a reversal of the
election protest. results. Private respondent Luis R. Villafuerte
BULAONG vs COMELEC
Petitioner thereafter filed two motions in
succession. He filed a motion to allow his
received 171,577 votes, while petitioner Jose M. witnesses to examine and identify ballots and
Bulaong received 170,361. other election documents before giving their
affidavits. He asked that subpoenas be issued to
Petitioner then filed a motion for the technical them to come to Manila for the purpose. He
examination of the election documents alleging alleged that these witnesses were public school
that there had been tampering of the ballots teachers who composed the Board of Elections
between the time the ballot boxes were brought Inspectors in the last election and that they
to Manila and the time the revision began. His would state in their affidavits that the signatures
motion was granted by the Commission which on the reverse side of some ballots were not
limited the period for the examination to one genuine.
month.
But at the hearing held on July 12, 1994, which
Petitioner here asked several times for the was the last day of the period granted to him for
extension of the period in which he will submit submitting the affidavits of witnesses, petitioner
the evidence. However despite several was able to submit the affidavit of only one
extensions, petitioner again manifested that he witness, namely Consuelo B. Gonzales, who
was not ready to present his testimonial was the Chairman of the Board of Election
evidence. He asked instead to be allowed to Inspectors of Precinct No. 61. Petitioner
submit the affidavits of his witnesses. For this explained that because the witnesses had not
purpose he asked for 45 days from June 27, been able to see the ballots, he was not able to
1994 within which to secure their affidavits. obtain their statements. For this reason he was
not ready to submit his evidence. He reiterated
Noting that the next election was less than a his request for the issuance of subpoenas to his
year away, the Commission granted petitioner witnesses.
only 15 days within which to submit the affidavits
of his witnesses and after that another period of
15 days (up to July 27, 1994) within which
petitioner should make his formal offer of
exhibits and submit his memorandum.
The SC ruled that petitioner had been given

sufficient time to prove his allegations. The grant
T e COMELEC, t is ti e, denied petiti ne ’s
of further extension to him would be inconsistent
motion to allow his witnesses to view/examine
with the summary nature of the proceedings,
ballots and other election documents before
especially given the proximity of the May 1995
executing their affidavits.
elections. Petitioner's request to have his
witnesses examine and identify the ballots
ISSUE:
appears to be actually an attempt to circumvent
 W/N petitioner should be granted any further the first order dated June 7, 1994, which denied
extensions his motion for additional time to finish the
 W/N the best evidence of the result of the technical examination of the ballots and other
elections is the result of the revision of the election documents. Altogether he was given 55
ballots days to complete the technical examination of
election documents. Despite this, however, he
HELD: still wanted further extension.
Petitioner had been given sufficient time to
prove his allegations. The grant of further Various reasons were given for petitioner's
extension to him would be inconsistent with failure to complete the technical examination of
the summary nature of the proceedings the ballots. These reasons, as the Commission
ruled, did not justify the request for further
Petitioner contends that there are "huge, extension, because they were not attributable to
abnormal and unexplained discrepancies" it or to private respondent. Also there is no basis
between the election sheets and election petiti ne ’s a egati n t at e was "practically
returns, on the one hand, and the result of the forced" to agree to submit the affidavits of
revision of the ballots, on the other hand, and witnesses in lieu of their testimonies, considering
that he, as "aggrieved party," has a right to show that it was his own failure twice to present them
(1) that the ballots found in the ballot boxes are which "forced" him to agree to submit instead
not the ballots cast and canvassed on election their affidavits. It was, therefore, contrary to his
day and (2) that there was "massive, large-scale
and fraudulent substitution/switching of ballots
after election day."
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) were substituted or altered after the election. In
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever such a case it is the election returns which must
prevail.
own undertaking for him to demand later that his
witnesses be first allowed to view, examine and Petitioner's contention assumes the very fact in
identify the ballots before they gave their dispute. Whether the ballots in this case were
affidavits, or that they be allowed to testify. indeed tampered with, is a question which the
petitioner has to prove. That there is a "huge
The SC held that the Commission did not discrepancy" between the result of the canvass
commit any abuse of its discretion in issuing its and that of the revision is no proof that the
order denying petitioner's motion for further time Commission committed a grave abuse of
to have a technical examination of the ballots. discretion in denying his request for additional
time to conduct a technical examination of
Although generally the best evidence of the election documents and to have his witnesses
result of the election are not the election examine the ballots before requiring them to
returns but the result of the revision of the make their affidavits. For as already stated, he
ballots, the rule does not apply if it is shown was given sufficient time to present proof of
that the ballots were substituted or altered tampering or substitution of ballots but he failed
after the election. In such a case it is the to do so. Petitioner thus begs the question when
election returns which must prevail. he claims that because the ballots have been
tampered with, the elections returns constitute
It is insisted, however, that it is absolutely the best evidence of the result of the election.
necessary for petitioner to have the Chairmen of
the Board of Election Inspectors of 174 precincts Anyway the question whether there has been
go over the ballots because of the discrepancy substitution of ballots and what the actual result
between the result of the canvass and those of of the election is, will still be determined by the
the revision of ballots. Petitioner argues that Commission when it undertakes its own
although generally the best evidence of the independent evaluation and appreciation of the
result of the election are not the election returns contested ballots and election documents. As we
but the result of the revision of the ballots, the have held, handwriting experts, while probably
rule does not apply if it is shown that the ballots
The elections were postponed twice (on May 27
and on May 29), and both times, the BEIs did
not report, so for the May 29 elections, the
useful, are not indispensable in examining or COMELEC was forced to appoint police and
comparing handwriting; this can be done by the military personally just so the elections can push
COMELEC itself. As for the allegedly fake through.
ballots, no better authority than the COMELEC
can determine their authenticity, having itself
The canvass of both elections (on May 8 and
ordered and supervised the printing of all the
May 29) show that Hassan-Buatan won the
official ballots. We cannot overemphasize the
plurality of votes by a margin of 219 votes over
fact that the Commission on Elections under the
Hassan. Hassan then filed with the COMELEC a
Constitution is the agency vested with exclusive
petition for the declaration of a failure of
original jurisdiction over election contests
elections on the following grounds:
involving regional, provincial and city officials, as
1. voting started at 10 am, and ended at 2
well as appellate jurisdiction over election
pm because of rapid gunfire and grenade
contests involving elective municipal and
launching (violence or terrorism)
barangay officials. Unless the Commission is
2. change of venue
shown to have committed a grave abuse of
3. notice of the change of venue only sent
discretion, its decision and rulings will not be
the night before
interfered with by this Court.
4. only 21% of registered voters were able
to vote, leaving the remaining 78%
disenfranchised
HASSAN vs COMELEC
5. non-performance of the BEIs
FACTS: Hassan and private respondent
The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution
Hassan-Buatan were vice-mayor candidates denying his petition for failure of elections and
during the 1995 elections in Lanao del Sure. But ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to
due to threats of violence and terrorism in the complete the canvass and declare Hassan-
area, there was a failure of elections in 6 out of
the 24 precincts in the municipality. Elections
were not held in several precincts because of
the failure of the BEIs to report.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) area. This then prompted COMELEC to deploy
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever military men to act as substitute members just so
elections could be held; and to thwart these
Buatan as the winner. The SC would later grant threats of violence, the COMELEC Team,
Hassan’s TRO assai ing t is Res uti n moreover, decided to transfer the polling places
to Liangan Elementary School which was 15
The COMELEC held that the petition for the kilometers away from the polling place.
declaration of the failure of elections is not valid Nonetheless, voting on May 29 had to be
since the special elections in the 5 disputed suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
precincts would not change the outcome of the closing of the voting because of threats of
election. The number of voters in the precincts violence, grenade launching and gunfires.
not counted to 219 (the exact number of
Hassan- uatan’s ead), and t us t e COMELEC More than 1,000 voters were disenfranchised.
said that it was improbably that all of them would It was quite sweeping and illogical for the
vote for Hassan. COMELEC to state that the votes uncast would
not have in any way affected the results of the
ISSUE: W/N there was a failure of elections in elections. While the difference between the two
this case. (Yes) candidates is only 219 out of the votes actually
cast, the COMELEC totally ignored the fact that
HELD: The violence in the area prevalent there were more than a thousand registered
enough to cause a failure of elections. voters who failed to vote. Aside from Precinct 7-
The COMELEC can not turn a blind eye to the A where the ballot box had been burned and
fact that terrorism was so prevalent in the area, which had 219 voters, the COMELEC failed to
sufficient enough to declare that no voting consider the disenfranchisement of about 78%
actually occurred on May 29, 1995 in the areas of the registered voters in the five (5) precincts
concerned. of Madalum. Out of the 1,546 registered voters,
only 328 actually voted because of the
It must be recalled that elections had to be set insufficient and ineffectual notice given of the
for the third time because no members of the time and place of elections. Whether or not
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) reported for another special election would turn the tide in
duty due to impending threats of violence in the COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 126
sufficiency of notice is determined on whether
the voters generally have knowledge of the time,
place and purpose of the elections so as to give
petitioners favor is of no moment because what them full opportunity to attend the polls and
is more important is that the electors should not express their will or on the other hand, whether
have been deprived of their right to vote which the omission resulted in depriving a sufficient
was rather apparent in the case at bar.
number of the qualified electors of the
opportunity of exercising their franchise so as to
Notice; importance and when considered change the result of the election.
sufficient.
The SC cannot agree with the COMELEC that
On setting the date of the special election.
petitioner, his followers or the constituents must
In fixing the date of the special election, the
be charged with notice of the special elections to
COMELEC should see to it that: (1) it should be
be held because of the failure of the two (2)
not later than thirty days after the cessation of
previous elections. To require the voters to come
the cause of the postponement or suspension of
to the polls on such short notice was highly
the election or the failure to elect, and (2) it
impracticable. In a place marred by violence, it
should be reasonably close to the date of the
was necessary for the voters to be given
election not held, suspended, or which resulted
sufficient time to be notified of the changes and
in failure to elect. The first involves questions of
prepare themselves for the eventuality.
fact. The second must be determined in the light
of the peculiar circumstances of a case.
It is essential to the validity of the election that
the voters have notice in some form, either
The re-scheduling of the special elections from
actual or constructive of the time, place and
May 27 to May 29, was done in uncommon
purpose thereof. The time for holding it must be
haste and unreasonably too close for all voters
authoritatively designated in advance. The
to be notified of the changes, not only as to the
requirement of notice even becomes stricter in
date but as to the designated polling place. We
cases of special elections where it was called by
must agree with the dissenting opinion that even
some authority after the happening of a
condition precedent, or at least there must be a
substantial compliance therewith so that it may
fairly and reasonably be said that the purpose of
the statute has been carried into effect. The
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever registration shall be conducted 120 days before
the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however
in highly urbanized areas, the dissemination of counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act
notices poses to be a problem. In the absence of 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its
proof that actual notice of the special elections residual and stand-by powers can reset the
has reached a great number of voters, we are periods of pre-election acts including te s’
constrained to consider the May 29 elections as registration if the original period is not observed.
invalid. If only to ascertain the will of the people
and to prevent that will from being muted, it is ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC
necessary that a special election be held in view exercised grave abuse of discretion when it
of the failure of elections in Madalum, Lanao del denied the extension of the voters registration.
Sur.
HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its
right to do so pursuant to the clear provisions of
AKBAYAN v COMELEC Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no
voters registration shall be conducted within 120
FACTS: On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN- days before the regular election. The right of
Youth, together with other youth movements suffrage is not absolute. It is regulated by
sought the extension of the registration of voters measures like voters registration, which is not a
for the May 2001 elections. The te s’ registration mere statutory requirement. The State, in the
has already ended on December 27, 2000. exercise of its inherent police power, may then
AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of
be allowed a special 2-day registration. The te ’s egist ati n t e u ti ate pu p se conducting
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the
the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued incidental yet generally important end, that even
COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion pre-election activities could be performed by the
for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth duly constituted authorities in a realistic and
alleged that there are about 4 million youth who orderly manner – one which is not indifferent and
were not able to register and are now so far removed from the pressing
disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8
time for some reasons, which is not appealing to
the court. The law aids the vigilant and not those
who slumber on their rights.
order of the day and the prevalent
circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails
over RA 8436 in t at R 8189’s p isi n is e p icit as
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v
t t e prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-
COMELEC
election act that cannot be reset.
FACTS: COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list
Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day
representatives from 13 parties which obtained at
special registration, COMELEC has shown in its
least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the
pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially
party-list system as members of the House of
create a setback in the other pre-election
Representatives. Upon petition for respondents,
matters because the additional voters from the
who were party-list organizations, it
special two day registration will have to be
proclaimed 38 additional party-list
screened, entered into the book of voters, have
representatives although they obtained less than
to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then ente
2% of the total number of votes cast for the
ed int t e c pute ized te ’s ist; and then they will
party-list system on the ground that under the
have to reprint the voters information sheet for
Constitution, it is mandatory that at least 20% of
the update and distribute it
the members of the House of Representatives
– by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would
come from the party-list representatives.
have been overshot because of the lengthy
processes after the special registration. In short,
ISSUE: Is the twenty percent allocation for party-
it will cost more inconvenience than good.
list representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2),
Further still, the allegation that youth voters are
Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it
disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in
merely a ceiling? In other words, should the
AKBAYAN-Y ut ’s p eading was attac ed an
twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be
actual complaint from an individual youth voter
filled up completely and all the time?
about any inconvenience arising from the fact
that the voters registration has ended on
December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et
al admitted in their pleading that they are asking
an extension because they failed to register on
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) ISSUE: Are the two percent threshold
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever requirement and the three-seat limit provided in
Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
HELD: It is not mandatory. It merely provides a HELD: Yes. In imposing a two percent
ceiling for the party-list seats in the House of threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only
Representatives. The Constitution vested those parties, organizations and coalitions
Congress with the broad power to define and having a sufficient number of constituents
prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system deserving of representation are actually
of representatives. In the exercise of its represented in Congress. This intent can be
constitutional prerogative, Congress deemed it gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed
necessary to require parties participating in the bill. The two percent threshold is consistent not
system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes only with the intent of the framers of the
cast for the party list system to be entitled to a Constitution and the law, but with the very
party-list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that essence of "representation." Under a republican
only those parties having a sufficient number of or representative state, all government authority
constituents deserving of representation are emanates from the people, but is exercised by
actually represented in Congress. representatives chosen by them. But to have
meaningful representation, the elected persons
FORMULA FOR determination of total number of must have the mandate of a sufficient number of
party-list representatives = #district people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features
representatives/.80 x .20 the party-list system, the result might be the
proliferation of small groups which are incapable
Additional representatives of first party = # of of contributing significant legislation, and which
votes of first party/ # of votes of party list might even pose a threat to the stability of
system Congress. Thus, even legislative districts are
apportioned according to "the number of their
Additional seats for concerned party = # of respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
votes of concerned party/ # votes of first uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure
party x additional seats for concerned party meaningful local representation.
Step Three. The next step is to solve for the
number of additional seats that the other
qualified parties are entitled to, based on
proportional representation.
ISSUE: How should the additional seats of a
qualified party be determined?
ANG BAGONG BAYANI v COMELEC
HELD: Step One. There is no dispute among the
petitioners, the public and the private FACTS: etiti ne s c a enged t e C e ec’s
respondents, as well as the members of this Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved
Court that the initial step is to rank all the the participation of 154 organizations and
participating parties, organizations and coalitions parties, including those herein impleaded, in the
from the highest to the lowest based on the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners sought the
number of votes they each received. Then the disqualification of private respondents, arguing
ratio for each party is computed by dividing its mainly that the party-list system was intended to
votes by the total votes cast for all the parties benefit the marginalized and underrepresented;
participating in the system. All parties with at not the mainstream political parties, the non-
least two percent of the total votes are marginalized or overrepresented. Unsatisfied
guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties with the pace by which Comelec acted on their
shall be considered in the computation of petition, petitioners elevated the issue to the
additional seats. The party receiving the highest Supreme Court.
number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to
as t e “ i st” pa t ISSUE:
1. W et e n t petiti ne ’s ec u se t t e Court was
Step Two. The next step is to determine the proper.
number of seats the first party is entitled to, in 2. Whether or not political parties may participate
order to be able to compute that for the other in the party list elections.
parties. Since the distribution is based on
proportional representation, the number of seats
to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly
exceed that to which the first party is entitled by
virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) “ a gina ized and unde ep esented”, t e c ite ia
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever for participation, in relation to the cause of the
party list applicants so as to avoid desecration of
3. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave the noble purpose of the party-list system.
abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785. 3. The Court acknowledged that to determine
the propriety of the inclusion of respondents in
RULING: the Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, a study of the
1. The Court may take cognizance of an issue factual allegations was necessary which was
notwithstanding the availability of other remedies beyond the pale of the Court, the Court not being
"where the issue raised is one purely of law, a trier of facts.
where public interest is involved, and in case of
urgency." The facts attendant to the case However, seeing that the Comelec failed to
rendered it justiciable. appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and
the Constitution, the Court decided to set some
2. Political parties – even the major ones -- guidelines culled from the law and the
may participate in the party-list elections subject Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work.
to the requirements laid down in the Constitution The Court ordered that the petition be remanded
and RA 7941, which is the statutory law in the Comelec to determine compliance by the
pertinent to the Party List System. party lists.
Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private

respondents cannot be disqualified from the
party-list elections, merely on the ground that
they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of
the Constitution provides that members of the
House of Representatives may "be elected
through a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sect a pa ties ganizati ns”. It is
however, incumbent upon the Comelec to
determine proportional representation of the
themselves to include party list representatives
constitute a grave abuse of discretion.
PIMENTEL JR. v HRET HELD:
The court dismissed the case on the following
FACTS: Petitions for prohibition, mandamus and grounds:
preliminary
(I) The present composition of the HRET and CA
injunction were filed before the court that the does not violate the constitutional requirement of
respondents be ordered to "alter, reorganize, proportional representation because:
reconstitute and
reconfigure" the composition of the HRET and a. Sec 17 and 18 of Art. VI explicitly confers to
CA to include part-list representatives in the House the power to choose, within
accordance with the Party List System Act (RA constitutionally defined limits, who among their
7941) and Sec 17 and 18, Art VI. members will occupy the seats allotted to the
House in HRET and CA. And even if the PLR
comprise the sufficient no.
Having in mind that out of 220 members of the and have their own nominees, their primary
House, 14 of which are party-list representatives recourse would be the House (and not
(PLR), the the Supreme Court) in accordance with the
petitioners put forward that LP reps (having a doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction.
total of 13 members) be ousted and be replaced
by PLR nominees. b. The petitioners have no locus standi on the
case, thus failed to meet the requirements set
forth for judicial
ISSUES: review. The petitioners were not unlawfully
(I) Whether or not the present composition of deprived of seats in HRET and CA and neither
HRET and CA violates the constitutional were they
requirement of proportional representation nominees to take the seat.
because no party-list representatives are
members thereof.
(II) Whether the refusal of the HRET and CA to

reconstitute
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) list votes." This Resolution was issued in relation
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever to the SC ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani v.
COMELEC.
(II) There was likewise no grave abuse in the The May 10, 2014 party list elections yielded
action or lack of action by HRET and CA results which granted one seat to PM (for
because under Sec 17 and 18 of Art VI, the garnering 3.5220% of votes) and Butil Farmers
HRET and CA are deprived of any power to (for garnering 3.3742%). On June 2, 2004, the
reconstitute themselves. COMELEC issued Resolution No. NBC 04-004
holding petitioners entitled to only one (1)
(III) The instant petitions must fail because of the nominee each on the basis of Resolution No.
new set of district and party-list reps elected in 6835.
the House. It
cannot be resolved based on the "present Based on the aforementioned formula, PM and
composition" of the House as presented by the BUTIL filed with the COMELEC a petition to re-
petitioners. tabulate the party-list votes and immediately
proclaim their respective second nominees to
the HR on June 22, 2004. They claimed that
PARTIDO NG MGA MANGGAGAWA (PM) AND based on the formula, they are entitled to an
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY v. COMELEC additional one seat for the party list
representative.
FACTS: In the earlier case of Veterans
Federation Party v. COMELEC, the SC came up The herein petitioners (alongside CIBAC)
with a simplified formula for the computation of likewise submitted a Supplement to the Joint
additional seats for party-list which was Motion on June 25, 2004 to justify their
reiterated in the other cases of Bagong Bayani, entitlement to one seat by using the established
Bayan Muna, etc. as follows: formula for additional seats. Based on the
computation, it was claimed that PM and BUTIL
The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6835 are indeed entitled to an additional seat in the
which adopted the simplified u a “one additional Congress for their respective party lists. This
seat per additional two percent of the total party-
Respondent Commission contends that the
petition at bar was filed belatedly. Under Article
IX(A), Section 7 of the Constitution and Rule 64,
was wed t e COMELEC en anc’s Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the instant
issuance of Resoution No. NBC 04-011 on July petition must be filed within thirty (30) days from
31, 2004 which directed the re-tabulating and receipt of the notice of the decision, order or
proclaiming the new party list representatives. ruling to be reviewed. Since more than 30 days
However, the COMELEC failed to resolve the
issues pointed out by the petitioners and
conduct a re-tabulating of party list votes despite
the lapse of time and the Motions for Resolution
filed by the petitioners (an Urgent Motion for have lapsed from the time PM and BUTIL
Resolution on July 1, 2004 and a Motion to allegedly received notice of respondent
Resolve on July 12, 2004). Because of this, they Commission's Resolution No. 6835, it is urged
filed the present petition on Aug. 18, 2004. They that the instant petition was filed out of time.
seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus to
compel respondent Commission: ISSUES:
1. W/n the present petition is filed out of time.
a) To convene as the National Board of 2. W/n petitioners are entitled to one additional
Canvassers for the Party-List System; seat.
b) To declare them as entitled to one (1)
additional seat each; HELD:
c) To immediately proclaim their respective 1. NO. While it is true that the aforementioned
second nominees; provisions provide that the instant petition must
d) To declare other similarly situated party-list be filed within 30 days from receipt of the notice
organizations as entitled to one (1) additional of the resolution, the same was actually timely
seat each; and filed. The present petition was filed by PM et al
e) To immediately proclaim similarly
situated parties' second nominees as duly
elected representatives to the House of
Representatives.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) percent of the total valid votes cast for the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever party-list system are "qualified" to have a
seat in the House of Representatives.
18 days from their receipt of the copy of Third, the three-seat limit -- each qualified
Resolution NBC 04-011. party, regardless of the number of votes it
actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
Additionally, Resolution No. 6835 was not three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two
rendered in the exercise of respondent additional seats.
COMELEC's quasi-judicial powers. Its issuance
was not brought about by a matter or case filed Fourth, proportional representation -- the
before the respondent Commission. Rather, it additional seats which a qualified party is
was issued by the respondent Commission in entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to
the exercise of its administrative function to their total number of votes."
enforce and administer election laws to ensure The landmark case of Ang Bagong Bayani, from
an orderly election. which COMELEC Resolution No. 6835 was
based from, was a decision made pro hac vice.
2. NO. In the landmark case of Veterans This means that the said decision was only
Federation Party v. COMELEC, the Court set the ade “ t is ne pa ticu a eas n,” t at eas n
"four inviolable parameters" of the party-list being that the petitioner in the Ang Bagong
system under the Constitution and R.A. No. Bayani case was entitled to an additional seat in
7941, to wit: the party list election because of getting more
than 4% of the total votes but only getting 0.51 in
First, the twenty percent allocation -- the the computation for the additional seats.
combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty With the decision from the said case being made
percent of the total membership of the House pro hac vice, the formula established in the
of Representatives, including those elected Veterans case remains binding as the doctrine
under the party list. to be applied in computing for additional seats.
Second, the two percent threshold -- only

those parties garnering a minimum of two COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 131
singles out for suppression and repression with
criminal sanctions, only publications of a
particular content, namely, media-based election
In applying strictly the formulas in Veterans, the or political propaganda during the election period
Court found that herein petitioners are not of 1992. It is asserted that the prohibition is in
entitled to any additional seat for their party list derogation of media's role, function and duty to
representatives, with PM only getting 0.74 and provide adequate channels of public information
BUTIL only 0.71. and public opinion relevant to election Issue.
Further, petitioners contend that Section 11 (b)
abridges the freedom of speech of candidates,
NPC v. COMELEC and that the suppression of media-based
campaign or political propaganda except those
FACTS: R.A. 6646 was enacted which prohibits appearing in the COMELEC space of the
any newspaper, radio, any person making the newspapers and on COMELEC time of radio
use of media to sell or give free of charge of and television broadcasts, would bring about a
space or time for political purpose except substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of
COMELEC. Petitioners in these cases consist of information concerning candidates and Issue in
representatives of the mass media which are the election thereby curtailing and limiting the
prevented from selling or donating space and right of voters to information and opinion.
time for political advertisements; two (2)
individuals who are candidates for office (one for ISSUE: Whether or Not Section 11 (b) of
national and the other for provincial office) in the Republic Act No. 6646 constitutional.
coming May 1992 elections; and taxpayers and
voters who claim that their right to be informed of
HELD: Yes. It seems a modest proposition that
election Issue and of credentials of the
the provision of the Bill of Rights which
candidates is being curtailed.
enshrines freedom of speech, freedom of
expression and freedom of the press has to be
It is principally argued by petitioners that Section taken in conjunction with Article IX (C) (4) which
11 (b) of Republic Act No. 66461 invades and
violates the constitutional guarantees comprising
freedom of expression. Petitioners maintain that
the prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b)
amounts to censorship, because it selects and
Section 11 (b) is limited in the duration of its
applicability and enforceability. By virtue of the
may be seen to be a special provision applicable operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution,
during a specific limited period — i.e., "during Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time
the election period." In our own society, equality to election periods. Section 11 (b) does not
of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, purport in any way to restrict the reporting by
without regard to the level of financial resources newspapers or radio or television stations of
that one may have at one's disposal, is clearly news or news-worthy events relating to
an important value. candidates, their qualifications, political parties
and programs of government. Moreover, Section
One of the basic state policies given 11 (b) does not reach commentaries and
constitutional rank by Article II, Section 26 of the expressions of belief or opinion by reporters or
Constitution is the egalitarian demand that "the broadcasters or editors or commentators or
State shall guarantee equal access to columnists in respect of candidates, their
opportunities for public service and prohibit qualifications, and programs and so forth, so
political dynasties as may be defined by law." long at least as such comments, opinions and
The essential question is whether or not the beliefs are not in fact advertisements for
assailed legislative or administrative provisions particular candidates covertly paid for. In sum,
constitute a permissible exercise of the power of Section 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any
supervision or regulation of the operations of report or commentary other coverage that, in
communication and information enterprises responsible media, is not paid for by candidates
during an election period, or whether such act for political office. Section 11 (b) as designed to
has gone beyond permissible supervision or cover only paid political advertisements of
regulation of media operations so as to particular candidates.
constitute unconstitutional repression of freedom
of speech and freedom of the press. The Court The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the
considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone right to free speech of the candidates
outside the permissible bounds of supervision or themselves is not unduly repressive or
regulation of media operations during election unreasonable.
periods.
Petitioner Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI), a
non-profit organization of newspaper and
magazine publishers, asks the Supreme Court to
declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it
PPI v. COMELEC violates the prohibition imposed by the
Constitution upon the government against the
FACTS: On 2 March 1995, Comelec taking of private property for public use without
promulgated Resolution No. 2772 which reads in just compensation. On behalf of the respondent
part Comelec, the Solicitor General claimed that the
Resolution is a permissible exercise of the
Sec. 2. Comelec Space. — The power of supervision (police power) of the
Commission shall procure free print space of Comelec over the information operations of print
not less than one half (1/2) page in at least media enterprises during the election period to
one newspaper of general circulation in safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and
every province or city for use as "Comelec credible election.
Space" from March 6, 1995 in the case of
candidates for senator and from March 21, ISSUES:
1995 until May 12, 1995. In the absence of 1. Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. 2772
said newspaper, "Comelec Space" shall be is unconstitutional.
obtained from any magazine or periodical of 2. Whether there was necessity for the taking,
said province or city. i.e. compelling print media companies to donate
“C e ec space ”
The said Resolution also provides that the
Comelec space shall be allocated by the HELD: The Supreme Court declared the
Commission, free of charge, among all Resolution as unconstitutional. It held that to
candidates to enable them to make known their compel print media companies to donate
qualifications, their stand on public Issue and “C e ec space” a unts t “ta ing” p i ate
their platforms of government. The Comelec
space shall also be used by the Commission for
dissemination of vital election information.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) powers granted by the Constitution, the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos.
6646 and 7166 and other election laws. Section
personal property without payment of the just 15(a) of the resolution provides:
compensation required in expropriation cases.
Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. --
Moreover, the element of necessity for the taking The following are lawful election
has not been established by respondent propaganda:
Comelec, considering that the newspapers were
not unwilling to sell advertising space. The (a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals,
taking of private property for public use is stickers, handwritten or printed letters, or other
authorized by the constitution, but not without written or printed materials not more than eight
payment of just compensation. Also Resolution and one-half (8-1/2) inches in width and fourteen
No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of (14) inches in length. Provided, that decals and
the police power of the state. In the case at stickers may be posted only in any of the
bench, there is no showing of existence of a authorized posting areas provided in paragraph
national emergency to take private property of (f) of Section 21 hereof.
newspaper or magazine publishers.
Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides:
Section 2 of resolution 2772 does not provide a
constitutional basis for compelling publishers, Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of
against their will to provide free print space for election propaganda. —
Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not
constitute a valid exercise of the power of It is unlawful:
eminent domain.
xxx xxx xxx
ADIONG v. COMELEC (f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or
publicly exhibit any election propaganda in
FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC
promulgated Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its
HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The

portion of Section 15 (a) of Resolution No. 2347
any place, whether public or private,
t e COMELEC p iding t at “deca s and
mobile or stationary, except in the
stickers may be posted only in any of the
COMELEC common posted areas and/or
authorized posting areas provided in paragraph
billboards, at the campaign headquarters
() Secti n 21 e e ” is DECL RED NULL
of the candidate or political party,
and VOID T e COMELEC’s p i iti n n
organization or coalition, or at the
p sting deca s and stic e s n “ i e” p aces
candidate's own residential house or one
whether public or private except in designated
of his residential houses, if he has more
areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null
than one: Provided, that such posters or
and void on constitutional grounds. The
election propaganda shall not exceed two
prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s
(2) feet by three (3) feet in size. (Emphasis
fundamental right of free speech enshrined in
supplied)
the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly,
the freedom of expression curtailed by the
xxx xxx xxx
questioned prohibition is not so much that of the
candidate or the political party. The regulation
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial
strikes at the freedom of an individual to express
candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections assails t
his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to
e COMELEC’s Res uti n ins a as it prohibits the
convince others to agree with him.
posting of decals and stickers in
“ i e” p aces i e ca s and t e ing vehicles.
Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the
According to him such prohibition is violative of
statute (RA 6646) and as couched in the
Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and
resolution is void for overbreadth. The restriction
Section 11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646.
as to where the decals and stickers should be
posted is so broad that it encompasses even the
citizen’s p i ate p pe t , w ic in t is case is a
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may
prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on
“ i e” p aces, pu ic p i ate, and i it t ei
location or publication to the authorized posting
areas that it fixes.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) becomes crucial in this kind of election
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever propaganda not the financial resources of the
candidate.
privately-owned vehicle (The provisions allowing
regulation are so loosely worded that they In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and
include the posting of decals or stickers in the stic e s n “ i e” p aces w et e pu ic private except
p i ac ne’s i ing ed ) In in the authorized areas designated by the
consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot
rule prescribed by the Constitution would be be justified by the Constitution.
violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of Rights
provides that no person shall be deprived of his
property without due process of law. (The right
to property may be subject to a greater degree
of regulation but when this right is joined by a
“ i e t ” inte est, t e u den usti icati n n t e TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST
part of the Government must be exceptionally ATTORNEY OF THE PHILS. VS. COMELEC
convincing and irrefutable. The burden is not [289 SCRA 337; G.R. NO. 132922; 21 APR
met in this case.) 1998]
Additionally, the constitutional objective to give a FACTS: Petitioner Telecommunications and
rich candidate and a poor candidate equal Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc.
opportunity to inform the electorate as regards (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of
their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section radio and television broadcasting companies. It
26 and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article was declared to be without legal standing to sue
IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution, is not in this case as, among other reasons, it was not
impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars able to show that it was to suffer from actual or
and other private vehicles. It is to be reiterated threatened injury as a result of the subject law.
that the posting of decals and stickers on cars, Petitioner GMA Network, on the other hand, had
calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving the requisite standing to bring the constitutional
vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the challenge. Petitioner operates radio and
vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen
to do so again this year. Petitioners claim that
the primary source of revenue of the radio and
television stations is the sale of airtime to
television broadcast stations in the Philippines advertisers and to require these stations to
affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. provide free airtime is to authorize unjust taking
No. 881. of private property. According to petitioners, in
1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air
Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, ti e ne u eac da and, in t is ea ’s
B.P. No. 881 which provides:
elections, it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in
“C e ec Ti e- The Commission shall procure iew COMELEC’s equi e ent t at it p ide at
radio and television time to be known as the least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.
“C e ec Ti e” w ic s a e a cated equa
and impartially among the candidates within the ISSUES:
area of coverage of all radio and television (1) Whether of not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881
stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all denies radio and television broadcast companies
radio broadcasting and television stations are the equal protection of the laws.
hereby amended so as to provide radio or (2) Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881
television time, free of charge, during the period constitutes taking of property without due
ca paign ” process of law and without just compensation.
Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the HELD: etiti ne ’s a gu ent is wit ut e it
same law requires COMELEC to procure print broadcasting, whether radio or by television
space in newspapers and magazines with stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave
payment, Section 92 provides that airtime shall frequencies have to be allocated as there are
be procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus more individuals who want to broadcast that
it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and there are frequencies to assign. Radio and
television stations to provide free airtime. television broadcasting companies, which are
given franchises, do not own the airwaves and
Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running
to several million pesos in providing COMELEC
Time in connection with the 1992 presidential
election and 1995 senatorial election and that it
stands to suffer even more should it be required
OSMENA V. COMELEC
frequencies through which they transmit GR NO. 132231 31 MARCH 1998
broadcast signals and images. They are merely
given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, MENDOZA, J.
such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of FACTS: Emilio Osmena and Pablo Garcia,
some form of public service. In granting the candidates for public office in the 1998 elections,
privilege to operate broadcast stations and seek to invalidate provision of RA 6646
supervising radio and television stations, the (Electoral Reform Law of 1987), which prohibits
state spends considerable public funds in mass media from selling or giving free of charge
licensing and supervising them. print space or air time for campaign or other
political purposes, except to the COMELEC.
The argument that the subject law singles out They contend that the ban has not only failed to
radio and television stations to provide free level the playing field, but actually worked to the
airtime as against newspapers and magazines grave disadvantage of the poor candidates by
which require payment of just compensation for depriving them of a medium which they can
the print space they may provide is likewise afford to pay while their affluent rivals can
without merit. Regulation of the broadcast always resort to other means of reaching voters.
industry requires spending of public funds which
it does not do in the case of print media. To ISSUE: W/N the ad ban is constitutional.
require the broadcast industry to provide free
airtime for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what RULING: YES. There is actually no suppression
the industry gets. of political ads but only a regulation of time and
manner of advertising T e te p itica “ad
As radio and television broadcast stations do not an” is actua is eading, as a t ug t e
own the airwaves, no private property is taken provision prohibits the sale or donation of print
by the requirement that they provide airtime to space and air time to political candidates, it
the COMELEC. mandates the COMELEC to procure and itself
allocate to the candidates space and time in the
RULING: YES. The freedoms of speech and of the
press should be upheld when what is sought to be
curtailed is the dissemination of information meant
media. In this case, there is no total ban on to add meaning to the equally vital right of
political ads, much less restriction on the content suffrage. When faced with borderline situations in
of the speech.
which the freedom of a candidate to speak or the
freedom of the electorate to know is invoked
against actions allegedly made to assure clean
ABSCBN v. COMELEC and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of
GR No. 133486 28 January 2000
freedom. For in the ultimate analysis, the
eed t e citizen and t e State’s p we t regulate
Panganiban, J.
should not be antagonistic. There can be no free
and honest elections if, in the efforts to maintain
FACTS: COMELEC passed a resolution issuing them, the freedom to speak and the right to
a restraining order on ABSCBN from conducting know are unduly curtailed.
exit polls after the 1998 elections, upon the
belief that such project might conflict with the
NO. The assailed COMELEC resolution is too
official COMELEC count, as well as the unofficial
broad, since its application without qualification
quick count of the Namfrel. ABSCBN prayed for
as to whether the polling is disruptive or not.
a TRO against the COMELEC resolution, which
Concededly, the Omnibus Election Code
was granted by the court. The exit polls were
prohibits disruptive behavior around the voting
then actually conducted and reported by the
centers. There is no showing, however, that exit
media without any difficulty or problem.
polls or the means to interview voters cause
chaos in voting centers. Neither has any
ISSUES: evidence been presented proving that the
 W/N the freedoms of speech and of the press presence of exit poll reporters near an election
also protect the holding of exit polls and the precinct tends to create disorder or confuse the
dissemination of data derived therefrom. YES voters.
 W/N t e COMELEC’s a s ute ban on exit
polling is valid. NO
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) liberties, when the end can be more narrowly
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever achieved.
Dissent: Kapunan, J.
The clear-and-present danger test is not a LABAN v. COMELEC,
sovereign remedy for all free speech problems. It G.R. No. 161265. February 24, 2004
was originally formulated for the criminal law and
only later appropriated for free speech cases. To FACTS: Prior to the May 2004 elections, the
apply the said test to regulatory measures would Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) has
be like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when been divided because of a struggle of authority
a regular hammer is all that is needed. between Party Chair Edgardo Angara and Part
Secretary General Agapito Aquino, both having
Doctrinally, the Court has always ruled in favor endorsed two different sets of candidates under
of the freedom of expression, and any restriction the same party, LDP.
is treated an exemption. Any act that restrains
speech should be greeted with furrowed brows. The matter was brought to the COMELEC. The
A government regulation is sufficiently justified if: Commission in its resolution has recognized the
1. It is within the constitutional power of the factions creating two sub-parties: LDP Angara
government; Wing and LDP Aquino Wing.
2. It furthers an important or substantial
government interest; ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC
3. The government interest is unrelated to committed a grave abuse of discretion in
the suppression of free expression; recognizing the two sets of nominations and
4. The incidental restriction on alleged First endorsements by the same party. HELD: The
Amendment freedoms is no greater than is COMELEC erred in its resolution. Only those
essential to the furtherance of that interest. Certificates of Candidacy (COC) signed by the
LDP Party Chairman Angara or his duly
E en t ug t e g e n ent’s pu p ses a e legitimate authorized representative/s shall be recognized.
and substantial, they cannot be pursued by
means that broadly stifle fundamental personal
Aguam. It was the consensus of the group, with
the exception of Director Jose Tolentino, Jr., of
the ASD, to disapproved the request for
AKBAYAN-YOUTH vs COMELEC, 355 SCRA additional registration of voters on the ground
318 that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides
that no registration shall be conducted during the
FACTS: The petitioners, as representatives the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
youth sector, seeks to direct the COMELEC to before a regular election and that the
conduct a special registration before the May 14, Commission has no more time left to accomplish
2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 all pre-election activities.
to 21 because around four million youth failed to
register on or before the December 27, 2000 On February 8, 2001, the COMELEC issued
deadline set by the respondent under Republic Resolution N. 3584 denying the request to
Act No. 8189 (Voter's Registration Act of 1996). conduct a two-day additional registration of new
voters. Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners
Acting on the clamor of the students and civic AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP,
leaders, Senator Raul Roco, Chairman if the KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et. al. filed before this Court
Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
People's Participation, conducted a hearing which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent
attended by Commissioner Luzviminda G. COMELEC's Resolution and/or to declare
Tancangco and Ralph C. Lantion, together with Section 8 of R.A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar
Consultant Resurreccion Z. Borra (now as said provision effectively causes the
Commissioner). disenfranchisement of petitioners and others
similarly situated.
On January 29, 2001, Commissioners
Tancangco and Lantion submitted a Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a
Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on writ of mandamus directing respondent
the Request for a Two-day Additional COMELEC to conduct a special registration of
Registration of New Voters Only. Immediately,
Commissioner Borra called a consultation
meeting among regional heads and
representatives, and a number of senior staff
headed by Executive Director Mamasapunod
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever A. The right of suffrage is not at all absolute. The
exercise of the right of suffrage is subject to
new voters and to admit for registration existing substantive and procedural
petitioners and other similarly situated young requirements. Thus, as to the substantive
Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May 14, aspect, Section 1, Article V of the Constitution
2001 General Elections. On March 09, 2001, provides:
herein petitioner Michelle Betito, a student of the
University of the Philippines, likewise filed a SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE
Petition for Mandamus, praying that this Court EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE
direct the COMELEC to provide for another PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE
special registration day under the continuing DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT
registration provision under the Election code. LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND
This court resolved to consolidate the two WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE
petitions. PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR
AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY
ISSUES: PROPOSE TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX
a. Whether or not respondent COMELEC MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing ELECTIONS. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY,
COMELEC Resolution dated February 8, 2001. - OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
No REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON
THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.
b. Whether or not this Court can compel
respondent COMELEC, through the As to the procedural limitation, the right of a
extraordinary writ of mandamus, to conduct a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon
special registration of new voters during the certain procedural requirements he must
period between the COMELEC's imposed undergo: among others, the process of
December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be
2001 general elections. - No qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition
to the minimum requirements, is obliged by law
HELD: The petitions are bereft of merit.
Likewise, Section 35 of R.A. 8189, which among
others, speaks of a prohibitive period within
which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of
to register under the provisions of Republic Act voters from the permanent voters list, provides:
No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voters
Registration Act of 1996. SEC. 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from
the List Any registered voter, representative
Stated differently, the act of registration is an of a political party x x x may file x x x except
indispensable precondition to the right of one hundred (100) days prior to a regular
suffrage. Proceeding from the significance of election xxx.
registration as a necessary requisite to the right
to vote, the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies in the present
its inherent police power, may enact laws to case, for the purpose of upholding the assailed
safeguard and regulate the act of voters COMELEC Resolution and denying the instant
registration for the ultimate purpose of petitions, considering that the aforesaid law
conducting honest, orderly and peaceful explicitly provides that no registration shall be
election. conducted during the period starting one
hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
Section 8, of the R.A. 8189, which provides a election.
system of continuing registration, is explicit, to
wit:
Corollary, it is specious for herein petitioners to
argue that respondent COMELEC may validly
SEC. 8. System of Continuing Registration of and legally conduct a two-day special
Voters. The Personal filing of application of registration, through the expedient of the letter of
registration of voters shall be conducted daily Section 28 of R.A. 8436.
in the office of the Election Officer during
regular office hours. No registration shall,
Petitioners bare allegation that they were
however, be conducted during the period
disenfranchised when respondent COMELEC
starting one hundred twenty (120) days
pegged the registration deadline on December
before a regular election and ninety (90) days
before a special election. (Emphasis Ours)
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) request of petitioners to hold a special
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever registration, acted within the bounds and
confines of the applicable law on the matter --
27, 2000 instead of January 13, 2001 the day Section 8 of RA 8189. COMELEC simply
before the period before the May 14, 2001 performed its constitutional task to enforce and
regular elections commences is not sufficient. administer all laws and regulations relative to the
There is no allegation in the two consolidated conduct of an election, inter alia, questions
petitions and the records are bereft of any relating to the registration of voters; evidently,
showing that anyone of herein petitioners has respondent COMELEC merely exercised a
filed an application to be registered as a voter prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one
which was denied by the COMELEC nor filed a which squarely falls within the proper sphere of
complaint before the respondent COMELEC its constitutionally-mandated powers.
alleging that he or she proceeded to the Office of
the Election Officer to register between the B. As to petitioners prayer for the issuance of the
period starting from December 28, 2000 to writ of mandamus, SC held that it cannot, in view
January 13, 2001, and that he or she was of the very nature of such extraordinary writ,
disallowed or barred by respondent COMELEC issue the same without transgressing the time-
from filing his application for registration. honored principles in this jurisdiction.
While it may be true that respondent COMELEC As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of
set the registration deadline on December 27, mandamus lies only to compel an officer to
2000, this Court is of the Firm view that perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary
petitioners were not totally denied the one; mandamus will not issue to control the
opportunity to avail of the continuing registration exercise of discretion of a public officer where
under R.A. 8189. the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise
his judgment in reference to any manner in
COMELEC did not commit an abuse of which he is required to act, because it is his
discretion in issuing Resolution No. 3584 which judgment that is to be exercised and not that of
resolved to deny the request to conduct a two- the court.
day additional registration of new voters on
February 17 and 18, 2001. In denying the
the Constitution's one year residency
requirement for candidates for the House of
Representatives on the evidence of declarations
Considering the circumstances where the writ of made by her in Voter Registration Record and in
mandamus lies and the peculiarities of the her Certificate of Candidacy. He prayed that "an
present case, we are of the firm belief that order be issued declaring (petitioner) disqualified
petitioners failed to establish, to the satisfaction and canceling the certificate of candidacy."
of this Court, that they are entitled to the
issuance of this extraordinary writ so as to
On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an
effectively compel respondent COMELEC to
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy,
conduct a special registration of voters. For the
changing the entry "seven" months to "since
determination of whether or not the conduct of a
childhood" in item no. 8 of the amended
special registration of voters is feasible, possible
certificate. On the same day, the Provincial
or practical within the remaining period before
Election Supervisor of Leyte informed petitioner
the actual date of election, involves the exercise
that they cannot receive or accept the
of discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by
aforementioned Certificate of Candidacy on the
mandamus.
ground that it is filed out of time, the deadline for
the filing of the same having already lapsed on
March 20, 1995.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs. COMELEC
248 SCRA 300
Consequently, petitioner filed the
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy
FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos with the COMELEC's Head Office in Intramuros,
filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position Manila on March 31, 1995. Her Answer to
of Representative of the First District of Leyte. private respondent's petition was likewise filed
Private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the with the head office on the same day. In said
incumbent Representative of the First District of Answer, petitioner averred that the entry of the
Leyte and a candidate for the same position, word "seven" in her original Certificate of
filed a "Petition for Cancellation and
Disqualification" with the Commission on
Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the
constitutional requirement for residency. Private
respondent contended that Mrs. Marcos lacked
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) COMELEC reversed itself and issued a second
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Resolution directing that the proclamation of
petitioner be suspended in the event that she
Candidacy was the result of an "honest obtains the highest number of votes.
misinterpretation" which she sought to rectify by
adding the words "since childhood" in her In a Supplemental Petition dated 25 May 1995,
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy petitioner averred that she was the
and that "she has always maintained Tacloban overwhelming winner of the elections for the
City as her domicile or residence. congressional seat in the First District of Leyte
held May 8, 1995 based on the canvass
On April 24, 1995, the Second Division of the completed by the Provincial Board of
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) came up Canvassers on May 14, 1995. Petitioner alleged
with a Resolution 1) finding private respondent's that the canvass showed that she obtained a
Petition for Disqualification meritorious; 2) total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833
striking off petitioner's Corrected/Amended votes received by Respondent Montejo. A copy
Certificate of Candidacy of March 31, 1995; and of said Certificate of Canvass was annexed to
3) canceling her original Certificate of the Supplemental Petition.
Candidacy.
On account of the Resolutions disqualifying
In a resolution, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner from running for the congressional
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration declaring seat of the First District of Leyte and the public
her not qualified to run for the position of respondent's Resolution suspending her
Member of the House of Representatives for the proclamation, petitioner comes to this court for
First Legislative District of Leyte. relief.
On May 11, 1995, the COMELEC issued a ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was a resident,
Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation for election purposes, of the First District of
should the results of the canvass show that she Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the
obtained the highest number of votes in the May 9, 1995 elections. - Yes
congressional elections in the First District of
Leyte. On the same day, however, the COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 139
candidacy which would lead to his or her
disqualification.
HELD: Residence implies the factual
Petitioner merely committed an honest mistake
relationship of an individual to a certain place. It
in jotting the word "seven" in the space provided
is the physical presence of a person in a given
for the residency qualification requirement. This
area, community or country. The essential
honest mistake should not, however, be allowed
distinction between residence and domicile in
to negate the fact of residence in the First
law is that residence involves the intent to leave
District if such fact were established by means
when the purpose for which the resident has
more convincing than a mere entry on a piece of
taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place
paper.
for purposes such as pleasure, business, or
health. If a person's intent be to remain, it
Petitioner's domicile
becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as
soon as his purpose is established it is
An individual does not lose his domicile even if he
residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an
has lived and maintained residences in different
individual to have different residences in various
places. Residence implies a factual relationship to
places. However, a person can only have a
a given place for various purposes. The absence
single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
from legal residence or domicile to pursue a
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
another domicile of choice. profession, to study or to do other things of a
temporary or semi-permanent nature does not
constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion by
It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
the COMELEC that "she could not have been a
certificate of candidacy which ought to be
resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the
decisive in determining whether or not and
time she filed her certificate of candidacy because
individual has satisfied the constitution's
she became a resident of many places" flies in the
residency qualification requirement. The said
face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court
statement becomes material only when there is
carefully
or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible. It would be plainly
ridiculous for a candidate to deliberately and
knowingly make a statement in a certificate of
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of origin by
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever operation of law.
made distinctions between (actual) residence Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
and domicile for election law purposes. successfully effect a change of domicile, one
must demonstrate:
Moreover, while petitioner was born in Manila, 1. An actual removal or an actual change of
as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of domicile;
her parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached 2. 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the
her adulthood there and eventually established former place of residence and establishing a
residence in different parts of the country for new one; and
various reasons. Even during her husband's 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
presidency, at the height of the Marcos Regime's
powers, petitioner kept her close ties to her Only with evidence showing concurrence of all
domicile of origin by establishing residences in three requirements can the presumption of
Tacloban. continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change
of residence requires an actual and deliberate
Private respondent in his Comment, contends abandonment, and one cannot have two legal
that Tacloban was not petitioner's domicile of residences at the same time. The evidence
origin because she did not live there until she adduced by private respondent plainly lacks the
was eight years old. He avers that after leaving degree of persuasiveness required to convince
the place in 1952, she "abandoned her this court that an abandonment of domicile of
residency (sic) therein for many years and . . . origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed
(could not) re-establish her domicile in said occurred. To effect an abandonment requires
place by merely expressing her intention to live the voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner's
there again." We do not agree. former domicile with an intent to supplant the
former domicile with one of her own choosing
First, minor follows the domicile of his parents. (domicilium voluntarium).
As domicile, once acquired is retained until a
new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the
fact of petitioner's being born in Manila,
the term residence should only be interpreted to
mean "actual residence." The inescapable
conclusion derived from this unambiguous civil
Petitioner did not lost her domicile of origin by law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner
operation of law as a result of her marriage to married the former President in 1954, she kept
the late President Marcos her domicile of origin and merely gained a new
home, not a domicilium necessarium.
There is a clearly established distinction
between the Civil Code concepts of "domicile" Even assuming for the sake of argument that
and "residence." The presumption that the wife petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her
automatically gains the husband's domicile by marriage and only acquired a right to choose a
operation of law upon marriage cannot be new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts
inferred from the use of the term "residence" in following her return to the country clearly
Article 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly
Code is one area where the two concepts are chose her domicile of origin (assuming this was
well delineated. lost by operation of law) as her domicile. This
"choice" was unequivocally expressed in her
When Petitioner was married to then letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when
Congressman Marcos, petitioner was obliged to petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to
follow her husband's actual place of residence rehabilitate their ancestral house in Tacloban
fixed by him. The problem here is that at that and Farm in Olot, Leyte.
time, Mr. Marcos had several places of
residence, among which were San Juan, Rizal
and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing
which of these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his
family's residence. But assuming that Mr.
Marcos had fixed any of these places as the
conjugal residence, what petitioner gained upon
marriage was actual residence. She did not lose
her domicile of origin.
Insofar as the Civil Code is concerned-affecting

the rights and obligations of husband and wife —
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Torogan, to file their answer to the petition for
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever abolition of precincts and annulment of book of
voters.
SULTAN USMAN SARANGANI, SORAIDA
M. SARANGANI and HADJI NOR HASSAN On October 31, 1997, the incumbent mayor of
v. COMELEC and HADJI ABOLAIS R. Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani,
OMAR, MANAN OSOP and ATTY. NASIB D. herein petitioner, together with other oppositors
YASSIN who were allegedly barangay chairmen of the 23
G.R. No. 135927 June 26, 2000 barangays, filed an "Answer in Opposition"
which included the affidavits of the barangay
BUENA, J.: chairmen of the affected precincts attesting to
the fact that the move to annul the book of
CASE: petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the voters and abolish the questioned election
Rules of Court which seeks to nullify the Order precincts were for the purpose of diminishing the
issued by the COMELEC dated June 29, 1998, bailiwicks of the incumbent mayor of Madalum,
finding Padian Torogan in Madalum, Lanao Del Lanao del Sur.
Sur as "ghost precinct"
After hearing and submission of formal offer of
FACTS: On September 15, 1997, a petition for exhibits and memoranda by the parties, the
annulment of several precincts and annulment of COMELEC issued an Order dated February 11,
book of voters in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was 1998, referring the case to its Law
filed with the COMELEC by, among others, Hadji Department for appropriate investigation.
Oblais R. Omar thru counsel Atty. Nasib D.
Yasin, herein private respondents. Among the The COMELEC Law Department conformably
precincts sought to be annulled was Padian issued a memorandum dated April 29, 1998
Torogan, subject matter of the present petition directing Atty. Muslemin Tahir, the Provincial
for certiorari. Election Supervisor of Marawi City, Lanao del
Sur "to conduct a rigorous incisive investigation
On September 18, 1997, the COMELEC, thru on the alleged ghost precincts and thereafter
the Clerk of the Commission sent telegrams to submit a report on the investigation conducted."
the respective BEI of the questioned precincts in
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian
Municipal Chief of Police Mahdi Mindalano,
armed with UZI pistolized Machine Gun
Consequently, Atty. Tahir created a TASK
On the basis of the foregoing, Election Officer
FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM by virtue of a
Casan Macadato submitted to the Provincial
memorandum dated June 13, 1998 directing
Election Supervisor of COMELEC in Marawi City
Election Officers Casan Macadato, Sacrain Guro
its 1st Indorsement dated June 19, 1998
and Anuar Datudacula "to conduct ocular
reporting the results of the ocular inspection
inspection on the alleged twelve (12) ghost
that Padian Torogan and Rakutan were
barangays in the Municipality of Madalum,
uninhabited.
Lanao Del Sur."
On June 29, 1998, the COMELEC issued the
On June 18, 1998, an ocular inspection was assailed Order finding "Padian Torogan as
conducted on the alleged ghost precincts. It was ghost precinct." The dispositive portion of the
found out that: COMELEC Order reads:
(1) in Barangay Padian Torogan, there are
only two structures: One is a concrete house Xxx
with no roof, and the other is a wooden structure (2) finds Padain Togoran as ghost precinct and
without walls and roof. This obviously mean that shall be excluded from the special election to be
no single human being could possibly reside in conducted in Madalum.
these two structures.
(3) Order the Investigating Team, thru Madatu,
Also, it came out that the name Padian- to immediately resume the investigation, the
Torogan means a cemetery not a residential remaining ghost precincts in Madalum and to
place. So this contradicts the records being submit its findings to the Commission with
brought by the COMELEC Team from the dispatch, allowing it to submit partial findings if
Census saying that the area has 45 households necessary.
with a total population of 285.
(2) In Barangay named Rakutan, the ocular

inspection was stopped by the Madalum
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the facts and verified that there were no public or
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever private buildings in the said place, hence its
conclusion that there were no inhabitants. If
ISSUE: Whether the respondent COMELEC there were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there can be
committed grave abuse of discretion in no registered voters, or the registered voters
declaring Padian-Torogan as ghost precinct. may have left the place. It is not impossible for a
NO. certain barangay not to actually have inhabitants
considering that people migrate.
HELD: The petition states that precinct No. 27A A barangay may officially exist on record and
located in Barangay Padian Torogan was the the fact that nobody resides in the place does
one declared as a ghost precinct by the not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of
COMELEC although the assailed Order did not local government. Under the Local Government
mention any specific precinct but simply Code of 1991, the abolition of a local
declared "Padian Torogan as ghost precinct." To government unit (LGU) may be done by
be clear, what was necessarily contemplated by Congress in the case of a province, city,
the assailed Order would be the election precinct municipality, or any other political subdivision. In
in the said place. the case of a barangay, except in Metropolitan
Manila area and in cultural communities, it may
The determination of whether a certain election be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
precinct actually exists or not and whether the Sangguniang Panglunsod concerned subject to
voters registered in said precinct are real voters the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite 16
is a factual matter. On such issue, it is a time- conducted for the purpose in the political units
honored precept that factual findings of the affected.
COMELEC based on its own assessments
and duly supported by evidence, are The findings of the administrative agency
conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the cannot be reversed on appeal or certiorari
absence of a substantiated attack on the validity particularly when no significant facts and
of the same. circumstances are shown to have been
Upon review of the records, the Court finds that
the COMELEC had exerted efforts to investigate
rendered nugatory by the inclusion of some
ghost votes. Election laws should give effect to,
rather than frustrate the will of the people.
overlooked or disregarded which when
considered would have substantially affected the
FOOTNOTES:
outcome of the case. The COMELEC has broad
powers to ascertain the true results of an
The Commission shall establish all election
election by means available to it.
precincts.
The assailed order having been issued pursuant
The precincts actually established in the
to COMELEC's administrative powers and in the
preceding regular elections shall be maintained,
absence of any finding of grave abuse of
but the Commission may introduce such
discretion in declaring a precinct as non-existent,
adjustments, changes or new divisions or
said order shall stand.
abolish them, if necessary; Provided, however,
That the territory comprising an election precinct
Judicial interference is unnecessary and shall not be altered or a new precinct
uncalled for. No voter is disenfranchised established within forty-five days before a
because no such voter exist. The sacred regular election and thirty days before a special
right of suffrage guaranteed by the election or a referendum plebiscite.
Constitution is not tampered when a list of
fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 7160.
exercise.
Sec. 9. Abolition of Local Government Units. A
Suffrage is conferred by the Constitution only on
local government unit may be abolished when its
citizens who are qualified to vote and are not income, population or land area has been
otherwise disqualified by law. irreversibly reduced to less than the minimum
standards prescribed for its creation under Book
On the contrary, such exclusion of non- III of this Code, as certified by the national
existent voters all the more protects the agencies mentioned in Section 7 hereof to
validity and credibility of the electoral
process as well as the right of suffrage
because the "electoral will" would not be
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) who are at least eighteen years of age, and who
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place wherein they propose
Congress or the sanggunian concerned, as the to vote for at least six months immediately
case may be. preceding the election. No literacy, property, or
other substantive requirement shall be imposed
The law or ordinance abolishing a local on the exercise of suffrage.
government unit shall specify the province, city,
municipality, or barangay with which the local
government unit sought to be abolished will be TECSON v. COMELEC
incorporated or merged. G.R. No. 161434, March 03, 2004
Sec. 10, R.A. 7160. VITUG, J.:
Sec. 10. Plebiscite Requirement. No creation, CASE: The issue of citizenship is brought up to
division, merger, abolition, or substantial challenge the qualifications of a presidential
alteration of boundaries of local government candidate to hold the highest office of the land.
units shall take effect unless approved by a Our people are waiting for the judgment of the
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called Court with bated breath. Is Fernando Poe, Jr.,
for the purpose in the political unit or units the hero of silver screen, and now one of the
directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be main contenders for the presidency, a natural-
conducted by the Commission on Election born Filipino or is he not?
(COMELEC) within one hundred twenty (120)
days from the date effectivity of the law or FACTS: On 31 December 2003, respondent
ordinance affecting such action unless said law Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando
or ordinance fixes another date. Poe, Jr. filed his COC for the position of
President of the Rep of the Phil. under the
Art. V, Section 1, 1987 Constitution. Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP)
Party, in the forthcoming 2004 national elections.
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law,
existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only
a year after the birth of respondent.
In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing
In the hearing before the Third Division of the
himself to be a natural-born citizen of the
COMELEC on 19 January 2004, petitioner, in
Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando
support of his claim, presented several
Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be
documentary exhibits - 1) a copy of the
20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be
certificate of birth of FPJ, 2) a certified
Manila.
photocopy of an affidavit executed in Spanish by
Paulita Poe y Gomez attesting to her having filed
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in G.R. No.
a case for bigamy and concubinage against the
161824, initiated, on 09 January 2004, a petition father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, after
docketed SPA No. 04-003 before the COMELEC discovering his bigamous relationship with
to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to Bessie Kelley, 3) an English translation of the
cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the affidavit aforesaid, 4) a certified photocopy of the
thesis that FPJ made a material certificate of birth of Allan F. Poe, 5) a
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy certification issued by the Director of the
by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen Records Management and Archives Office,
when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents attesting to the fact that there was no record in
were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, the National Archives that a Lorenzo Poe or
was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was Lorenzo Pou resided or entered the Philippines
a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo before 1907, and 6) a certification from the
Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, petitioner Officer-In-Charge of the Archives Division of the
asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino National Archives to the effect that no available
citizen; he could not have transmitted his Filipino information could be found in the files of the
citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate National Archives regarding the birth of Allan F.
child of an alien mother. Petitioner based the Poe.
allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent
on two assertions - first, Allan F. Poe contracted
a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez
before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and,
second, even if no such prior marriage had
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever SPA No. 04-003 for lack of merit.
On his part, respondent FPJ, presented twenty- Three days later, or on 26 January 2004,
two documentary pieces of evidence, the more Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration.
significant ones being - a) a certification issued The motion was denied on 06 February 2004 by
by Estrella M. Domingo of the Archives Division the COMELEC en banc.
of the National Archives that there appeared to
be no available information regarding the birth of On 10 February 2004, petitioner assailed the
Allan F. Poe in the registry of births for San decision of the COMELEC before this Court
Carlos, Pangasinan, b) a certification issued by conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65,
the Officer-In-Charge of the Archives Division of of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
the National Archives that no available petition, docketed G. R. No. 161824, likewise
information about the marriage of Allan F. Poe prayed for a temporary restraining order, a writ
and Paulita Gomez could be found, c) a of preliminary injunction or any other resolution
certificate of birth of Ronald Allan Poe, d) that would stay the finality and/or execution of
Original Certificate of Title No. P-2247 of the the COMELEC resolutions.
Registry of Deeds for the Province of
Pangasinan, in the name of Lorenzo Pou, e) Petitioners Tecson, et al., in G. R. No. 161434,
copies of Tax Declaration No. 20844, No. 20643, and Velez, in G. R. No. 161634, invoke the
No. 23477 and No. 23478 in the name of provisions of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7,
Lorenzo Pou, f) a copy of the certificate of death of the 1987 Constitution in assailing the
of Lorenzo Pou, g) a copy of the purported jurisdiction of the COMELEC when it took
marriage contract between Fernando Pou and cognizance of SPA No. 04-003 and in urging the
Bessie Kelley, and h) a certification issued by Supreme Court to instead take on the petitions
the City Civil Registrar of San Carlos City, they directly instituted before it.
Pangasinan, stating that the records of birth in
the said office during the period of from 1900 The Constitutional provision cited reads:
until May 1946 were totally destroyed during
"The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be
World War II.
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph
7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include
election, returns, and qualifications of the cases directly brought before it, questioning the
President or Vice-President, and may qualifications of a candidate for the presidency
promulgate its rules for the purpose." or vice-presidency before the elections are held.
ISSUE: As the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
Ordinary usage would characterize a “contest” in
(PET), does the Supreme Court have
reference to a post-election scenario. Election
jurisdiction over the qualifications of
contests consist of either an election protest or a
presidential candidates?
quo warranto which, although two distinct
remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e.,
RULING: No. An examination of the to dislodge the winning candidate from office. A
phraseology in Rule 12, 13, and Rule 14 of the perusal of the phraseology in Rule 12, Rule 13,
"Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal," and Rule 14 of the “Rules of the Presidential
promulgated by the Supreme Court on April Electoral Tribunal,” promulgated by the Supreme
1992 categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the Court en banc on 18 April 1992, would support
tribunal over contests relating to the election, this premise—
returns and qualifications of the "President" or
"Vice-President", of the Philippines, and not of
“Rule 12. Jurisdiction. – The Tribunal shall be
"candidates" for President or Vice-President. A
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as
election, returns, and qualifications of the
being an action against a person who usurps,
President or Vice-President of the Philippines.
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a
public office. In such context, the election
“Rule 13. How Initiated. – An election contest is
contest can only contemplate a post-election
initiated by the filing of an election protest or a
scenario. In Rule 14, only a registered candidate
petition for quo warranto against the President
who would have received either the second or
or Vice-President. An election protest shall not
third highest number of votes could file an
include a petition for quo warranto. A petition for
election protest. This rule again presupposes a
post-election scenario.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the year 1870, when the Philippines was under
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan,
his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in
quo warranto shall not include an election the absence of any other evidence, could have
protest. well been his place of residence before death,
such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited
“Rule 14. Election Protest. – Only the registered from the "en masse Filipinization" that the
candidate for President or for Vice-President of Philippine Bill had effected in 1902.
the Philippines who received the second or third
highest number of votes may contest the That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired,
election of the President or the Vice-President, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe,
as the case may be, by filing a verified petition father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution,
with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral during which regime respondent FPJ has seen
Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the first light, confers citizenship to all persons
proclamation of the winner.” whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of
whether such children are legitimate or
ISSUE: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born illegitimate.
Filipino citizen.
But while the totality of the evidence may not
HELD: It is necessary to take on the matter of establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a
whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the
citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or evidence on hand still would preponderate in his
not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would favor enough to hold that he cannot be held
have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the guilty of having made a material
affirmative, whether or not the alleged misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy
illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section
taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative 74, of the Omnibus Election Code.
father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship
of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the
presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years
old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in
committed by the COMELEC, it is necessary to
take on the matter of whether or not respondent
FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which, in turn,
IN SUM: depended on whether or not the father of
(1) The Court, in the exercise of its power of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself
judicial review, possesses jurisdiction over the been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative,
petition in G. R. No. 161824, filed under Rule 64, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of
in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of respondent prevents him from taking after the
Civil Procedure. G.R. No. 161824 assails the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any
resolution of the COMELEC for alleged grave conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo
abuse of discretion in dismissing, for lack of Pou could only be drawn from the presumption
merit, the petition in SPA No. 04-003 which has that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo
prayed for the disqualification of respondent FPJ would have been born sometime in the year
from running for the position of President in the 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish
10th May 2004 national elections on the rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place
contention that FPJ has committed material of residence upon his death in 1954, in the
representation in his certificate of candidacy by absence of any other evidence, could have well
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen been his place of residence before death, such
of the Philippines. that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the
“en asse Fi ipinizati n” t at t e i ippine i
(2) The Court must dismiss, for lack of had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of
jurisdiction and prematurity, the petitions in G. R. Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend
No. 161434 and No. 161634 both having been
to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent
di ect e e ated t t is C u t in t e atte ’s capacity as FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime
the only tribunal to resolve a presidential and respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers
vice-presidential election contest under the citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Constitution. Evidently, the primary jurisdiction of Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
the Court can directly be invoked only after, not children are legitimate or illegitimate.
before, the elections are held.
(3) In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824,

whether grave abuse of discretion has been
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) municipality for more than 4 years. In
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever accordance with it, the Comelec reassigned
petitioners, who were election officers to other
stations. Petitioners claim that the act violated
(4) But while the totality of the evidence may the equal protection clause because not all
not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is election officials were covered by the prohibition.
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the Petitioners contend that RA 8189 Section 44 is
evidence on hand still would preponderate in his unconstitutional as it violates the equal
favor enough to hold that he cannot be held protection clause enshrined in the constitution;
guilty of having made a material that it violates constitutional guarantee on
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy security of civil servants; that it undermines the
in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section constitutional independence of comelec and
74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner has c e ec’s c nstituti na aut it ; t at it
utterly failed to substantiate his case before the contravenes the basic constitutional precept;
Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity that it is void for its failure to be read on 3
given to the parties to present their position and separate readings
evidence, and to prove whether or not there has
been material misrepresentation, which, as so ISSUE: Whether or Not section 44 of RA 8189 is
ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, unconstitutional
must not only be material, but also deliberate
and willful. RULING: No, RA 8189 Sec 44 is not
unconstitutional. It has not violated the equal
protection clause. It is intended to ensure the
DE GUZMAN VS COMMISSION ON impartiality of election officials by preventing
ELECTIONS them from developing familiarity with the people
GR 129118 19 JULY 2000 of their place of assignment. Section 44 is
relevant to the subject matter of registration as it
FACTS: Comelec reassigned petitioners to other seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration
stati ns pu suant t Secti n 44 t e V te ’s process by providing a guideline for the Comelec
registration act. The act prohibits election to follow in the reassignment of election officers.
officers from holding office in a particular city or COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 146
the remaining (4) precincts. After the special
election, Cawasa was proclaimed Mayor.
Manamparan filed an appeal and petition for the
annulment of the proclamation of petitioner
Large-scale anomalies in the registration of Cawasa and for the annulment of the special
voters cannot be carried out without the election results. The Comelec en banc
complicity of election officers, who are the promulgated a resolution annulling the results of
highest representatives of Comelec in a city or the special elections of the 4 precincts and
municipality. annulling the proclamation of the winning
candidates.
Section 44 is relevant to the subject matter of
registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of ISSUE: Whether or not the result of the special
the registration process by providing a guideline election was valid due to the transfer of polling
for the Comelec to follow in the reassignment of places in adjacent areas.
election officers. The law merely provides the
basis for the transfer of an election officer and RULING: No. The Comelec ruled that the result
does not deprive the Comelec of its power to
of the special elections in the 4 contested
appoint its officials.
precincts were declared annulled, so as the
proclamation of the winning candidates, as such
election was not genuinely held and resulted in
CAWASA VS COMELEC failure to elect on account of fraud. As clearly
(GR No. 150469, 3 July 2002) provided by the law, the location of polling
places shall be the same as that of the
FACTS: Jun Rascal Cawasa and private preceding regular election. While the
respondent Adbulmalik M. Manamparan were proclamation of a candidate has the effect of
among the candidates for mayor in the terminating pre-proclamation issues, a
Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao Del Norte. Out proclamation that is a result of an illegal act is
of the forty (40) precincts in Nunungan, only
thirty-six (36) functioned, as there was a failure
of election in the remaining four (4) precincts.
Thus the proclamation was deferred, as the
number of registered voters would affect the
election results. A special election was set for
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever nd
On July 19, 2001, the 2 Division of COMELEC
issued a Res uti n g anting a ez’s petiti n
void and cannot be ratified by such proclamation and ordered the cance ati n C qui a’s COC
and subsequent assumption of office. After 5 days from receiving the resolution,
Coquilla filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
the en banc denied it on January 30, 2002 for
COQUILLA VS COMELEC being pro-forma.
FACTS: Coquilla was naturalize as a US citizen ISSUE: W/N Coquilla is a resident of Oras for
sometime around 1965. He returned to the at least 1 year before the elections held on
Philippines in 1998 and was subsequently May 14, 2001. NO
repatriated through RA 8171. He took his oath
and was issued his Certificate of Repatriation on HELD: The term "residence" is to be understood
November 2000. not in its common acceptation as referring to
"dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile"
Coquilla thereafter registered as a voter in Oras, or legal residence, that is, "the place where a
Eastern Samar on January 2001. He later filed party actually or constructively has his
his Certificate of Candidacy to run for mayor on permanent home, where he, no matter where he
February 2001. may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return and remain (animus manendi)."
Re-electionist Neil Alvarez sought for the A domicile of origin is acquired by every person
cance ati n C qui a’s COC n t e g und that at birth. It is usually the place where the child’s
Coquilla made a material misrepresentation that parents reside and continues until the same is
he had been living in Oras for two years when in abandoned by acquisition of new domicile
fact, he had only been in the place for 6 months. (domicile of choice).
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of

The COMELEC however failed to render origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. citizen after
judgment on the case before the elections took
place, where Coquilla was eventually elected
mayor.
by repatriation or by an act of Congress, in which
case he waives not only his status as an alien
but also his status as a non-resident alien.
enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965. From then on
and until November 10, 2000, when he
In the case at bar, the only evidence of petiti ne
reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was
’s status w en e ente ed t e c unt on October 15,
an alien without any right to reside in the
1998, December 20, 1998, October 16, 1999,
Philippines save as our immigration laws may
and June 23, 2000 is the
have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a
statement "Philippine Immigration [–]
resident alien.
Balikbayan" in his 1998-2008 U.S. passport. As
for his entry on August 5, 2000, the stamp bore
Second, it is not true, as petitioner contends, the added inscription "good for one year stay."
that he reestablished residence in this country in
1998 when he came back to prepare for the
Under §2 of R.A. No. 6768 (An Act Instituting a
mayoralty elections of Oras by securing a
Balikbayan Program), the term balikbayan
Community Tax Certificate in that year and by
includes a former Filipino citizen who had been
"constantly declaring" to his townmates of his
naturalized in a foreign country and comes or
intention to seek repatriation and run for mayor
returns to the Philippines and, if so, he is
in the May 14, 2001 elections. The status of
entitled, among others, to a "visa-free entry to
being an alien and a non-resident can be waived
the Philippines for a period of one (1) year"
either separately, when one acquires the status
(§3(c)). It would appear then that when petitioner
of a resident alien before acquiring Philippine
entered the country on the dates in question, he
citizenship, or at the same time when one
did so as a visa-free balikbayan visitor whose
acquires Philippine citizenship. As an alien, an
stay as such was valid for one year only.
individual may obtain an immigrant visa under
§13 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1948
Hence, petitioner can only be held to have
and an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR)
waived his status as an alien and as a non-
and thus waive his status as a non-resident. On
resident only on November 10, 2000 upon taking
the other hand, he may acquire Philippine
his oath as a citizen of the Philippines under
citizenship by naturalization under C.A. No. 473,
as amended, or, if he is a former Philippine
national, he may reacquire Philippine citizenship
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) coupled with her intention to stay there by
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever registering as a voter there and expressly
declaring that she is a resident of that place, she
R.A. No. 8171. He lacked the requisite residency is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City,
to qualify him for the mayorship of Oras, where she spent her childhood and school days,
Eastern, Samar. as her place of domicile. The Comelec en banc
affirmed this ruling.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS COMELEC During the pendency of the disqualification case,
Imelda won in the election. But
FACTS: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her the Comelec suspended her proclamation.
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position Imelda thus appealed to the Supreme Court.
of Representative of the First District of Leyte,
stating that she is 7-months resident in the said Imelda invoked Section 78 of B.P. 881 which
district. Montejo, incumbent Representative and provides that a petition seeking to deny due
a candidate for the same position, filed a Petition course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
for Cancellation and Disqualification, alleging must be decided, after due notice and hearing,
that Imelda did not meet the constitutional one- not later than 15 days before the election. Since
year residency requirement. Imelda thus a the Comelec rendered the resolution on on April
ended e COC, c anging “se en” nt s t “since c i d 24, 1995, fourteen (14) days before the election,
d ” T e p incia e ecti n Comelec already lose jurisdiction over her case.
supervisor refused to admit the amended COC She contended that it is the House of
for the reason that it was filed out of time. Representatives Electoral Tribunal and not the
Imelda, thus, filed her amended COC with Comelec which has jurisdiction over the election
Comelec's head office in Manila. of members of the House of Representatives.
On April 24, 1995, the Comelec Second Division
declared Imelda not qualified to run and struck ISSUES:
off the amended as well as original COCs. The 1. W/N Imelda was a resident for election
Comelec in division found that when Imelda
purposes of the First District of Leyte for
chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila,
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based

a period of 1 year at the time of the May 9,
on these criteria, the residence of origin should
1995 elections be deemed to continue. Only with evidence
2. W/N the COMELEC loses jurisdiction to showing concurrence of all three requirements
hear and decide a pending can the presumption of continuity or residence
disqualification case after the elections. be rebutted, for a change of residence requires
an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one
HELD:
cannot have two legal residences at the same
1. Imelda was a resident of the First District time. Petitioner held various residences for
of Leyte for election purposes, and therefore different purposes during the last four decades.
possessed the necessary residence None of these purposes unequivocally point to
qualifications to run in Leyte as a candidate for a an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in
seat in the House of Representatives for the Tacloban, Leyte.
following reasons:
c. It cannot be correctly argued that petitioner
a. Minor follows the domicile of his parents. As lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as
domicile, once acquired is retained until a new a result of her marriage to the late President
one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. A wife does not
petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, aut atica gain t e us and’s d ici e W at petitioner
Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of gained upon marriage was actual residence. She
law. This domicile was established when her did not lose her domicile of origin. The term
father brought his family back to Leyte. residence may mean one thing in civil law (or
under the Civil Code) and quite another thing in
b. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To political law. What stands clear is that insofar as
successfully effect a change of domicile, one the Civil Code is concerned-affecting the rights
must demonstrate: and obligations of husband
1. An actual removal or an actual change of
domicile;
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the
former place of residence and establishing a
new one; and
2. With the enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of
R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, it
and wife — the term residence should only be
is evident that the Comelec does not lose
interpreted to mean "actual residence." The
inescapable conclusion derived from this jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending
unambiguous civil law delineation therefore, is disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P.
that when petitioner married the former 881 even after the elections.
President in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.
and merely gained a new home, not a - Any candidate who has been declared
domicilium necessarium. by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be
voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
d. Even assuming for the sake of argument that counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her declared by final judgment before an election to
marriage and only acquired a right to choose a be disqualified and he is voted for and receives
new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts the winning number of votes in such election, the
following her return to the country clearly Court or Commission shall continue with the trial
indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and,
chose her domicile of origin (assuming this was upon motion of the complainant or any
lost by operation of law) as her domicile. This intervenor, may during the pendency thereof
"choice" was unequivocally expressed in her order the suspension of the
letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when proclamation of such candidate
petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to whenever the evidence of his guilt is
"rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in Tacloban strong.
and Farm in Olot, Leyte ... to make them livable
for the Marcos family to have a home in our Moreover, it is a settled doctrine that a statute
homeland." Furthermore, petitioner obtained her requiring rendition of judgment within a specified
residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte, time is generally construed to be merely
while living in her brother's house, an act which
supports the domiciliary intention clearly
manifested in her letters to the PCGG Chairman.
Petitioner alleged that private respondent filed

an application for the transfer of his registration
directory, "so that non-compliance with them
as voter from Gattaran, Cagayan (First District)
does not invalidate the judgment on the theory
to Tuguegarao, Cagayan (Third District) only on
that if the statute had intended such result it
would have clearly indicated it. December 17, 1997 and that said application
was approved only on January 7, 1998.
Petitioner prayed that in the event the case was
not finally decided before the elections and
MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and RODOLFO E. private respondent obtained the highest number
AGUINALDO of votes, the latters proclamation be suspended.
FACTS: On March 26, 1998, private respondent

In his answer, private respondent claimed that
filed his certificate of candidacy for
while he had been a resident of Gattaran,
Representative of the Third District of Cagayan
Cagayan in 1990, he transferred his residence to
in the May 11, 1998 elections. Four days later,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan by renting an apartment
on March 30, 1998, petitioner, as a voter and
at No. 13-E Magallanes St., Tuguegarao,
citizen, filed in the COMELEC a petition for the
Cagayan, in order to hide his mistress from
disqualification of private respondent as a
public view because, at that time, his marriage to
candidate on the ground that he had not been a
his former wife was still subsisting. In support of
resident of the district for at least one (1) year
his claim, he presented the affidavit of the owner
immediately before the day of the elections as
of the apartment, Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, in
required by Art. VI, 6 of the Constitution.
which it is stated that private respondent had
been his lessee since July 1990.
In support of her claim, petitioner presented
private respondents certificates of candidacy for
On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the
governor of Cagayan; his voters affidavit; and
COMELEC, in a unanimous resolution,
his voter registration record dated June 22,
1997, in all of which it is stated that he is a
resident of Barangay Calaoagan Dackel,
Municipality of Gattaran, which is outside the
Third District of Cagayan.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) been proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and had
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever taken his oath of office on May 17, 1998,
petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration
dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding on May 22, 1998, which the COMELEC en banc
private respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as denied on June 11, 1998.
representative for the Third District of Cagayan.
Clearly, this could not be done. Sec. 6 of R.A.
On May 11, 1998, private respondent was No. 6646 authorizes the continuation of
elected Representative of the Third District of proceedings for disqualification even after the
Cagayan, with 65,058 votes over his rival elections if the respondent has not been
Manuel N. Mambas 58,507 votes. He was proclaimed. The COMELEC en banc had no
proclaimed elected and was sworn in office. jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the
proclamation of private respondent barred
On May 22, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for further consideration of petitioners action. In the
reconsideration reiterating her allegation that same vein, considering that at the time of the
private respondent lacked the requisite filing of this petition on June 16, 1998, private
residency in the Third District of Cagayan. respondent was already a member of the House
of Representatives, this Court has no jurisdiction
Her motion was, however, denied by the over the same. Pursuant to Art. VI, 17 of the
COMELEC en banc in its resolution of June 11, Constitution, the House of Representatives
1998. Hence, this petition. Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive original
jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of
ISSUE: WON Private Respondent was ineligible private respondents ineligibility.
to run for HREP of the 3rd District of Cagayan
The meaning and purpose of the residency
HELD: As already stated, the petition for requirement were explained recently in our
disqualification against private respondent was decision in Aquino v. COMELEC, as follows:
decided by the First Division of the COMELEC . . . [T]he place where a party actually or
on May 10, 1998. The following day, May 11, constructively has his permanent home,
1998, the elections were held. Notwithstanding where he, no matter where he may be found
the fact that private respondent had already
there is nothing in the record to detract from the
merit of this factual finding.
at any given time, eventually intends to return
It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which
certificate of candidacy, which ought to be
the Constitution refers when it speaks of
decisive in determining whether or not an
residence for the purposes of election law.
individual has satisfied the constitutions
residency qualification requirement. The said
In the case at bar, the COMELEC found that
statement becomes material only when there is
private respondent changed his residence from
or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
Gattaran to Tuguegarao, the capital of Cagayan, in
misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
July 1990 on the basis of the following: (1) the
render a candidate ineligible.
affidavit of Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, the owner of
the residential apartment at 13-E Magallanes St.,
In this case, although private respondent
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, where private
declared in his certificates of candidacy prior to
respondent had lived in 1990; (2) the contract of
the May 11, 1998 elections that he was a
lease between private respondent, as lessee,
resident of Gattaran, Cagayan, the fact is that he
and Tomas T. Decena, as lessor, of a residential
was actually a resident of the Third District not
apartment at Kamias St., Tanza, Tuguegarao,
just for one (1) year prior to the May 11, 1998
Cagayan, for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30,
elections but for more than seven (7) years since
1996; (3) the marriage certificate, dated January
July 1990. His claim that he had been a resident
18, 1998, between private respondent and
of Tuguegarao since July 1990 is credible
Lerma Dumaguit; (4) the certificate of live birth of
considering that he was governor from 1988 to
private respondents second daughter; and (5)
1998 and, therefore, it would be convenient for
various letters addressed to private respondent
him to maintain his residence in Tuguegarao,
and his family, which all show that private
which is the capital of the province of Cagayan.
respondent was a resident of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the elections on May 11, 1998.
There is thus substantial evidence supporting

the finding that private respondent had been a
resident of the Third District of Cagayan and
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Damasing, counsel of herein petitioners. On May
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever 15, 1998, Petitioners Rogelio M. Torayno Sr.,
Generoso Q. Eligan and Jacqueline M. Serio, all
ROGELIO M. TORAYNO SR., GENEROSO residents of Cagayan de Oro City, filed a Petition
ELIGAN and JACQUELINE M. SERIO before the Comelec, docketed as SPA No. 98-
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and 298, in which they sought the disqualification of
VICENTE Y. EMANO Emano as mayoral candidate, on the ground that
he had allegedly failed to meet the one-year
FACTS: During the 1995 elections, Vicente Y. residence requirement.
Emano ran for, was elected, and proclaimed
provincial governor of Misamis Oriental. It was Prior to the resolution of their Petition, the
his third consecutive term as governor of the Comelec proclaimed private respondent as the
province. In his Certificate of Candidacy dated duly elected city mayor. Thus, on May 29, 1998,
March 12, 1995, his residence was declared to petitioners filed another Petition before the
be in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. Comelec, this time for quo warranto, in which
they sought (1) the annulment of the election of
On June 14, 1997, while still the governor of private respondent; and (2) the proclamation of
Misamis Oriental, Emano executed a Voter Erasmo B. Damasing, who had garnered the
Registration Record in Cagayan de Oro City next highest number of votes, as the duly
(geographically located in the Province of elected mayor of the city.
Misamis Oriental), a highly urbanized city, in
which he claimed 20 years of residence. On In its Resolution dated July 14, 1998, the
March 25, 1998, he filed his Certificate of Comelec First Division denied the Petition for
Candidacy for mayor of the city, stating therein Disqualification. Upon petitioners' Motion for
that his residence for the preceding two years Reconsideration and Motion for Consolidation,
and five months was at 1409 San Jose Street, the two cases were consolidated.
Capistrano Subdivision, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro
City. Ruling of the Comelec: The Comelec en banc
upheld the findings and conclusions of the First
Among those who ran for the mayorship of the Division, holding that "[t]he records clearly show
city in 1998, along with Emano, was Erasmo B.
his right to the Office when he transferred his
residence.
that the respondent is an actual resident of
The sanctity of the people's will, as expressed in
Cagayan de Oro City for such a period of time
the election result, must be respected. He is not,
necessary to qualify him to run for mayor
after all, a stranger to the city, much less to its
therein. This fact is clearly established by the voters.
respondent having a house in the city which has
been existing therein since 1973 and where his
Applying Mamba-Perez case—These facts
family has been living since then."
indubitably prove that Emano was a resident of
CDO for a period of time sufficient to qualify him
ISSUE: WON Emano had duly established his to run for public office.
residence in CDO at least one year prior to the Fact that CDO is a highly urbanized city and that
elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship
its residents do not participate in provincial
elections is of no moment. Such political
HELD: Respondent was able to fulfill the subdivisions and voting restrictions, however,
residency requirement needed for him to qualify are simply for the purpose of parity in
as a mayoralty candidate. He bought a house in representation. The classification does not
Cagayan de Oro City in 1973. He actually completely isolate its residents, politics,
resided there before he registered as a voter in commerce and other businesses from the entire
that city in 1997. province especially when the city is at the very
heart of the province itself.
His transfer of legal residence did not ipso facto
divest him of his position as governor. First, CDO was once an integral part of MO and
there is no law that prevents an elected official remains a geographical part of the province. Not
from transferring residence while in office. only is it at the center of the province; more
important, it is itself the seat of the provincial
Second, an elective official's transfer of government. As a consequence, the provincial
residence does not prevent the performance of
that official's duties, Third, as ruled in Frivaldo,
the loss of any of the required qualifications for
election merely renders the official's title or right
to office open to challenge. No one challenged
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) G.R. NO. 122250 & 122258 JULY 21,
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever 1997
officials who carry out their functions in the city FACTS: The election for mayor of Meycauayan,
cannot avoid residing therein; much less, getting Bulacan was held on May 8, 1995. Florentino P.
acquainted with its concerns and interests. Blanco received 29,753 votes; while Eduardo A.
Alarilla got 23,038 votes. Edgardo Nolasco was
The issue before the Court is whether Emano's elected Vice-Mayor with 37,240 votes.
residence in the city qualifies him to run for and
be elected as mayor, not whether he could have On May 9, 1995, Alarilla filed with the
continued sitting as governor of the province. COMELEC a petition to disqualify Blanco for
There was no challenge to his eligibility to allegedly performing acts which are grounds for
continue running the province; hence, the Court disqualification under the Omnibus Election
cannot make any pronouncement on such issue. Code – giving money to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing
The actual, physical and personal presence of election functions; for committing acts of
Emano in CDO is substantial enough to show terrorism to enhance his candidacy; and for
his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor and for spending an amount for his campaign in excess
the voters to evaluate his qualifications for the of what is allowed by the law.
mayorship.
This massive vote-buying activity was
There is no question that Emano was the engineered by Blanco through his organization
overwhelming choice of the people. He won by a called `MTB' or `Movement for Tinoy Blanco
margin of about 30,000 votes. Thus, it is apt to Volunteers.'
reiterate the principle that the manifest will of the
people as expressed through the ballot must be The COMELEC First Division heard the petition
given fullest effect. In case of doubt, political to disqualify Blanco. The parties thereafter
laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to submitted their position papers. On August 15,
the popular mandate. 1995, the First Division disqualified Blanco on
the ground of vote-buying,
NOLASCO V. COMELEC
of the parties and their arguments and thereafter
affirmed his disqualification. The hoary rule is
that due process does not mean prior hearing
but only an opportunity to be heard. The
A motion for reconsideration was filed by Blanco COMELEC gave Blanco all the opportunity to be
in the COMELEC En Banc. Nolasco, the Vice- heard.
Mayor-elect took part as intervenor, urging that
should Blanco be finally disqualified, the anc ’s c ntenti n t at t e ini u
mayoralty position be turned over to him. The
quantum of evidence was not met is
parties were allowed to file their memoranda.
untenable. What RA 6646 and the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure require is a
En anc denied anc and N asc ’s ti ns mere evidence of guilt that should be strong
It ordered the proclamation of Alarilla, the to justify the COMELEC in suspending a
second placer, as the duly elected Mayor. winning candidate’s p c a ati n
Thus, this petition for certiorari. 2. Yes. It is in gross violation and utter
disregard of the doctrine laid down by the
ISSUES: Supreme Court in precedent cases.
1. WON Blanco was denied due process and
equal protection of laws. Nolasco, not Alarilla, is adjudged as the
2. WON the COMELEC committed GAOD in Mayor of Meycauayan. It is already a settled
proclaiming Alarilla as the duly elected mayor principle in the case of Reyes v COMELEC
that the candidate with the second highest
number of votes cannot be proclaimed
HELD: winner in case the winning candidate be
1. No, Blanco was not denied due process and disqualified.
equal protection of the laws. He was given all
the opportunity to prove that the evidence on his The SC stated:
disqualification was not strong. The COMELEC
heard his petition. Blanco thereafter submitted
his position paper and reply to Alarilla's position
paper. The COMELEC considered the evidence
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) both mayoralty candidates of Mandaluyong City.
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Abalos won.
”T si p istica assu e t at t e sec nd After the proclamation of Abalos, Domingo filed
placer would have received the other votes the instant petition for disqualification, on the
would be to substitute our judgment for the ground that during the campaign period, Abalos
mind of the voter. The second placer is just "prodded" his father, then incumbent
that, a second placer. He lost the elections. Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr.,
He was repudiated by either a majority or to give "substantial allowances" to public school
plurality of voters. He could not be teachers appointed as chairpersons and
considered the first among qualified members of the Boards of Election Inspector
candidates because in a field which excludes (BEIs) for Mandaluyong City.
the disqualified candidate, the conditions
would have substantially changed. We are Petitioner's allegations were obtained from the
not prepared to extrapolate the results under "Pasyal-Aral" outing for Mandaluyong City public
t e ci cu stances ” school teachers, where Mayor Abalos, Sr.
announced that the teachers appointed to the
Nolasco was adjudged as Mayor of BEIs will each be given substantial allowances.
Meycauyan, Bulacan in view of the Petitioner alleged that it was done so as to
disqualification of Blanco. influence them into voting for him (Benhur) and
ensuring his victory.
Petitioner presented "overwhelming" pieces of

evidence -- photographs and of the said activity,
affidavits of 3 public school teachers, and
DOMINGO, JR. V. COMELEC videotapes showing Mayor Abalos Sr.
G.R. NO. 136587 AUGUST 30, 1999 announcing Benhur as the one responsible for
such release. These were "not denied" by
FACTS: During the May 11, 1998 elections, Benhur, who also presented "no evidence" to
petitioner Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and private substantiate his defense.
respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. (Benhur) were
ISSUE: WON Mayor Abalos Jr. (Benhur)
violated Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code. NO
Domingo alleges that Benhur's act of "prodding" HELD: Nothing in the affidavits suggests
his father constitutes a violation of Section 68 of knowledge on any degree of participation of
the Omnibus Election Code, the pertinent
Benhur in the grant of these allowances. His
provisions of which read:
name was not even mentioned or alluded to by
any of the three affiants. The videotapes did not
Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate prove his participation therein either. The burden
who, in an action or protest in which he is a of proving that private respondent indirectly
party is declared by final decision of a influenced the public school teachers, through
competent court guilty of, or found by the his father, was a burden that petitioner failed to
Commission of having (a) given money or meet. Neither is this burden overcome by the
other material consideration to argument that private respondent, for himself,
influence, induce or corrupt the voters had "no evidence" to rebut petitioner's
or public officials performing electoral allegations, since the burden of proving factual
functions; . . . shall be disqualified from claims rests on the party raising them.
continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, from holding the office. . . . Besides, it is not true that private respondent
gave only denials and did not present any
In dismissing the petition for disqualification for evidence to his defense. Benhur presented in
insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, the evidence a certified true copy of Joint Circular
COMELEC 1st Division admonished petitioner No. 1, series of 1998, issued by the DECS, DBM
and his counsel for attempting to mislead the and DILG, which authorized the payment of
COMELEC by making false and untruthful allowances of public school teachers chargeable
statements in his petition. to local government funds. The Joint Circular
provided the basis for private respondent's
On reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc, argument that the disbursement of funds by then
affirmed the findings and conclusions of its 1st
Division.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) motion to suspend the effects of the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever proclamation.
mayor Abalos, Sr. was valid as having been On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC disqualified
made pursuant to administrative circular, and Trinidad as a candidate in the May 8, 1995
was not an unlawful attempt made in conspiracy elections. Petitioner filed a Motion for
with private respondent to secure the latter's Reconsideration, claiming denial of due process
victory in the elections. alleging that there was no hearing conducted.
Then May 11, 1998 elections came, and was
In fine, we find no grave abuse of discretion in again proclaimed as duly elected Mayor of Iguig,
the COMELEC's decision to dismiss the petition Cagayan. But such proclamation was again
for disqualification. The conclusion that subsequently annulled.
petitioner's evidence is insufficient to support the
charge of violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus ISSUE: May petitioners proclamation as Mayor
Election Code was arrived at only after a careful under the May 11, 1998 elections be cancelled
scrutiny of the evidence at hand, especially of on account of the disqualification case filed
the videotapes of petitioner. against him during the May 8, 1995 elections?
HELD: NO. The expiration of the term of office

TRINIDAD V. SUNGA contested in the election protest has the effect of
rendering the election protest moot and
FACTS: Both Trinidad (incumbent mayor) and academic.
Sunga were candidates for the position of Mayor
in the Municipality of Iguig, Province of Cagayan, With the complaint for disqualification filed by
in the May 8, 1995 elections. Sunga rendered moot and academic by the
e pi ati n T inidad’s te ice t e ein contested,
Sunga filed letter-complaints for disqualification COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
against Trinidad. Meanwhile, the election results in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from his
showed that Trinidad garnered the highest reelected term of office in its second questioned
number of votes thus, he was proclaimed the Resolution on the ground that it
elected mayor, prompting Sunga to file another
Simultaneously therewith, she attempted to file

with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit
comes as a matter of course after his
of withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor.
disqualification in SPA No. 95-213 promulgated
However, the provincial election supervisor
after the 1998 election.
refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal and
suggested that, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution
While it is true that the first questioned
No. 3253-A, she should file it with the municipal
Resolution was issued eight (8) days before the
election officer of Baybay, Leyte where she filed
term of petitioner as Mayor expired, said
her certificate of candidacy for mayor.
Resolution had not yet attained finality and could
not effectively be held to have removed
Private respondents filed similar petitions to
petitioner from his office. Indeed, removal cannot
disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner
extend beyond the term during which the alleged
filed certificates of candidacy for two positions,
misconduct was committed. If a public official is
namely, that for mayor, and that for governor,
not removed before his term of office expires, he
thus, making her ineligible for both.
can no longer be removed if he is thereafter
reelected for another term.
The COMELEC granted the petition and
disqualified the petitioner from running for both
position.
GO V. COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether an affidavit of withdrawal of
FACTS: Petitioner was the incumbent
candidacy should be filed with the election
representative of the Fifth District, province of
officer of the place where the certificate of
Leyte when she filed on February 27, 2001 with
candidacy was filed
the municipal election officer of the municipality
of Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for
HELD: NO. There is nothing in Section 73 of the
mayor of the said municipality.
Omnibus Election Code which mandates that the
On February 28, 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner
filed with the provincial election supervisor of
Leyte, with office at Tacloban City, another
certificate of candidacy for governor.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Dimaporo was elected Representative for the
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur
during the 1987 congressional elections. He took
affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the his oath of office on 9 January 1987 and
same office where the certificate of candidacy to thereafter performed the duties and enjoyed the
be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed rights and privileges pertaining thereto.
directly with the main office of the COMELEC, On 15 January 1990, Dimaporo filed with the
the office of the regional election director COMELEC a COC for the position of Regional
concerned, the office of the provincial election Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
supervisor of the province to which the Mindanao. The election was scheduled for 17
municipality involved belongs, or the office of the February 1990.
municipal election officer of the said municipality. Upon being informed of this development by the
While it may be true that Section 12 of COMELEC, Mitra, Speaker and Secretary of the
COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A requires that House of Representatives excluded petitioner's
the withdrawal be filed before the election officer name from the Roll of Members of the House of
of the place where the certificate of candidacy Representatives pursuant to Section 67, Article
was filed, such requirement is merely directory, IX of the OEC.
and is intended for convenience. DImaporo lost in the autonomous region
elections, through a letter, he expressed his
intention "to resume performing my duties and
G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 functions as elected Member of Congress." The
MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO, petitioner, record does not indicate what action was taken
vs. on this communication, but it is apparent that
HON. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., Speaker, House Dimaporo failed in his bid to regain his seat in
of Representatives, and (Hon. QUIRINO D. Congress since this petition praying for such
ABAD SANTOS, JR.) HON. CAMILO L. SABIO relief was subsequently filed on 31 January
Secretary, House of 1991.
representatives, respondent. Dimaporo now contends that following the
DAVIDE, JR., J.:p dropping of his name from the Roll, he was
excluded from all proceedings of the House of
FACTS:
b) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a
disciplinary action for disorderly behavior;
c) Section 17: Disqualification as
Representatives; he was not paid the determined by resolution of the Electoral
emoluments due his office; his staff was Tribunal in an election contest; and,
dismissed and disbanded; and his office suites d) Section 7, par. 2: Voluntary
were occupied by other persons. In effect, he renunciation of office.
was virtually barred and excluded from
He maintains that section 67, Article IX of B.P.
performing his duties and from exercising his
Blg. 881 is repugnant to these constitutional
rights and privileges as the duly elected and
provisions in that it provides for the shortening of
qualified congressman from his district.
a congressman's term of office on a ground not
Dimaporo admits that he filed a COC for the provided for in the Constitution. Neither can it be
position of Regional Governor of Muslim justified as an interpretation of the Constitutional
Mindanao. He, however, maintains that he did provision on voluntary renunciation of office as
not thereby lose his seat as congressman only the courts may interpret laws. Moreover, he
because Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is claims that he cannot be said to have forfeited
not operative under the present Constitution, his seat as it is only when a congressman holds
being contrary thereto, and therefore not another office or employment that forfeiture is
applicable to the present members of Congress. decreed. Filing a COC is not equivalent to
Dimaporo points out that the term of office of holding another office or employment.
members of the House of Representatives, as Mitra, et. al. through the Office of the Solicitor
well as the grounds by which the incumbency of
General contend that Section 67, Article IX of
said members may be shortened, are provided
B.P. Blg. 881 is still operative under the present
for in the Constitution. The grounds by which
Constitution, as the voluntary act of resignation
such term may be shortened may be
contemplated in said Section 67 falls within the
summarized as follows:
a) Section 13, Article VI: Forfeiture
of his seat by holding any other office or
employment in the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or
controlled corporations or
subsidiaries;
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) a permanent capacity except for
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever President and Vice-President shall
be considered ipso facto resigned
term "voluntary renunciation" of office from his office upon the filing of his
enunciated in par. 2, Section 7, Article VI of the COC.
Constitution. That the ground provided in The precursor of this provision is the last
Section 67 is not included in the Constitution paragraph of Section 2 of C.A. No. 666, which
does not affect its validity as the grounds reads:
mentioned therein are not exclusive. There are, Any elective provincial, municipal,
in addition, other modes of shortening the tenure or city official running for an office,
of office of Members of Congress, among which other than the one for which he
are resignation, death and conviction of a crime has been lastly elected, shall be
which carries a penalty of disqualification to hold considered resigned from his office
public office. from the moment of the filing of his
Respondents assert that petitioner's filing of a COC.
COC is an act of resignation which estops him Section 27 of Article II of Republic Act No. 180
from claiming otherwise as he is presumed to be reiterated this rule in this wise:
aware of existing laws. They further maintain Sec. 27. Candidate holding office.
that their questioned "administrative act" is a — Any elective provincial,
mere ministerial act which did not involve any municipal or city official running for
encroachment on judicial powers. an office, other than the one which
he is actually holding, shall be
ISSUE: W the mere filing of a COC ipso facto considered resigned from
considers an elective official resigned? YES Is office from the moment of the filing
Sec 67 BP 881 still operative? YES of his COC.
Sec 67 BP881 of OEC is constitutional and is
RULING operative even if it is not expressly written in the
Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 reads: Any constitution.
elective official whether national or The rationale is that the officials
local running for any office other running for office other than the ones they
than the one which he is holding in
Sec. 1. Public office is a public
trust. Public officers and employees must
at all times be accountable to the people,
are holding will be considered resigned serve them with utmost responsibility,
not because of abuse of facilities of integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
power or the use of office facilities but patriotism and justice, and lead modest
primarily because under our Constitution, lives.
we have this new chapter on
Obviously then, petitioner's assumption
accountability of public officers.
that the questioned statutory provision is no
Now, what is the significance of longer operative does not hold water. He failed
this provision on accountability of public to discern that rather than cut short the term of
officers? This only means that all elective office of elective public officials, this statutory
public officials should honor the mandate provision seeks to ensure that such officials
they have gotten from the people. serve out their entire term of office by
Argument was said that the mere discouraging them from running for another
filing is not the intention to run. Now, what public office and thereby cutting short their
is it for? If a Batasan Member files the tenure by making it clear that should they fail in
COC, that means that he does not want to their candidacy, they cannot go back to their
serve, otherwise, why should he file for an former position. This is consonant with the
office other than the one he was elected constitutional edict that all public officials must
to? The mere fact therefore of filing a serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle
certificate should be considered the overt with the mandate which they have received from
act of abandoning or relinquishing his their constituents.
mandate to the people and that he should When an elective official covered thereby
therefore resign if he wants to seek another files a COC for another office, he is deemed to
position which he feels he could be of have voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his
better service. (Garcia) term. The term remains and his successor, if
It cannot be gainsaid that the same constitutional any, is allowed to serve its unexpired portion.
basis for Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881
remains written in the 1987 Constitution. In fact,
Section 1 of Article XI on "Accountability of Public
Officers" is more emphatic in stating:
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Even then, the concept of voluntary renunciation
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever of office under Section 7, Article VI of the
Constitution is broad enough to include the
That the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX of situation envisioned in Section 67, Article IX of
B.P. Blg. 881 is not mentioned in the B.P. Blg. 881.
Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the The act contemplated in Section 67, Article IX of
tenure of office of members of Congress, does B.P. Blg. 881, of filing a COC for another office
not preclude its application to present members constitutes an overt, concrete act of voluntary
of Congress. Section 2 of Article XI provides that renunciation of the elective office presently being
"(t)he President, the Vice-President, the held is evident.
Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of As the mere act of filing the COC for another
the Constitutional Commissions, and the office produces automatically the permanent
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on forfeiture of the elective position being presently
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable held, it is not necessary, as petitioner opines,
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, that the other position be actually held. The
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or ground for forfeiture in Section 13, Article VI of
betrayal of public trust. All other public officers the 1987 Constitution is different from the
and employees may be removed from office as forfeiture decreed in Section 67, Article IX of
provided by law, but not by impeachment. Such B.P. Blg. 881, which is actually a mode of
constitutional expression clearly recognizes that voluntary renunciation of office under Section 7,
the four (4) grounds found in Article VI of the par. 2 of Article VI of the Constitution.
Constitution by which the tenure of a The legal effects of filing a COC for another
Congressman may be shortened are not office having been spelled out in Section 67,
exclusive. Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881 itself, no statutory
The basic principle which underlies the entire interpretation was indulged in by respondents
field of legal concepts pertaining to the validity of Speaker and Secretary of the House of
legislation is that by enactment of legislation, a Representatives in excluding petitioner's name
constitutional measure is presumed to be from the Roll of Members. The Speaker is the
created. This Court has enunciated the administrative head of the House of
presumption in favor of constitutionality of Representatives and he exercises administrative
legislative enactment.
impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions
which public policy may dictate on his office.
powers and functions attached to his office. As
administrative officers, both the Speaker and MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO vs. HON. RAMON
House Secretary-General perform ministerial V. MITRA, JR., Speaker, House of
functions. It was their duty to remove petitioner's Representatives, and HON. CAMILO L. SABIO
name from the Roll considering the unequivocal Secretary, House of Representatives
tenor of Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881.
When the COMELEC communicated to the Davide, Jr., J.:
House of Representatives that petitioner had
filed his COC for regional governor of Muslim FACTS: Petitioner Dimaporo was elected
Mindanao, respondents had no choice but to Representative for the Second Legislative District
abide by the clear and unmistakable legal effect of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional
of Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881. It was elections. In January 1990, he filed a Certificate of
their ministerial duty to do so. These officers Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor
cannot refuse to perform their duty on the of the ARMM with the
ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute Comelec. Upon being informed of this
imposing the duty. The reason for this is development, respondents Speaker and Secretary
obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of the House of Representatives
of public business if these officers were to be (HOR) e c uded petiti ne ’s na e t e R of Members
permitted in all cases to question the of the HOR pursuant to Sec. 67, Art. IX of the
constitutionality of statutes and ordinances 1
Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) enacted in
imposing duties upon them and which have not 1985. He was excluded from all proceedings of
judicially been declared unconstitutional. the House, was not paid the
Officers of the government from the highest to
the lowest are creatures of the law and are
bound to obey it. 1 Sec. 67, Art. IX of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881): Any elective
In conclusion, We reiterate the basic concept
that a public office is a public trust. It is created
for the interest and benefit of the people. As
such, the holder thereof is subject to such
regulations and conditions as the law may
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Constitution the Constitution
as the may not be
voluntary act extended or
emoluments due his office, and his office
shortene
suites were occupied by other persons. When
of resignation d by
he lost his bid for the gubernatorial race,
petitioner expressed his intention to resume contemplated the legislature.
performing his duties and functions as an in the said However, the
ELECTED MEMBER OF CONGRESS. HE IS perio
NOW CLAIMING THAT SEC. 67, ART. IX OF provision falls d during
BP BLG. 881 IS NOT OPERATIVE UNDER within the which an officer
the present Constitution which provides term actually holds
specific grounds by which the term of “ unta the office
members of the House can be shortened .
2 renunciation (tenure) may
ice” in be affected by
ISSUES: Sec. 7(2), Art. circumstances
1. W/N Sec. 67, Art. IX of BP Blg. 881 is VI of the within or
operative under the 1987 Constitution Constitution. beyond the
2. W/N the respondent Speaker and/or powe
esp ndent Sec eta “ad inist ati e act” r of said
could exclude petitioner from the rolls of the officer. Tenure
may be shorter
HOR
than the term
HELD/RATIO: or it may not
1.
Petitioner Respondents Court
No. TheYes. Sec. 67, Yes. “ erm” 2 Sec. 7(2), Art. VI: Voluntary renunciation of office.
provisio Art. IX Sec. 13, Art. VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other office or
employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or
n cutsof BP is different instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
short the term Blg. 881 is from “tenure” controlled corporations or subsidiaries.
Sec. 16(3), Art. VI: Expulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly
stil behavior. Sec. 17, Art. VI: Disqualification as determined by resolution of
of office of a l operative of office. The the Electoral Tribunal in an election contest.
Member of under the term of office COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 158
Congress. present prescribed by
unexpired
portion
.
even exist at
Under the rule The grounds Sec. 2, Art. XI
all. Under the mentione
questioned expression d in of the
provision, uniu
when an s est the Constitution
elective exclusion Constitution provides that
officia alterius
l 3
, the cannot be all public
covered statute is exclusive officer to the
thereby files a s
certificate of repugnan
candidacy for t to since there exclusion of the
another office, the pertinent are other President,
he is deemed constitutional modes of Vice-President,
to have provision
voluntarily cut s shortening the Members of the
short his since it tenure of Supreme
tenure provides for office of a Court,
, NOT the shortening Member of Members of the
his term. The of a Congress Constitutional
term remains c ng ess an’ such as Commissions,
and his s term of resignation, and the
successor, if office on a death, and Ombudsman
any, is allowed ground not conviction of may be
to serve its provided for in a crime, removed from
the present which carries office as ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia)
Constitution. a penalty of
provided by
If it were the disqualificatio
law. This
intent of the n to hold
clearly
recognize
framers to public office, s
include the which are not that the 4
provision
s of included in grounds
Sec. 67, Art. the found in Art.
IX of BP Blg. enumeration. VI of the
881, they Constitution
should have by which the
incorporated it tenure of a
3 The expression of one thing excludes all others.

in the 1987 Congressman
Constitution. may be
shortened are
NOT
exclusive.
The legal
maxim should
not be applied
with the same
rigor in
construing a
constitution as
a statute
because the
maxim is only a
rule of
interpretation
and not a
constitutional
command. It
serves only as
an aid in
discovering
legislative
intent where
such intent is
not otherwise
manifest.
He cannot be etiti ne ’s Petitioner failed
said to have filing of a to discern that
forfeited his Certificate of the purpose of
seat as it is Candidacy is the statutory
only when a an act of provision is not
congressman resignation, to cut short the
holds another which estops term of office of
office or him from public officials
employment claiming but rather to
that forfeiture otherwise ensure that
is decreed, because he is such officials
pursuant to presumed to serve out their
Sec. 13, Art. be aware of entire term of
VI of the existing laws. office by
Constitution. discouraging
them from
running for
another public
office. Sec. 67,
Art. IX of BP
Blg. 881 makes
it clear that
should
incumbent
public officials
fail in their
candidacy for
another office,
they cannot go
back to their

former position. nothing save a

This is in new election or
perfect appointment
consonance can restore the
with the ousted official.
constitutional
edict that all A public office
public is a public trust.
officials must It is created for
serve the the interest and
people with benefit of the
utmost loyalty people. As
and not trifle such, the
with the holder of such
mandate an office is
which they subject to
have received regulations and
from their conditions as
constituents. the law may
impose and he
The ground cannot
for forfeiture complain of
in Sec. 13, Art. any restrictions
VI of the which public
Constitution policy may
is different dictate on his
from the office.
forfeiture
decreed in 2.
Sec. 67, Art. IX
of BP Blg.
881, which is
actually a
mode of
voluntary
renunciation
of office under
Sec. 7, Art. VI
of the
Constitution.
As discussed
by
Constitutional
Commissioners
, the filing of the
certificate of candidacy is already an
overt act of an intention to relinquish the
office currently held.
Oncethe
certificate is filed,
the seat is forever
forfeited and
Petitioner Respondents Court
No. Yes. Their Yes. Since
Resp ndents’ questioned the legal
so-called “ad inistrative effects of filing
“ad inist ati e act” is a ee a certificate of
act” cann t e ministerial act, candidacy
justified as an which did not have already
interpretation involve any been spelled
of the encroachment out in Sec. 67,
Constitutional on judicial Art. IX of BP
provision on powers. Blg. 881,
voluntary respondents
renunciation of can’t be said
office because to have
only the courts indulged in
can interpret any statutory
laws. interpretation.
Both of them
perform
ministerial
functions as
administrative
officers and it
was their duty
to remove
petiti ne ’s
name from
the Roll
considering

obey it.
the
DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES
unequivocal
tenor of Sec.
Before Elections
67, Art. IX of
BP Blg. 881.
G.R. No. 105436 June 2, 1994 EUGENIO
They cannot
JURILLA, MARCIANO MEDALLA,
refuse to
BERNARDO NAZAL, REY, MEDINA,
perform their
MELENCIO CASTELO and GODOFREDO
duty on the
LIBAN, petitioners,
ground of an
vs.
alleged
COMELEC and ANTONIO V.
invalidity of
HERNANDEZ, respondents.
the statute
BELLOSILLO, J.:
imposing such
duty because
FACTS:
it might hinder
EUGENIO JURILLA, MARCIANO MEDALLA,
the
BERNARDO NAZAL, REY MEDINA,
transaction of
MELENCIO CASTELO, GODOFREDO LIBAN
public
and ANTONIO V. HERNANDEZ were among
business. the candidates in the 11 May 1992 synchronized
Officers of the elections for the six (6) positions of councilor for
government the Second District of Quezon City.
from the
On 23 March 1992, Hernandez filed with the
highest to the
COMELEC his COC for one of the contested
lowest are
seats. In Item No. 6 of his certificate he gave as
creatures of his address "B 26, L 1 New Capitol Estates,
the law and Quezon City." However, he did not indicate on
are bound to
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) qualification before the COMELEC explaining
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever however that since they became aware of the
g unds He nandez’s qua i icati n n a te the
the space provided in Item No. 12 therein his elections, they chose to file their petition under
Precinct Number and the particular Barangay Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
where he was a registered voter. His biodata authorizing the filing of such petition at any day
submitted together with his COC gave his after the last day for filing certificates of
address as "Acacia Street, Mariana, Quezon candidacy but not later than the date of
City," which is part of the Fourth District of proclamation.
Quezon City. In other words, his COC and his Hernandez alleged that his failure to so state in
biodata filed with COMELEC did not expressly his certificate of candidacy his Precinct Number
state that he was a registered voter of Quezon is satisfactorily explained by him in that at the
City or that he was a resident of the Second time he filed his certificate he was not yet
District thereof within the purview of Sec. 39, assigned a particular Precinct Number in the
par. (a), of the Local Government Code of 1991, Second District of Quezon City. He was formerly
which provides: a registered voter of Manila, although for the
Sec. 39. Qualifications — (a) An elective past two (2) years prior to the elections he was
local official must be a citizen of the already a resident of "B 26, L 1 New Capitol
Philippines; a registered voter in the Estates," admittedly within the Second District of
barangay, municipality, city, or province Quezon City. This was confirmed in the
or, in the case of a member of the Municipal Trial Court, and his petition was
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang granted.
panglunsod, or sangguniang bayan, the On 2 June 1992, COMELEC promulgated its
district where he intends to be elected; a questioned resolution denying the petition for
resident therein for at least one (1) disqualification for being filed outside the
year immediately preceding the day of reglementary period under Sec. 5 of RA 6646,
the election; and able to read and write which pertains to nuisance candidates.
Filipino or any other local language or Hence the instant petition for certiorari imputing
dialect. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
In view of the seeming deficiency in the COC
of Hernandez, Jurilla Et Al herein challenged his
office for which the COC has been
filed and thus prevent a faithful
determination of the true will of the
jurisdiction on the part of COMELEC in issuing electorate.
the assailed resolution of 2 June 1992.
Certainly, the holding of COMELEC that private
respondent Hernandez was a "nuisance
ISSUE: W Hernandez id a nuisance candidate? candidate" is erroneous because, tested against
NO the provisions of Sec. 69, there is no way by
which we can categorize him as a "nuisance
RULING: candidate," hence, the procedure therein
COMELEC referred to the action taken by provided could not have been properly invoked
petitioners herein as one to declare private by petitioners herein. Neither could they apply
respondent a "nuisance candidate" and Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
intimating that they should have instead which would require such petition to be filed at
petitioned COMELEC to refuse to give due any day after the last day for filing certificates of
course to or cancel the COC of private candidacy but not later than the date of
respondent, citing Sec. 69 of BP Blg. 881, which proclamation.
provides: While COMELEC therefore proceeded on the
Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. — erroneous premise that private respondent
The Commission may, motu Hernandez should be treated as a "nuisance
proprio or upon a verified petition candidate" as already shown, nevertheless its
of an interested party, refuse to conclusion to dismiss the petition and give due
give due course to or cancel a course to the candidacy of private respondent he
COC if it is shown that said being a qualified voter of Precinct No. 233-B,
certificate has been filed to put the New Capitol Estates, Barangay Batasan Hills,
election process in mockery or must be sustained.
disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity JURILLA VS. COMELEC
of the names of the registered
candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has
no bona fide intention to run for the
HELD: No. It may be gleaned from the
provisions of Sec. 39, par. (a), of the Local
Government Code of 1991, earlier quoted, that
FACTS: On March 23, 1992, respondent the law does not specifically require that a
Antonio V. Hernandez filed with the Commission candidate must state in his certificate of
on Elections his certificate of candidacy for one candidacy his Precinct Number and the
of the contested seats for councilors in the Barangay where he is registered. Apparently, it
Second District of Quezon City. In Item No. 6 of is enough that he is actually registered as a
is ce ti icate e ga e as is add ess “ 26 L 1 New voter in the precinct where he intends to vote,
Capit Estates, Quez n Cit ” H we e , e which should be within the district where he is
did not indicate in the space provided in Item No. running for office.
12 therein his Precinct Number and the
particular Barangay where he was a registered In the case at bar, his failure to state in his
voter. certificate of candidacy his Precinct Number is
satisfactorily explained by him in that at the time
His biodata submitted together with his he filed his certificate he was not yet assigned a
certificate of candidacy gave his address as particular Precinct Number in the Second District
“ cacia St eet, Ma iana, Quez n Cit ,” w ic is of Quezon City. He was formerly a registered
a part of the Fourth District of Quezon City. In voter of Manila, although for the past two (2)
other words, his certificate of candidacy and his years prior to the elections he was already a
biodata filed with the COMELEC did not esident “ 26, L 1 New Capit Estates,” admittedly
expressly state that he was a registered voter of within the Second District of Quezon City
Quezon City or that he was a resident of the
Second District thereof within the purview of
Sec. 39, par. (a), of the Local Government Code
of 1991. COQUILLA vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914 July 31, 2002
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of a candidate
to indicate his Precinct Number and the
particular Barangay where he was a registered
voter invalidates his certificate of candidacy.
Samar. His application was approved by the
Election Registration Board on January 12,
2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his
FACTS: Petitioner Coquilla was born on certificate of candidacy stating therein that he
February 17, 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for
Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there "two (2) years."
until 1965, when he joined the United States
Navy. He was subsequently naturalized as a
On March 5, 2001, respondent Neil M. Alvarez,
U.S. citizen. From 1970 to 1973, petitioner thrice
who was the incumbent mayor of Oras and who
visited the Philippines while on leave from the
was running for reelection, sought the
U.S. Navy.Otherwise, even after his retirement
cance ati n petiti ne ’s ce ti icate candidacy on
from the U.S. Navy in 1985, he remained in the
the ground that the latter had made a material
United States.
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy
by stating that he had been a resident of Oras
On October 15, 1998, petitioner came to the for two years when in truth he had resided
Philippines and took out a residence certificate, therein for only about six months since
although he continued making several trips to November 10, 2000, when he took his oath as a
the United States, the last of which took place on citizen of the Philippines.
July 6, 2000 and lasted until August 5, 2000.
Subsequently, petitioner applied for repatriation The COMELEC was unable to render judgment
under R.A. No. 8171 to the Special Committee on the case before the elections on May 14,
on Naturalization. His application was approved 2001. Meanwhile, petitioner was voted for and
on November 7, 2000, and, on November 10, received the highest number of votes (6,131)
2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the against p i ate esp ndent’s 5,752 tes, a margin of
Philippines. Petitioner was issued Certificate of 379 votes. On May 17, 2001, petitioner was
Repatriation No. 000737 on November 10, 2000 proclaimed mayor of Oras by the Municipal
and Bureau of Immigration Identification Board of Canvassers. He subsequently took his
Certificate No. 115123 on November 13, 2000. oath of office.
On November 21, 2000, petitioner applied for

registration as a voter of Butnga, Oras, Eastern
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) including its component cities, highly
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever urbanized city or district or sector which he
seeks to represent; the political party to which
On July 19, 2001, the Second Division of the he belongs; civil status; his date of birth;
COMELEC g anted p i ate esp ndent’s petiti n residence; his post office address for all
and de ed t e cance ati n petiti ne ’s certificate of election purposes; his profession or
candidacy. occupation; that he will support and defend
the Constitution of the Philippines and will
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that
his motion was denied by the COMELEC en he will obey the laws, legal orders, and
banc on January 30, 2002. Hence this petition. decrees promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities; that he is not a permanent
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC was justified in resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that
ordering the cancellation of his certificate of the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed
candidacy for this reason. We hold that it was voluntarily, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated
HELD: T e state ent in petiti ne ’s ce ti icate in the certificate of candidacy are true to the
candidacy that he had been a resident of Oras, best of his knowledge.
Eastern Samar for "two years" at the time he
filed such certificate is not true. Petitioner made SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or
a false representation of a material fact in his cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A verified
certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such petition seeking to deny due course or to
certificate liable to cancellation. The Omnibus cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
Election Code provides: by any person exclusively on the ground that
any material representation contained therein
SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. as required under Section 74 hereof is false.
– The certificate of candidacy shall state that The petition may be filed at any time not later
the person filing it is announcing his than twenty-five days from the time of the
candidacy for the office stated therein and filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall
that he is eligible for said office; if for Member
of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 163
FACTS: On February 18, 1968, Neptali P.
Salcedo married Agnes Celiz. Without his first
marriage having been dissolved, Neptali P.
be decided, after due notice and hearing, not Salcedo married private respondent Ermelita
later than fifteen days before the election. Cacao in a civil ceremony held on September
21, 1986. Two days later, on September 23,
Indeed, it as een e d t at a candidate’s 1986, Ermelita Cacao contracted another
statement in her certificate of candidacy for the marriage with a certain Jesus Aguirre.
position of governor of Leyte that she was a
resident of Kananga, Leyte when this was not so Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and private
or that the candidate was a "natural-born" respondent Ermelita Cacao Salcedo both ran for
Filipino when in fact he had become an the position of mayor of the municipality of Sara,
Australian citizen constitutes a ground for the Iloilo in the May 11, 1998 elections, both of them
cancellation of a certificate of candidacy. having filed their respective certificates of
candidacy on March 27, 1998. However, on April
On the other hand, we held in Salcedo II v. 17, 1998, petitioner filed with the Comelec a
COMELEC that a candidate who used her petition seeking the cancellation of private
us and’s a i na e e en t ug t ei respondent's certificate of candidacy on the
marriage was void was not guilty of ground that she had made a false representation
misrepresentation concerning a material fact. In therein by stating that her surname was
the case at bar, what is involved is a false "Salcedo." Petitioner contended that private
state ent c nce ning a candidate’s qua i icati n respondent had no right to use said surname
for an office for which he filed the certificate of because she was not legally married to Neptali
candidacy. This is a misrepresentation of a Salcedo. On May 13, 1998, private respondent
material fact justifying the cancellation of was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of
petitioner’s ce ti icate candidac T e Sara, Iloilo.
cance ati n petiti ne ’s ce ti icate
candidacy in this case is thus fully justified.
SALCEDO II vs.COMELEC
G.R. No. 135886 August 16, 1999
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever HELD: Every person aspiring to hold any
elective public office must file a sworn certificate
On August 12, 1998, the Comelec's Second of candidacy. One of the things which should be
Division ruled, by a vote of 2 to 1, that since stated therein is that the candidate is eligible for
there is an existing valid marriage between the office.
Neptali Salcedo and Agnes Celiz, the
subsequent marriage of the former with private In case there is a material misrepresentation in
respondent is null and void. Consequently, the the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is
use by private respondent of the surname authorized to deny due course to or cancel such
"Salcedo" constitutes material misrepresentation certificate upon the filing of a petition by any
and is a ground for the cancellation of her person pursuant to section 78 of the Code which
certificate of candidacy. states that —
However, in its en banc Resolution dated A verified petition seeking to deny due course
October 6, 1998, the Comelec overturned its or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be
previous resolution, ruling that private filed by any person exclusively on the ground
respondent's certificate of candidacy did not that any material misrepresentation contained
contain any material misrepresentation. therein as required under Section 74 hereof is
false. The petition may be filed at any time not
This last resolution of the Comelec prompted later than twenty-five days from the time of
petitioner to repair to this Court by way of a the filing of the certificate of candidacy and
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that shall be decided, after due notice and
public respondent's ruling was issued in grave hearing, not later than fifteen days before the
abuse of its discretion. election.
ISSUE: Whether the use of such surname If the petition is filed within the statutory period
constitutes a material misrepresentation under and the candidate is subsequently declared by
section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (the final judgment to be disqualified before the
"Code") so as to justify the cancellation of her election, he shall not be voted for, and the votes
certificate of candidacy
certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised
under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg.
881), to wit:
cast for him shall not be counted. If for any
reason a candidate is not declared by final
(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78
judgment before an election to be disqualified
thereof which provides that:
and he is voted for and receives the winning
number of votes in such election, the Court or
Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to
the Comelec shall continue with the trial and
cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified
hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and,
petition seeking to deny due course or to
upon motion of the complainant or any
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
intervenor, may during the pendency thereof
by any person exclusively on the ground that
order the suspension of the proclamation of such
any material misrepresentation contained
candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is
therein as required under Section 74 hereof is
strong. The fifteen-day period in section 78 for
false. The petition may be filed at any time not
deciding the petition is merely directory.
later than twenty-five days from the time of
the filing of the certificate of candidacy and
As stated in the law, in order to justify the shall be decided, after due notice and
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under hearing, not later than fifteen days before the
section 78, it is essential that the false election.
representation mentioned therein pertain to a
material matter for the sanction imposed by this
And
provision would affect the substantive rights of a
candidate — the right to run for the elective post
(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253
for which he filed the certificate of candidacy.
thereof, viz.:
Although the law does not specify what would be
considered as a "material representation," the
Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. — Any
Court has interpreted this phrase in a line of
voter contesting the election of any Member
decisions applying section 78 of the Code.
There are two instances where a petition

questioning the qualifications of a registered
candidate to run for the office for which his
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever a false representation in his certificate of
candidacy are grave — to prevent the candidate
of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, from running or, if elected, from serving, or to
provincial, or city officer on the ground of prosecute him for violation of the election laws. It
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of could not have been the intention of the law to
the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for deprive a person of such a basic and
quo warranto with the Commissionwithin ten substantive political right to be voted for a public
days after the proclamation of the results of office upon just any innocuous mistake.
the election.
Petitioner has made no allegations concerning
The only difference between the two private respondent's qualifications to run for the
proceedings is that, under section 78, the office of mayor. Aside from his contention that
qualifications for elective office are she made a misrepresentation in the use of the
misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy surname "Salcedo," petitioner does not claim
and the proceedings must be initiated before the that private respondent lacks the requisite
elections, whereas a petition for quo warranto residency, age, citizenship or any other legal
under section 253 may be brought on the basis qualification necessary to run for a local elective
of two grounds — (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty office as provided for in the Local Government
to the Republic of the Philippines, and must be Code. Thus, petitioner has failed to discharge
initiated within ten days after the proclamation of the burden of proving that the misrepresentation
the election results. Under section 253, a allegedly made by private respondent in her
candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be certificate of candidacy pertains to a material
elected to office, and he is disqualified if he lacks matter.
any of the qualifications for elective office.
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false
representation under section 78 must consist of
The material misrepresentation contemplated a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or
by section 78 of the Code refers to qualifications hide a fact which would otherwise render a
for elective office. This conclusion is candidate ineligible." In other words, it must be
strengthened by the fact that the consequences COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 165
latter made a false representation in his
certificate of candidacy as to his age. On 7
March 1990, the other candidate, respondent
made with an intention to deceive the electorate Edris, filed a "Petition in Intervention" raising the
as to one's qualifications for public office. The same issue. Pet Loong seek the dismissal of the
use of a surname, when not intended to mislead petition and allege that it is not a practice among
or deceive the public as to one's identity, is not the Muslim people in the community where
within the scope of the provision. respondent was born to record the birth of a
child with the Office of the Civil Registry and that
Thus, we hold that private respondent did not respondent COMELEC has no jurisdiction
commit any material misrepresentation by the because such petition is actually one which is to
use of the surname "Salcedo" in her certificate of deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy. candidacy which, under Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), as amended
by Election Reforms Law of 1987, should have
LOONG VS COMELEC been filed within 5 days following the last day for
December 22,1992 filing of the certificate of candidacy.
FACTS: On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed On 15 May 1990, the respondent COMELEC
with the respondent Commission his certificate rendered that it has jurisdiction to try the instant
of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of petiti n and L ng’s ti n t dis iss n t e ground of
the Mindanao Autonomous Region in the lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied. He filed a
election held on 17 February 1990 (15 January MR which was also denied.
1990 being the last day for filing said certificate);
herein two (2) private respondents (Ututalum Loong contends that the case was filed out of
and Edris) were also candidates for the same time because it was filed beyond the 25-day
position. period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. On the other hand, private
On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election),
respondent Ututalum filed before the respondent
Commission (Second Division) a petition
seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of
Regional Vice-Governor, on the ground that the
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) candidate Loong only on 5 March 1990, or forty-
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever nine (49) days from the date Loong's certificate
of candidacy was filed (i.e. 15 January 1990),
respondent Ututalum alleges that SPA No. 90- and sixteen (16) days after the election itself.
006, though filed only on 5 March 1990, was
filed when no proclamation of winner had as yet On the part of respondent Commission, it held in
been made and that the petition is deemed filed its assailed resolution that the petition in SPA
on time as Section 3, Rule 25 of the Comelec No. 90-006 was timely filed, applying Sections 6
Rules of Procedure states that the petition to 9
and 7 of Republic Act No. 6646, and Section 2,
disqualify a candidate on grounds of ineligibility Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure
"shall be filed any day after the last day for filing which states that the petition to deny due course
of certificates of candidacy but not later than the to or cancel a certificate of candidacy must be
date of proclamation." filed within five (5) days following the last day for
the filing of a certificate of candidacy, both read
On 3 July 1990, Loong was proclaimed as the in the light of the Frivaldo ruling.
duly elected Vice-Governor of the Mindanao
Autonomous Region. Hence, this special civil Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code
action of certiorari to annul the aforesaid provides that the certificate of candidacy of the
resolutions of respondent Commission. person filing it shall state, among others, the
date of birth of said person. Section 78 of the
ISSUE: WON the disqualification case same Code states that is case a person filing a
against Loong was filed within the period certificate of candidacy has committed false
prescribed by law. representation, a petition to cancel the certificate
of the aforesaid person may be filed within
RULE: NO. The undisputed facts are as follows: twenty-five (25) days from the time the
petitioner Loong filed his certificate of candidacy certificate was filed. Clearly, such was filed
on 15 January 1990 (The last day for filing the beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section
same), the election for officials of the Muslim 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Mindanao Autonomous Region being on 17
February 1990; but private respondent Ututalum
filed the petition (SPA 90-006) to disqualify
amount in excess of that allowed by contribution
prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and
104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85,
Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-
refers to Disqualification of Candidates; and paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from
Section 1 of said rule provides that any continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
candidate who commits any act declared by law elected, from holding the office. Any person who
to be a ground for disqualification may be is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to
disqualified from continuing as a candidate. The foreign country shall not be qualified to run for
grounds for disqualification as expressed in any elective office under this Code, unless said
Sections 12 and 68 of the Code are the or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance
following: with the residence requirement provided for in
the election law.
SEC. 12. Disqualification. — Any person who
has been declared by competent authority The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum
insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced does not fall under the grounds of
by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is
rebellion or for any offense for which he was expressly covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec
sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel
months wor for a crime involving moral turpitude, certificate of candidacy. Moreover, Section 3,
shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at
hold any office, unless he has been given any time after the last day for the filing of
plenary pardon or granted amnesty. certificates of candidacy but not later than the
date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule
SEC. 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate issued by respondent Commission which,
who, in an action or protest in which he is a party although a constitutional body, has no legislative
is declared by final decision of a competent court powers. Thus, it cannot supersede Section 78
guilty of, or found by the Commission of having
(a) given money or other material consideration
to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or
public official performing electoral functions; (b)
committed acts of terrorism to enhance his
candidacy; (c) spent in his election compaign an
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the petition within the 25-day period prescribed
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever by Section 78 of the Code for whatever reasons,
the election laws do not leave him completely
of the Omnibus Election Code which is a helpless as he has another chance to raise the
legislative enactment. disqualification of the candidate by filing a
petition forquo warranto within ten (10) days
Moreover, it will be noted that nothing in from the proclamation of the results of the
Sections 6 or 7 modified or alters the 25-day election, as provided under Section 253 of the
period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for Code. Section 1 Rule 21 of the Comelec Rules
filing the appropriate action to cancel a of procedure similarly provides that any voter
certificate of candidacy on account of any false contesting the election of any regional, provincial
representation made therein. On the contrary, or city official on the ground of ineligibility or of
said Section 7 affirms and reiterates Section 78 disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines may
of the Code. Section 6 refers only to the effects file a petition for quo warranto with the Electoral
of a disqualification case which may be based Contest Adjudication Department. The petition
on grounds other than that provided under may be filed within ten (10)days from the date
Section 78 of the Code. But Section 7 of Rep. the respondent is proclaimed (Section 2).
Act No. 6646 also makes the effects referred to
in Section 6 applicable to disqualification cases It is true that the discovery of false
filed under Section 78 of the Code. Nowhere in representation as to material facts required to be
Section 6 and 7 Rep. Act. No 6646 is mentioned stated in a certificate of candidacy, under
made of the period within which these Section 74 of the Code, may be made only after
disqualification cases may be filed. This is the lapse of the 25-day period prescribed by
because there are provisions in the Code which Section 78 of the Code, through no fault of the
supply the periods within which a petition person who discovers such misrepresentations
relating to disqualification of candidates must be and who would want the disqualification of the
filed, such as Section 78, already discussed, and candidate committing the misrepresentations. It
Section 253 on petitions for quo warranto. would seem, therefore, that there could indeed
be a gap between the time of the discovery of
Thus, if a person qualified to file a petition to the misrepresentation, (when the discovery is
disqualification a certain candidate fails to file COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 167
G.R. No. 120295. June 28, 1996] JUAN G.
FRIVALDO vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE
made after the 25-day period under Sec. 78 of
the Code has lapsed) and the time when the [G.R. No. 123755. June 28, 1996]
proclamation of the results of the election is RAUL R. LEE vs. COMMISSION ON
made. During this so-called "gap" the would-be ELECTIONS and JUAN G. FRIVALDO
petitioner (who would seek the disqualification of
the candidate) is left with nothing to do except to
wait for the proclamation of the results, so that
Juan G. Frivaldo filed his Certificate of
he could avail of a remedy against the
Candidacy for the office of Governor of
misrepresenting candidate, that is, by filing a
Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections. On
petition for quo warranto against him. March 23, 1995, petitioner Raul R. Lee, another
Respondent Commission sees this "gap" in what candidate, filed a petition with the Comelec
it calls a procedural gap which, according to it, it praying that Frivaldo "be disqualified from
unnecessary and should be remedied. seeking or holding any public office or position
by reason of not yet being a citizen of the
In sum, tha case filed by private respondent Philippines," and that his Certificate of
Ututalum beyond the 25-day period (from the Candidacy be cancelled. On May 1, 1995, the
filing by petitioner Loong of the questioned Second Division of the Comelec promulgated a
certificate of candidacy) prescribed by Section Resolution granting the petition.
78 of the Code. It follows that the dismissal of
said petition for disqualification is warranted. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo
Further it would appear that we cannot treat remained unacted upon until after the May 8,
such as a petition for quo warranto (Section 253 1995 elections. So, his candidacy continued and
of the Code) for when it was filed with the he was voted for during the elections held on
respondent Commission, no proclamation of said date. On May 11, 1995, the Comelec en
election results had as yet been made, it was banc affirmed the aforementioned Resolution of
premature. the Second Division.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever "his petition for repatriation under P.D. 725
which he filed with the Special Committee on
The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed Naturalization in September 1994 had been
the canvass of the election returns and a granted." As such, when "the said order (dated
Certificate of Votes was issued showing the June 21, 1995) (of the Comelec) x x x was
following votes obtained by the candidates for released and received by Frivaldo on June 30,
the position of Governor of Sorsogon: Antonio H. 1995 at 5:30 o'clock in the evening, there was no
Escudero, Jr. 51,060, Juan G. Frivaldo 73,440, more legal impediment to the proclamation (of
RaulR.Lee 53,304, Isagani P. Ocampo 1,925 Frivaldo) as governor x x x." In the alternative,
he averred that pursuant to the two cases of
On June 9, 1995, Lee filed a (supplemental) Labo vs. Comelec, the Vice-Governor— not Lee
petition praying for his proclamation as the duly- — should occupy said position of governor.
elected Governor of Sorsogon.
On December 19, 1995, the Comelec First
In an orderdated June 21, 1995, but Division promulgated the herein assailed
promulgated according to the petition "only on Resolution holding that Lee, "not having
June 29, 1995," the Comelec en bane directed garnered the highest number of votes," was not
"the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon legally entitled to be proclaimed as duly-elected
to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming governor; and that Frivaldo, "having garnered
candidate Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial the highest number of votes, and having
candidate in the province of Sorsogon on June reacquired his Filipino citizenship by repatriation
29,1995 x x x." Accordingly, at 8:30 in the on June 30, 1995 under the provisions of
evening of June 30,1995, Lee was proclaimed Presidential Decree No. 725 is qualified to hold
governor of Sorsogon. the office of governor of Sorsogon".
Frivaldo filed with the Comelec a new petition ISSUES:

praying for the annulment of the June 30, 1995 1. Is Frivaldo's "judicially declared"
proclamation of Lee and for his own disqualification for lack of Filipino citizenship a
proclamation. He alleged that on June 30, 1995, continuing bar to his eligibility to run for, be
at 2:00 in the afternoon, he took his oath of
2. Frivaldo assails the validity of the Lee
proclamation. We uphold him for the following
reasons:
elected to or hold the governorship of Sorsogon
– NO! First. To paraphrase this Court in Labo vs.
2. Was the proclamation of Lee, a runner-up in COMELEC, "the fact remains that he (Lee) was
the election, valid and legal in light of existing not the choice of the sovereign will," and in
jurisprudence? -NO! Aquino vs. COMELEC, Lee is "a second
placer, just that, a second placer."
HELD:
1. It should be noted that our first ruling in G.R. "The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of a
No. 87193 disqualifying Frivaldo was rendered in candidate receiving majority votes does not
connection with the 1988 elections while that in entitle the eligible candidate receiving the
G.R. No. 104654 was in connection with the next highest number of votes to be declared
1992 elections. That he was disqualified for such elected. A minority or defeated candidate
elections is final and can no longer be changed. cannot be deemed elected to the office."
Indeed, decisions declaring the acquisition or Second. As we have earlier declared Frivaldo to
denial of citizenship cannot govern a have seasonably re-acquired his citizenship
person's future status with finality. This is and inasmuch as he obtained the highest
because a person may subsequently number of votes in the 1995 elections, he— not
reacquire, or for that matter lose, his Lee —should be proclaimed. Hence, Lee's
citizenship under any of the modes proclamation was patently erroneous and should
recognized by law for the purpose. now be corrected.
"Everytime the citizenship of a person is material CONCLUSION OF THE COURT:
or indispensable in a judicial or administrative In sum, we rule that the citizenship requirement
case, whatever the corresponding court or in the Local Government Code is
administrative authority decides therein as to
such citizenship is generally not considered res
judicata, hence it has to be threshed out again
and again, as the occasion demands."
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) Sorsogon is deemed to have been validated
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever as of said date as well. The foregoing, of
course, are precisely consistent with our holding
to be possessed by an elective official at the that lack of the citizenship requirement is not
latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at a continuing disability or disqualification to
the start of the term of office to which he has run for and hold public office. And once again,
been elected. We further hold P.D. No. 725 to we emphasize herein our previous rulings
be in full force and effect up to the present, not recognizing the Comelec's authority and
having been suspended or repealed expressly jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for
nor impliedly at any time, and Frivaldo's annulment of proclamations.
repatriation by virtue thereof to have been
properly granted and thus valid and effective. This Court has time and again liberally and
Moreover, by reason of the remedial or curative equitably construed the electoral laws of our
nature of the law granting him a new right to country to give fullest effect to the manifest
resume his political status and the legislative will of our people, for in case of doubt,
intent behind it, as well as his unique situation of political laws must be interpreted to give life
having been forced to give up his citizenship and and spirit to the popular mandate freely
political aspiration as his means of escaping a expressed through the ballot. Otherwise
regime he abhorred, his repatriation is to be stated, legal niceties and technicalities
given retroactive effect as of the date of his cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will.
application therefor, during the pendency of Consistently, we have held:
which he was stateless, he having given ' up his
U. S. nationality. "x x x (L)aws governing election contests must
be liberally construed to the end that the will of
Thus, in contemplation of law, he possessed the people in the choice of public officials may
the vital requirement of Filipino citizenship not be defeated by mere technical objections
as of the start of the term of office of (citations omitted)."
governor, and should have been proclaimed
instead of Lee. Furthermore, since his The law and the courts must accord Frivaldo
reacquisition of citizenship retroacted to every possible protection, defense and refuge, in
August 17, 1994, his registration as a voter of
have disputed the factual findings of the
Comelec that he was stateless at the time of
repatriation and thus hold his consequent
deference to the popular will. Indeed, this Court dual citizenship as a disqualification "from
has repeatedly stressed the importance of running for any elective local position." But
giving effect to the sovereign will in order to the real essence of justice does not emanate
ensure the survival of our democracy. In any from quibblings over patchwork legal
action involving the possibility of a reversal technicality. It proceeds from the spirit's gut
of the popular electoral choice, this Court consciousness of the dynamic role of law as
must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues a brick in the ultimate development of the
in a manner that would give effect to the will social edifice.
of the majority, for it is merely sound public
policy to cause elective offices to be filled by
Thus, the Court struggled against and eschewed
those who are the choice of the majority. To
the easy, legalistic, technical and sometimes
successfully challenge a winning candidate's
harsh anachronisms of the law in order to evoke
qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
substantial justice in the larger social context
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently
consistent with Frivaldo's unique situation
antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles
approximating venerability in Philippine political
that overriding such ineligibility and thereby
life.
giving effect to the apparent will of the people,
would ultimately create greater prejudice to the
Concededly, he sought American citizenship
very democratic institutions and juristic traditions
only to escape the clutches of the
that our Constitution and laws so zealously
dictatorship. At this stage, we cannot
protect and promote. In this undertaking, Lee
seriously entertain any doubt about his
has miserably failed.
loyalty and dedication to this country. At the
first opportunity, he returned to this land,
In Frivaldo's case, it would have been technically
and sought to serve his people once more.
easy to find fault with his cause. The Court
The people of Sorsogon overwhelmingly
could have refused to grant retroactivity to
the effects of his repatriation and hold him
still ineligible due to his failure to show his
citizenship at the time he registered as a
voter before the 1995 elections. Or, it could
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) be governed by a leader of their
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever overwhelming choice.
voted for him three times. He took an oath of
allegiance to this Republic every time he filed MARQUEZ VS COMELEC GR No. 112889
his certificate of candidacy and during his 243 SCRA 538 April 18, 1995
failed naturalization bid. And let it not be
overlooked, his demonstrated tenacity and sheer FACTS: Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated
determination to re-assume his nationality of candidate in the Province of Quezon filed a
birth despite several legal set-backs speak petition for certiorari praying for the reversal of
more loudly, in spirit, in fact and in truth than the COMELEC Resolution which dismissed his
any legal technicality, of his consuming petition for quo warranto against Eduardo
intention and burning desire to re-embrace Rodriguez, for being allegedly a fugitive from
his native Philippines even now at the ripe justice.
old age of 81 years.
It is averred that at the time private respondent
Such loyalty to and love of country as well as filed his certificate of candidacy, a criminal
nobility of purpose cannot be lost on this Court of charge against him for ten (10) counts of
justice and equity. Mortals of lesser mettle would insurance fraud or grand theft of personal
have given up. After all, Frivaldo was assured of property was still pending before the Municipal
a life of ease and plenty as a citizen of the most Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, County of
powerful country in the world. But he opted, nay, Los Angeles, State of California, U.S.A. A
single-mindedly insisted on returning to and warrant issued by said court for his arrest, it is
serving once more his struggling but beloved claimed, has yet to be served on private
land of birth. esp ndent n acc unt is a eged “ ig t” that
country.
He therefore deserves every liberal
interpretation of the law which can be applied etiti ne ’s su sequent ec u se (in G.R. No.
in his favor. And in the final analysis, over 105310) t e COMELEC’s Ma 8, 1992 resolution
and above Frivaldo himself, the indomitable was dismissed without prejudice,
people of Sorsogon most certainly deserve to
It has been held that construction placed upon

law by the officials in charge of its enforcement
however, to the filing in due time of a possible
deserves great and considerable weight (Atlas
post-election quo warranto proceeding against
Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. vs.
private respondent.
CA, 182 SCRA 166,181). However, when there
clearly is no obscurity and ambiguity in an
Before the 11th May 1992 elections, petitioner
enabling law, it must merely be made to apply as
filed a petition with the COMELEC for
it is so written. An administrative rule or
cance ati n esp ndent’s C C n acc unt
regulation can neither expand nor constrict the
t e candidate’s disqua i icati n unde Sec 40 (e) law but must remain congruent to it.
of the LGC.
T e c n ine ent t e te “ ugiti e
Private respondent was proclaimed Governor-
ustice” in tic e 73 t e Ru es and
elect of Quezon on 29 May 1992. Forthwith,
Regulations Implementing the LGC of 1991 to
petitioner instituted quo warranto proceedings
e e n t a pe s n “w as een c n icted
(EPC 92-28) against private respondent before
ina udg ent” is an in dinate and undue
the COMELEC.
circumscription of the law.
Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make any
ISSUE: Whether private respondent who, at the
definite finding on whether or not private
time of the filing of his certificate of candidacy
esp ndent is in act a “ ugiti e ustice” as
(and to date), is said to be facing a criminal
such term must be interpreted and applied in the
charge before a foreign court and evading a
ig t t e C u t’s pini n T e issi n is
warrant for his arrest comes within the term
understandable since the COMELEC outrightly
“ ugiti e ustice” c nte p ated Secti n
dismissed the petition for quo warranto on the
40(e) of the LGC and is, therefore, disqualified
basis instead of Rule 73 of the Rules and
from being a candidate for, and thereby ineligible
Regulations promulgated by the Oversight
from holding on to, an elective local office.
Committee. The Court, not being a trier of facts,
HELD: YES. Section 40(e) of the LGC (RA
7160) p ide t at a “Fugiti e ustice in
c i ina cases e e and a ad” a e “disqua i ied
unning an e ecti e ca p siti n”
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) of the Constitution was filed against petitioner for
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever acts the latter committed during the coup.
is thus constrained to remand the case to the Thereafter, respondent Secretary rendered the
COMELEC for a determination of this questioned decision finding petitioner guilty as
unresolved factual matter. charged and ordering his removal from office.
Installed as Governor of Cagayan in the process
was respondent Melvin Vargas, who was then
RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO vs. HON. LUIS the Vice-Governor of Cagayan.
SANTOS, as Secretary of the Department of
Local Government, and MELVIN VARGAS, as While this case was pending before this Court,
Acting Governor of Cagayan G.R. No. 94115 petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the
August 21, 1992 position of Governor of Cagayan for the May 11,
1992 elections.
FACTS: Petitioner was the duly elected
Governor of the province of Cagayan, having The Court, in a resolution dated May 14, 1992,
been elected to said position during the local issued a temporary restraining order against the
elections held on January 17, 1988, to serve a Commission to cease and desist from enforcing
term of four (4) years therefrom. He took his its May 9, 1992 resolution pending the outcome
oath sometimes around March 1988. of the disqualification case, thereby allowing the
canvassing of the votes and returns in Cagayan
Shortly after December 1989 coup d'etat was to proceed.
crushed, respondent Secretary of Local
Government sent a telegram and a letter, both On June 9, 1992, a resolution was issued in the
dated December 4, 1989, to petitioner requiring aforementioned case granting petition and
him to show cause why should not be annulling the May 9, 1992 resolution of the
suspended or remove from office for disloyalty to Commission on the ground that the decision of
the Republic, within forty-eight (48) hours from respondent Secretary has not yet attained finality
receipt thereof. and is still pending review with this Court. As
On December 7, 1989, a sworn complaint for
disloyalty to the Republic and culpable violation
proceeding for removal shall not extend beyond
the removal from office, and disqualification from
holding office for a term for which the officer was
petitioner won by a landslide margin in the elected or appointed.
elections, the resolution paved the way for his
eventual proclamation as Governor of Cagayan.
The underlying theory is that each term is
separate from other terms, and that the
ISSUE: whether or not Aguinaldo may be
reelection to office operates as a condonation of
dismissed as re-elected Governor of Cagayan
the officer's misconduct to the extent of cutting
on the ground that he was previously removed
off the right to remove him therefor.
from the same office by the Secretary of Local
Government due to an administrative charge?
The Court should ever remove a public officer for
acts done prior to his present term of office. To
HELD: NO. Petitioner's re-election to the
do otherwise would be to deprive the people of
position of Governor of Cagayan has rendered
their right to elect their officers. When a people
the administration case pending before Us moot
have elected a man to office, it must be
and academic. It appears that after the
assumed that they did this with knowledge of his
canvassing of votes, petitioner garnered the
life and character, and that they disregarded or
most number of votes among the candidates for
forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been
governor of Cagayan province.
guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of
such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule
Considering the fact narrated, the expiration of the will of the people.
petitioner's term of office during which the acts
charged were allegedly committed, and his Clear then, the rule is that a public official can
subsequent reelection, the petitioner must be not be removed for administrative misconduct
dismissed for the reason that the issue has
committed during a prior term, since his re-
become academic. election to office operates as a condonation of
the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of
Offenses committed, or acts done, during a cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The
previous term are generally held not to furnish
cause for removal and this is especially true
were the Constitution provides that the penalty in
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) the Elections of January 18, 1988; May 11,1992
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever and Ma 8, 1995 s in t e past, esp ndent’s right to
office was contested.
foregoing rule, however, finds no application to
criminalcases pending against petitioner for acts On May 13, 1995, petitioner, seeks for the esp
he may have committed during the failed coup. ndent’s disqua i icati n, pu suant t t e above
provision, contending that as long as a
candidate was once removed from office due to
an administrative case, regardless of whether it
WILMER GREGO V. COMELEC and took place during or prior to the effectivity of the
HUMBERTO BASCO Code, the disqualification applies.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 125955. June 19, 1997] [274 SCRA Respondent contends that the petitioner is not
481] entitled to said relief because Section 40 par. b
of the LGC may not be validly applied to persons
ROMERO, J.: who were dismissed prior to its effectivity. To do
(Municipal Government, Disqualification, Non- so would make it ex post facto, bill of attainder,
Retroactive effect) and retroactive legislation which impairs vested
rights
FACTS: Sec 40 (b) of Republic Act 7160 (the
Local Government Code) which took effect on ISSUE: WON Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No.
January 1, 1992, disqualifies a person for any 7160 applies retroactively to those removed from
e ecti e p siti n nteg und t at “ ad een office before it took effect on January 1, 1992
removed from office as a result of an
ad inist ati e case” HELD: No. It is a settled issue that Section 40
(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 does not have any
On October 31, 1981, Basco was removed from retroactive effect. Laws operate only
his position as Deputy Sheriff upon a finding of prospectively and not retroactively.
serious misconduct in an administrative
complaint. He ran as a candidate for Councilor,
won and assumed office for three terms during
Mateo Caasi, his rival candidate for the position
of mayor. The Miguel admitted that he holds a
green card issued to him by the US Immigration
A statute, despite the generality in its language, Service, but he denied that he is a permanent
must not be so construed as to overreach acts, resident of the US. He allegedly obtained the
events or matters which transpired before its green card for convenience in order that he may
passage: “Le p spicit, n n espicit ” T e aw looks freely enter the US for his periodic medical
forward, not backward. examination and to visit his children there. He
alleged that he is a permanent resident of
Bolinao, Pangasinan that he voted in all previous
CAASI V. CA elections.
191 SCRA 317 GR No. 88831, 84508,
November 8, 1990 COMELEC dismissed the petitions, except for
Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr. According to
GRINO-AQUINO, J.: the COMELEC, the possession of a green card
by Miguel does not sufficiently establish that he
DOCTRINE: To be qualified to run for elective had abandoned his residence in the Philippines.
office in the Philippines, the law requires that the The COMELEC further said that as the
candidate who is a green card holder must have respondent meets the basic requirements of
“wai ed is status as a pe anent esident citizenship and residence for candidates to
immigrant of a foreign country. elective local officials under Sec 42 of Local
Govt. Code, there is no legal obstacle to his
NATURE: Petition for review of the decision of candidacy for mayor.
the CA and Petition for certiorari to review the
decision of the Commission on Election In the dissenting opinion of Commissioner
Badoy, he opined that a green card holder,
FACTS: Merito Miguel was elected as municipal being a permanent resident of or an immigrant of
mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan in the local a foreign country, under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus
elections of 1988.Petitions were filed for his
disqualification under Sec 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code, on the ground that he is a green
card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the
US, not of Bolinao. One of the petitioners is
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever Sec 18, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution which
states t at: “ n pu ic ice e p ee w
Election Code, has to prove that he has waived seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the
his status as a permanent resident or immigrant status of an immigrant of another country during
to be qualified to run for election office. is tenu e s a e dea t wit aw,” is is n t
applicable to Miguel. This is because Miguel for
ISSUES: he acquired the status of an immigrant of US
a. Is green card a proof that the holder is a before he was elected to public office, not “du
permanent resident of the US? Yes. ing is tenu e” as a
b. Did Miguel waive his status as permanent
resident or immigrant to US prior tothe local Sec 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, which
elections? No. p ides t at: “ n pe s n w is a pe anent
c. Is he disqualified to become a candidate resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country
of municipal mayor? Yes. shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless such person has waived
HELD: Migue ’s i ig ati n t t e US in 1984 his status as permanent resident or immigrant of
constituted an abandonment of his domicile and a foreign country in accordance with the
residence in the Philippines. The intention to live residence requirement provided for in the e ecti
there permanently is evidenced by his app icati n n aws,” is t e app icable law to him
an i ig ant’s isa
Residence in the municipality where he intends
Immigration is defined as removing into one to run for elective office for at least 1 year at the
place from another/entering into a country with time of filing his certificate of candidacy is one of
the intention of residing in it. While an Immigrant the qualifications that a candidate for elective
is a person who removes into a country for the public office must possess.
purpose of permanent residence
Miguel resided in Bolinao for only 3 months after
As a resident alien in the US, Miguel owes his return to the Philippines and before he ran for
temporary and local allegiance to the US, in
return for the protection given to him during the
period of his residence.
handwriting, answe ing “ e anent ” n t e question
of his length of intended stay. On its face, the
green card identifies Miguel in clear bold letters
mayor. Clear policy of excluding from the right to as a Resident Alien.
hold elective public office those Philippine
citizens who possess dual loyalties and SC annulled the election of Miguel as municipal
allegiance, as such are incapable of the entire mayor.
devotion to the interest and welfare of their
homeland.
To be qualified to run for elective office in the

Philippines, the law requires that the candidate
MERCADO VS. MANZANO
w is a g een ca d de ust a e “wai ed his status as
a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and
country. His act of filing a certificate of candidacy Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for
for elective office in the Philippines did not of Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998
itself constitute a waiver of his status as a elections.
permanent resident or immigrant of US.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano
The waiver of green card should be manifested garnered the highest number of votes. However,
by some act or acts independent of and done his proclamation was suspended due to the
prior to filing his candidacy for elective office. pending petition for disqualification filed by
Wit ut suc p i wai e , e was “disqua i ied t Ernesto Mercado on the ground that he was not
un an e ecti e ice ” a citizen of the Philippines but of the United
States.
Migue ’s app icati n i ig ant status and
permanent residence in the US and his From the facts presented, it appears that
possession of a green card attesting to such Manzano is both a Filipino and a US citizen.
status are conclusive proof that he is a
permanent resident of US despite his occasional
visits to the Philippines. Miguel filled up his
application for Immigrant Visa in his own
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) two or more states, a person is simultaneously
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever considered a national by the said states.
Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a

The Commission on Elections declared situation in which a person simultaneously owes,
Manzano disqualified as candidate for said by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
elective position. states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides
COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
respondent was reversed. Respondent was held national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
to have renounced his US citizenship when he
attained the age of majority and registered Consequently, persons with mere dual
himself as a voter in the elections of 1992, 1995 citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
and 1998. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must,
therefore, be subject to strict process with
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the respect to the termination of their status, for
Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998. candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice
if, upon the filing of their certificates of
Thus the present petition. candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons with dual
ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is citizenship considering that their condition is the
disqualified to hold public elective office in the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of
Philippines. different states.
HELD: The court ruled that the phrase "dual By electing Philippine citizenship, such
citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. candidates at the same time forswear allegiance
7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to to the other country of which they are also
dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from citizens and thereby terminate their status as
dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of
result of the application of the different laws of
has, as far as the laws of this country are
concerned, effectively repudiated his American
citizenship and anything which he may have said
view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an before as a dual citizen.
individual has not effectively renounced his
foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.
On t e t e and, p i ate esp ndent’s at
allegiance to the Philippines, when considered
When a person applying for citizenship by
with the fact that he has spent his youth and
naturalization takes an oath that he renounces adulthood, received his education, practiced his
his loyalty to any other country or government profession as an artist, and taken part in past
and solemnly declares that he owes his elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the
election of Philippine citizenship.
condition imposed by law is satisfied and
complied with. The determination whether such
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that
renunciation is valid or fully complies with the
he will fulfill his undertaking made under oath.
provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within
Should he betray that trust, there are enough
the province and is an exclusive prerogative of
sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine
our courts. The latter should apply the law duly
citizenship through expatriation in appropriate
enacted by the legislative department of the
proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the
Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere
court sustained the denial of entry into the
with its operation and application. country of petitioner on the ground that, after
taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of applied for the renewal of his Portuguese
candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce passport and declared in commercial documents
his American citizenship, effectively removing executed abroad that he was a Portuguese
any disqualification he might have as a dual national. A similar sanction can be taken against
citizen. By declaring in his certificate of any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship,
candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is renounces his foreign nationality, but
not a permanent resident or immigrant of
another country; that he will defend and support
the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true
faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
without mental reservation, private respondent
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever HELD: YES. Osmena is still a Filipino. The court
e d t at zna ’s c ntenti n was n t e it i us zna
subsequently does some act constituting ’s a gu ent t at Os eña is n t a Fi ipin
renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. citizen and therefore, disqualified from running
for and being elected to the office of Governor of
Cebu, is not supported by substantial and
AZNAR VS. COMELEC convincing evidence. Aznar failed to provide
proof that Osmeña has lost the citizenship by
FACTS: E i i “Lit ” Os eña i ed is ce ti icate any of the modes provided for under C.A. No.
of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position 63, these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign
of Provincial Governor of Cebu in the 18 January country, (2) by express renunciation of
1988 elections. Petitioner, Jose B. Aznar, filed citizenship, or (3) by subscribing to an oath of
with the COMELEC a petition for the allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of
disqualification of Osmeña on the ground that he a foreign country. Osmeña did not lose his
is not a Filipino citizen since he is a citizen of the Philippine citizenship in any of the modes
United States. COMELEC en banc decided to provided.
suspend the proclamation. Osmeña maintained
that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging that (1) he is By virtue of his being a son of a Filipino father,
the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a the presumption that Osmeña is a Filipino
Filipino and son of the late President Sergio remains. In this case, Osmeña denies having
Osmeña, Sr., (2) that he is a holder of a valid taken the oath of allegiance of the United States.
and subsisting Philippine Passport, (3) that he He is a holder of a valid and subsisting
was continuously residing in the Philippines Philippine passport and has continuously
since birth and has not gone out of the country participated in the electoral process in this
for more than six months, and (4) that he has country since 1963.
been a registered voter in the Philippines since
1965. The court held that the dissent of Mr. Justice
Teodoro Padilla, that because Osmeña obtained
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is no longer certificates of Alien Registration as an American
a Filipino citizen by acquiring dual-citizenship.
citizenship. One of these petitions were filed by
herein petitioner, Valles.
citizen, the first in 1958 when he was 24 years However like all the other petitions, this was
old and the second in 1979, he should be dismissed on based on the following grounds:
regarded as having expressly renounced 1. Her father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino
Philippine citizenship, does not hold water. The
citizen, and by virtue of the principle of jus
court in this case held that Osmeña is still a sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under the
Filipino citizen. It may also be noted he was not 1987 Philippine Constitution;
even declared a dual citizen.
2. She was married to a Filipino, thereby
making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure under
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473;
VALLES vs COMELEC 3. And that, she renounced her Australian
citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the
FACTS: Rosalind Lopez was born on May 16, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of
1934 in Western Australia, to the spouses, Australia and her Australian passport was
Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of accordingly cancelled as certified to by the
Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, Australian Embassy in Manila;
an Australian. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she
left Australia and came to settle in the Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the
Philippines. private respondent is an Australian citizen,
placing reliance on the admitted facts that:
In 1952, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a 1. In 1988, private respondent registered
Filipino citizen. Since then, she has continuously herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an
participated in the electoral process not only as Australian national
a voter but as a candidate, as well. She served
as Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. In 1992, she
ran for and was elected governor of Davao
Oriental.
Subsequently, several other petitions were filed

against Lopez, all of them questioning her
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) resided in the Philippine Islands, and their
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever children born subsequent thereto, shall be
deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine
2. She applied for the issuance of an Islands.
Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), and
3. She was issued Australian Passport The Jones Law, on the other hand, provides:
SEC. 2 That all inhabitants of the Philippine
ISSUE: W/N Lopez is a Filipino citizen, and is Islands who were Spanish subjects on the
qualified to run for public office (YES) eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and
ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands,
HELD: The Philippine law on citizenship and their children born subsequent thereto, shall
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. be deemed and held to be citizens of the
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or Philippine Islands.
citizenship of the parents regardless of the place
of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the
soli which determines nationality or citizenship Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April
on the basis of place of birth. 11, 1899 and resided therein including their
children are deemed to be Philippine citizens.
Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was Private respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco,
born on May 16, 1934. Historically, this was a was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet,
year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a
and at that time, what served as the Constitution certified true copy of an entry in the Registry of
of the Philippines were the principal organic acts Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902
by which the United States governed the and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was
country. deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of
the same laws, which were the laws in force at
The Philippine Bill of 1902 defined Philippine the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein
citizens as: all inhabitants of the Philippine private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is
Islands continuing to reside therein who were likewise a citizen of the Philippines.
Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 176
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then
Labo avers that his marriage with an Australian
did not make him an Australian; that at best he
has dual citizenship, Australian and Filipino; that
even if he indeed became an Australian when he
Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind married an Australian citizen, such citizenship
Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been was lost when his marriage with the Australian
born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being was later declared void for being bigamous.
born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing Labo further asserts that even i e’s c nside ed as
her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the an Australian, his lack of citizenship is just a
principle of jus soli, then at most, private mere technicality which should not frustrate the
respondent can also claim Australian citizenship will of the electorate of Baguio who voted for him
resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. by a vast majority.
Petitioner also contends that even on the
assumption that the private respondent is a ISSUES:
Filipino citizen, she has nonetheless renounced 1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public
her Philippine citizenship. To buttress this office (NO)
contention, petitioner cited private respondents
2. Whether or not Lardizabal, who obtained the
application for an Alien Certificate of Registration
second highest vote in the mayoralty race, can
(ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence
replace Labo in the event Labo is disqualified
(ICR). (NO)
HELD:
LABO JR. vs COMELEC st
1 issue: No. Labo did not question the
authenticity of evidence presented against him.
FACTS: In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected
He was naturalized as an Australian in 1976. It
as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis
was not his marriage to an Australian that made
Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto him an Australian. It was his act of subsequently
against Labo as Lardizabal asserts that Labo is swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the
an Australian citizen hence disqualified; that he government of Australia. He did not dispute that
was naturalized as an Australian after he
married an Australian.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever citizens of the Philippines have that privilege
over their countrymen.
he needed an Australian passport to return to
the Philippines in 1980; and that he was listed as nd
2 issue: Lardizabal on the other hand cannot
an immigrant here.
assert, through the quo warranto proceeding,
that he should be declared the mayor by reason
It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen.
La ’s disqua i icati n ecause La diza a
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
obtained the second highest number of vote. It
national interest and shall be dealt with by law. would be extremely repugnant to the basic
He lost his Filipino citizenship when he swore concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right
allegiance to Australia. He cannot also claim that to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired
when he lost his Australian citizenship, he the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a
became solely a Filipino. To restore his Filipino winner and imposed as the representative of a
citizenship, he must be naturalized or repatriated constituency, the majority of which have
or be declared as a Filipino through an act of positively declared through their ballots that they
Congress – none of this happened. do not choose him. Sound policy dictates that
public elective offices are filled by those who
Labo, being a foreigner, cannot serve public have received the highest number of votes cast
office. His claim that his lack of citizenship in the election for that office, and it is a
should not overcome the will of the electorate is fundamental idea in all republican forms of
not tenable. The people of Baguio could not government that no one can be declared elected
have, even unanimously, changed the and no measure can be declared carried unless
requirements of the Local Government Code he or it receives a majority or plurality of the
and the Constitution simply by electing a legal votes cast in the election.
foreigner (curiously, would Baguio have voted
for Labo had they known he is Australian). The
electorate had no power to permit a foreigner JUAN FRIVALDO VS COMMISSION ON
owing his total allegiance to the Queen of ELECTIONS
Australia, or at least a stateless individual owing 174 SCRA 245
no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
Neither did his participation in the 1988 elections
restore his Philippine citizenship.
At best, he is a stateless person. He cannot

FACTS: In 1988, Juan Frivaldo won as governor
serve as governor when he owes allegiance to a
of Sorsogon. Salvador Estuye, President of the
foreign state. The fact that he was elected by the
League of Municipalities of Sorsogon, filed with
people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent
the COMELEC a petition for annulment of
violation of the salutary rule limiting public office
F i a d ’s e ecti n and p c a ati n ecause
and employment only to the citizens of this
apparently, Frivaldo, in 1983, was naturalized as country.
an American. In his defense, Frivaldo said that
he was forced to be naturalized because the
The qualifications prescribed for elective office
then President Marcos was after him; but that
cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The
participating in the Philippine elections, he has
will of the people as expressed through the
effectively lost his American citizenship pursuant
ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility,
to American laws. He also assailed the petition
especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this
as he claimed that it is in the nature of a quo
case, that the candidate was qualified.
warranto which is already filed out of time, the
Obviously, this rule requires strict application
same not being filed ten days after his
when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a
proclamation.
person seeks to serve in the Republic of the
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this
ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo can validly
country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty
serve as a governor.
and fidelity to any other state.
HELD: No. He has not regained Filipino
citizenship. As far as Philippine law is REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSA
concerned, he is not a Filipino. He lost his
citizenship when he declared allegiance to the
FACTS: September 20, 1991 - Frivaldo filed a
United States. Even if he did lose his US
petition for naturalization under the
citizenship, that did not restore his being a
Filipino because he did not undergo
naturalization or repatriation proceedings.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) of the Interim Rules, to annul the decision made on
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever February 27, 1992 and to nullify the oath of
allegiance taken by Frivaldo on same date.
Commonwealth Act No. 63 before the RTC
Manila. ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo was duly re-
admitted to his citizenship as a Filipino.
October 7, 1991 - Judge dela Rosa set the
petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, and RULING: No. The Supreme Court ruled that
directed the publication of the said order and Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen of
petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper the Philippines and therefore disqualified from
of general circulation, for 3 consecutive weeks, continuing to serve as governor of the Province
the last publication of which should be at least 6 of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate his office
months before the date of the said hearing. and to surrender the same to the Vice-Governor
of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision
January 14, 1992 - Frivaldo asked the Judge to becomes final and executory. The proceedings
cancel the March 16 hearing and move it to of the trial court was marred by the following
January 24, 1992, citing his intention to run for irregularities:
public office in the May 1992 elections. Judge
granted the motion and the hearing was moved (1) The hearing of the petition was set ahead
to February 21. No publication or copy was of the scheduled date of hearing, without a
issued about the order. publication of the order advancing the date of
hearing, and the petition itself;
February 21, 1992 - the hearing proceeded. (2) The petition was heard within six months
February 27, 1992 - Judge rendered the from the last publication of the petition;
assailed Decision and held that Frivaldo is (3) Petitioner was allowed to take his oath of
readmitted as a citizen of the Republic of the allegiance before the finality of the judgment;
Philippines by naturalization. and
(4) Petitioner took his oath of allegiance
Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for without observing the two-year waiting period.
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and Section 25
Antonio H. Escudero, Jr. 51,060

Juan G. Frivaldo 73,44
Raul R.Lee 53,304
FRIVALDO v. COMELEC
Isagani P. Ocampo 1,925
On June 9, 1995, Lee filed a (supplemental)
Juan G. Frivaldo filed his Certificate of
petition praying for his proclamation as the duly-
Candidacy for the office of Governor of
elected Governor of Sorsogon.
Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections. On
March 23, 1995, petitioner Raul R. Lee, another
In an order dated June 21, 1995, but
candidate, filed a petition with the Comelec
promulgated according to the petition "only on
praying that Frivaldo "be disqualified from
June 29, 1995," the Comelec en bane directed
seeking or holding any public office or position
"the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon
by reason of not yet being a citizen of the
to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming
Philippines," and that his Certificate of
candidate Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial
Candidacy be cancelled. On May 1, 1995, the
candidate in the province of Sorsogon on June
Second Division of the Comelec promulgated a
29,1995 x x x." Accordingly, at 8:30 in the
Resolution granting the petition.
evening of June 30, 1995, Lee was proclaimed
governor of Sorsogon.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo
remained unacted upon until after the May 8,
Frivaldo filed with the Comelec a new petition
1995 elections. So, his candidacy continued and
praying for the annulment of the June 30, 1995
he was voted for during the elections held on
proclamation of Lee and for his own
said date. On May 11, 1995, the Comelec en
proclamation. He alleged that on June 30, 1995,
banc affirmed the aforementioned Resolution of
at 2:00 in the afternoon, he took his oath of
the Second Division.
allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after
"his petition for repatriation under P.D. 725
The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed
the canvass of the election returns and a
Certificate of Votes was issued showing the
following votes obtained by the candidates for
the position of Governor of Sorsogon:
HELD: The Commission on Elections has the
primary jurisdiction over the question as the sole
which he filed with the Special Committee on judge of all contests relating to the election,
Naturalization in September 1994 had been returns and qualifications of the members of the
granted." As such, when "the said order (dated Congress and elective provincial and city
June 21, 1995) (of the Comelec) x x x was icia s H we e , t e decisi n n F i a d ‘s citizenship
released and received by Frivaldo on June 30, has already been made by the COMELEC through
1995 at 5:30 o'clock in the evening, there was its counsel, the Solicitor General, who categorically
no more legal impediment to the proclamation claims that Frivaldo is
(of Frivaldo) as governor x x x." In the a eigne T e S icit ‘s stance is assu ed t have
alternative, he averred that pursuant to the two bben taken by him after consultation with
cases of Labo vs. Comelec, the Vice-Governor COMELEC and with its approval. It therefore
— not Lee represents the decision of the COMELEC itself
— should occupy said position of governor. that the Supreme Court may review.
On December 19, 1995, the Comelec First In the certificate of candidacy filed on 19
Division promulgated the herein assailed November 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a
Resolution holding that Lee, "not having ―natu a - n‖ citizen t e i ippines, omitting
garnered the highest number of votes," was not mention of any subsequent loss of such status.
legally entitled to be proclaimed as duly-elected The evidence shows, however, that he was
governor; and that Frivaldo, "having garnered naturalized as a citizen of the United States in
the highest number of votes, and having 1983 per the certification from the United States
reacquired his Filipino citizenship by repatriation District Court, Northern District of California, as
on June 30, 1995 under the provisions of duly authenticated by Vice Consul Amado P.
Presidential Decree No. 725 is qualified to hold Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in
the office of governor of Sorsogon". San Francisco, California, U.S.A. There were
many other Filipinos in the United States
ISSUE: Whether Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen similarly situated as Frivaldo, and some of them
of the Philippines at the time of his election on subject to greater risk than he, who did
18 January 1988, as provincial governor of
Sorsogon.
ADORMEO v. COMELEC & TALAGA

not find it necessary — nor do they claim to have
been coerced — to abandon their cherished FACTS: Adormeo and Talaga, Jr. filed their
status as Filipinos. Still, if he really wanted to certificates of candidacy for mayor of Lucena
disavow his American citizenship and reacquire City for the 2001 elections. Talaga, Jr. was then
Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo should have done the incumbent mayor. He was elected mayor in
so in accordance with the laws of our country. 1992 and was again re-elected in 1995-1998.
Under CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473
and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be In the election of 1998, he lost, however, in the
reacquired by direct act of Congress, by recall election of May 2000, he won and served
naturalization, or by repatriation. He failed to the unexpired term. Adormeo filed a Petition to
take such categorical acts. Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and/or
Disqualification of Talaga, Jr., on the ground that
The anomaly of a person sitting as provincial the latter was elected and had served as city
governor in this country while owing exclusive mayor for 3 consecutive terms. Talaga, Jr.
allegiance to another country cannot be responded that he was not elected City Mayor
permitted. The fact that he was elected by the for 3 consecutive terms but only for 2
people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent consecutive terms since he was defeated in the
violation of the salutary rule limiting public office 1998 election, interrupting the consecutiveness
and employment only to the citizens of this of his years as mayor.
country. The will of the people as expressed
through the ballot cannot cure the vice of COMELEC First Division found Talaga, Jr.
ineligibility. Qualifications for public office are disqualified for the position of city mayor. He
continuing requirements and must be possessed filed a motion for reconsideration and
not only at the time of appointment or election or COMELEC en banc ruled in his favor and held
assu pti n ice ut du ing t e ice ‘s entire tenure. that 1) respondent was not elected for three (3)
Once any of the required qualifications is lost, consecutive terms because he did not win in the
his title may be seasonably challenged. Frivaldo
is disqualified from serving as governor of
Sorsogon.
ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty. Valencia) 2) That he has fully served three consecutive
Compiled by: Wigmore #wigmoreforever terms.
1998 elections; 2) that he was installed only as COMELECs ruling that private respondent was
mayor by reason of his victory in the recall not elected for three (3) consecutive terms
elections; 3) that his victory in the recall elections should be upheld. The continuity of his
was not considered a term of office and is not mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the
included in the 3-termdisqualification rule, and 4) 1998 elections. Voluntary renunciation of office
that he did not fully serve the three (3) consecutive for any length of time shall not be considered as
terms, and his loss in the 1998 elections is an interruption in the continuity of service for the
considered an interruption in the continuity of his full term for which he was elected. Voluntary
service as Mayor of Lucena City. After canvassing, renunciation of a term does not cancel the
Talaga, Jr. was proclaimed as the duly elected renounced term in the computation of the three
Mayor of Lucena City. term limit; conversely, involuntary severance
from office for any length of time short of the full
ISSUE: Whether or not Talaga, Jr was term provided by law amounts to an interruption
disqualified to run for mayor of in the elections. of continuity of service.
HELD: The term limit for elective local officials

must be taken to refer to the right to be elected BORJA, JR. V. COMELEC
as well as the right to serve in the same elective
position. It is not enough that an individual has ACTION: Determination of the scope of
served three consecutive terms in an elective constitutional provision barring elective officials,
local office, he must also have been elected to with the exception of barangay officials, from
the same position for the same number of times serving more than three consecutive terms.
before the disqualification can apply.
FACTS: Private respondent Jose T. Capco, Jr.
The two conditions for the application of the was elected vice-mayor of Pateros on January
disqualification must concur: 18, 1988 for a term ending June 30, 1992. On
1) That the official concerned has been COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 180
elected for three consecutive terms in the same
local government post; and
HELD:
1. No. Capco was not elected to the office of
September 2, 1989, he became mayor, by
mayor in the first term but simply found himself
operation of law, upon the death of the
thrust into it by operation of law. Neither had he
incumbent, Cesar Borja. For the next two
served the full term because he only continued
succeeding elections in 1992 and 1995, he was
the service, interrupted by the death, of the
again re-elected as Mayor.
deceased mayor. A textual analysis supports the
ruling of the COMELEC that Art. X, Sec. 8
On March 27, 1998, private respondent Capco contemplates service by local officials for three
filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor of consecutive full terms as a result of election. It is
Pateros relative to the May 11, 1998 elections.
not enough that an individual has served three
Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a
consecutive terms in an elective local officials,
candidate a , s ug t Capc ’s disqualification on he must also have been elected to the same
the theory that the latter would have already position for the same number of times before the
served as mayor for three consecutive terms by disqualification can apply.
June 30, 1998 and would therefore be ineligible
to serve for another term after that. 2. Yes. Although he has already first served as
mayor by succession, he has not actually served
three full terms in all for the purpose of applying
The Second Division of the Commission on the three-term limit. The three-term limit shall
Elections ruled in favor of petitioner and apply when these 2 conditions concur: (1) the
declared private respondent Capco disqualified local official concerned has been elected three
from running for reelection as mayor of Pateros consecutive times; and (2) he has fully served
but in the motion for reconsideration, majority three consecutive terms.
overturned the original decision.
ISSUE: LONZANIDA VS COMELEC

1. W/N Capco has served for three consecutive [311 SCRA 602]
terms as Mayor
2. W/N Capco can run again for Mayor in the
next election
FACTS: Petitioner Lonzanida was duly elected

and served two consecutive terms as municipal
mayor of San Antonio, Zambales prior to the
May 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections
Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales and was again proclaimed winner. He
assumed office and discharged the duties
thereof. His proclamation in 1995 was contested
by his opponent who filed an election protest.
The court rendered a judgment declaring the
results of the said election last May 8, 1995, as
null and void on the ground that there was a
failure of election.
In the May 11, 1998 elections Lonzanida again

filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of San
Antonio and was proclaimed winner. Prior
proclamation, His opponent timely filed a petition
to disqualify him from running on the ground that
he had served three consecutive terms in the
same post.
T e COMELEC und t at L nzanida’s

assumption of office by virtue of his proclamation
in May 1995, although he was later unseated
before the expiration of the term, should be
counted as service for one full term in computing
the three-term limit under the Constitution and
the Local Government Code. Hence, COMELEC
issued a resolution granting the petition for
disqualification
Petitioner Lonzanida challenges the validity of

the COMELEC resolutions maintaining that he
was duly elected mayor for only two consecutive
terms and that his assumption of office in 1995
cannot be counted as service of a term for the
purpose of applying the three term limit for local
government officials, because he was not the
duly elected mayor of San Antonio in the May
1995 elections.
The private respondent maintains that the

petiti ne ’s assu pti n ice in 1995 s u d be
considered as service of one full term because
he discharged the duties of mayor for almost
three years until March 1, 1998 or barely a few
months before the next mayoral elections.
ISSUE: WON petiti ne ’s assumption of office as

mayor of San Antonio Zambales from May 1995
to 1998 may be considered as service of one full
term for the purpose of applying the three-term
limit for elective local government officials.
HELD: No. Section 8, Art. X of the Constitution

p ides t at, “t e te ice e ecti e ca

officials, except barangay officials, which shall

be determined by law shall be three years and
no such officials shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of
his service for the full term for which he was
e ected ”
Section 43 of the Local Government Code (R.A.

N 7160) estates t e sa e u e, t at: “N ca
elective official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full
term for which the elective official concerned
was e ected ”
The petitioner cannot be deemed to have served

the May 1995 to 1998 term because he was
ordered to vacate his post before the expiration
of the term.
Pursuant to the constitutional provision above,

voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel
the renounced term in the computation of the
three term limit; conversely, involuntary
severance from office for any length of time short
of the full term provided by law amounts to an
interruption of continuity of service. The
petitioner vacated his post a few months before
the next mayoral elections, not by voluntary
renunciation but in compliance with the legal
process of writ of execution issued by the
COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary
severance from office is an interruption of
continuity of service and thus, the petitioner did
not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term.

Election Law Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Election Law Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTION LAWS Case Digest (Atty.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC

The COMELEC concluded that nine votes In Jaramilla v. Commission on

First assignment of error:

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 6

How the right to vote is to be exercised is

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 8

BADELLES VS. CABILI, 27 SCRA 11,

FACTS: names included in the list of voters, they could

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 9

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 11

ISSUE: state. (U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 588.) In the

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 14

How the right to vote is to be exercised is

ISSUE: WON the Commission exceeded its

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 15

Substantial amendments may be allowed but

FACTS: Micu filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 18

HELD: Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests

What if the petitions for correction were filed out FACTS:

On 7 May 1995, Sunga filed another letter-

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 20

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 24

WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to

The trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a

There are only three (3) instances where a

RULLODA VS COMELEC (G.R. NO. 154198,

HELD: "No spurious ballot was found in this

ISSUE: Whether or not (1) the absence of

In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative

given due course by the COMELEC.

The court finally says, We can not and must not,

expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo, RULING:

Validity of the recall proceedings

The petition was opposed on several grounds. HELD/RATIO

discussions on the matter of recall of an AFIADO V. COMELEC

 That the assailed Order of the RTC

Alleging that fraud and irregularities attended the

Respondent Judge Estenzo rendered a decision

At the time of filing both the special civil action

Ratio: Comelec awarded this billion-peso

FACTS: On December 8, 2003, the General

On December 26, 2003, the COMELEC issued

CASE: Petition for Certiorari assailing the

The petition was GRANTED with LEGAL

C nt a t Sant s’ c ai , t e COMELEC En Use an automated election system or systems in

the optical scanners leased by the COMELEC

1 T e C e ec’s pu ic p n unce ents s w that there

Petitioners Roque, et al., as movants herein,

May 2010 elections will result in failure of

HELD: Yes. Petitioner and the petitioners-in-

Instead of submitting a Motion for

Thereafter, the en banc issued a Resolution

Garces received a letter from the Acting

After final inspection of all the samples by

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ V COMMISSION ON ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court has

COMPILED BY: WIGMORE #WIGMOREFOREVER 83

Copies of the decision were sent to and received

COMELEC maintains that there is a special law

On June 26, 1998, petitioner filed with the trial

FACTS: Garcia v De Jesus (The Antipolo