G.R. No.

73155 July 11, 1986 Calatrava, Taboso,

Escalante, Sagay, Manapla,
PATRICIO TAN, FELIX FERRER, Victorias, E.R. Magalona;
JUAN M. HAGAD, SERGIO HILADO, and Salvador Benedicto, all
VIRGILIO GASTON, CONCHITA in the northern portion of
MINAYA, TERESITA ESTACIO, the Island of Negros, are
DESIDERIO DEFERIA, ROMEO hereby separated from the
GAMBOA, ALBERTO LACSON, FE province to be known as
HOFILENA, EMILY JISON, NIEVES the Province of Negros del
LOPEZ AND CECILIA Norte.
MAGSAYSAY, petitioners,
vs. SEC. 2. The boundaries of
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS the new province shall be
and THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER the southern limits of the
OF NEGROS City of Silay, the
OCCIDENTAL, respondents. Municipality of Salvador
Benedicto and the City of
Gamboa & Hofileña Law Office for San Carlos on the south
petitioners. and the territorial limits of
the northern portion to the
Island of Negros on the
west, north and east,
ALAMPAY, J.: comprising a territory of
4,019.95 square kilometers
Prompted by the enactment of Batas more or less.
Pambansa Blg. 885-An Act Creating a
New Province in the Island of Negros to SEC. 3. The seat of
be known as the Province of Negros del government of the new
Norte, which took effect on December 3, province shall be the City of
1985, Petitioners herein, who are Cadiz.
residents of the Province of Negros
Occidental, in the various cities and SEC. 4. A plebiscite shall be
municipalities therein, on December 23, conducted in the proposed
1985, filed with this Court a case for new province which are the
Prohibition for the purpose of stopping areas affected within a
respondents Commission on Elections period of one hundred and
from conducting the plebiscite which, twenty days from the
pursuant to and in implementation of the approval of this Act. After
aforesaid law, was scheduled for January the ratification of the
3, 1986. Said law provides: creation of the Province of
Negros del Norte by a
SECTION 1. The Cities of majority of the votes cast in
Silay, Cadiz, and San Carlos such plebiscite, the
and the municipalities of President of the Philippines
 shall appoint the first SEC. 197. Requisites for
officials of the province. Creation. A province may
be created if it has a
SEC. 5. The Commission on territory of at least three
Elections shall conduct and thousand five hundred
supervise the plebiscite square kilometers, a
herein provided, the population of at least five
expenses for which shall be hundred thousand persons,
charged to local funds. an average estimated
annual income, as certified
SEC. 6. This Act shall by the Ministry of Finance,
takeeffect upon its of not less than ten million
approval.(Rollo, pp. 23-24) pesos for the last three
consecutive years, and its
Petitioners contend that creation shall not reduce
Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is the population and income
unconstitutional and it is of the mother province or
not in complete accord with provinces at the time of
the Local Government Code said creation to less than
as in Article XI, Section 3 of the minimum requirements
our Constitution, it is under this section. The
expressly mandated that— territory need not be
contiguous if it comprises
See. 3. No province, city, two or more islands.
municipality or barrio may
be created, divided, The average estimated
merged, abolished, or its annual income shall include
boundary substantially the income alloted for both
altered, except in the general and
accordance with the criteria infrastructural funds,
established in the local exclusive of trust funds,
government code, and transfers and nonrecurring
subject to the approval by income. (Rollo, p. 6)
a majority of the votes in a
plebiscite in the unit or Due to the constraints brought about by
units affected. the supervening Christmas holidays
during which the Court was in recess and
Section 197 of the Local Government unable to timely consider the petition, a
Code enumerates the conditions which supplemental pleading was filed by
must exist to provide the legal basis for petitioners on January 4, 1986, averring
the creation of a provincial unit and these therein that the plebiscite sought to be
requisites are: restrained by them was held on January
3, 1986 as scheduled but that there are
still serious issues raised in the instant
case affecting the legality, the voters of the Province
constitutionality and validity of such of Negros Occidental other
exercise which should properly be passed than those living within the
upon and resolved by this Court. territory of the new
province of Negros del
The plebiscite was confined only to the Norte to be not in
inhabitants of the territory of Negros del accordance with the
N•rte, namely: the Cities of Silay, Cadiz, Constitution, that a writ of
and San Carlos, and the municipalities of mandamus be issued,
Calatrava, Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, directed to the respondent
Manapla, Victorias, E.B. Magalona and Commission on Elections,
Don Salvador Benedicto. Because of the to schedule the holding of
exclusions of the voters from the rest of another plebiscite at which
the province of Negros Occidental, all the qualified voters of
petitioners found need to change the the entire Province of
prayer of their petition "to the end that Negros Occidental as now
the constitutional issues which they have existing shall participate, at
raised in the action will be ventilated and the same time making
given final resolution.'"At the same time, pronouncement that the
they asked that the effects of the plebiscite held on January
plebiscite which they sought to stop be 3, 1986 has no legal effect,
suspended until the Supreme Court shall being a patent legal nullity;
have rendered its decision on the very
fundamental and far-reaching questions And that a similar writ of
that petitioners have brought out. Prohibition be issued,
directed to the respondent
Acknowledging in their supplemental Provincial Treasurer, to
petition that supervening events desist from ordering the
rendered moot the prayer in their initial release of any local funds
petition that the plebiscite scheduled for to answer for expenses
January 3, 1986, be enjoined, petitioners incurred in the holding of
plead, nevertheless, that- such plebiscite until
ordered by the Court.
... a writ of Prohibition be (Rollo pp. 9-10).
issued, directed to
Respondent Commission Petitioners further prayed
on Elections to desist from that the respondent
issuing official COMELEC hold in abeyance
proclamation of the results the issuance of any official
of the plebiscite held on proclamation of the results
January 3, 1986. of the aforestated
plebiscite.
Finding that the exclusion
and non-participation of
During the pendency of this case, a area of the new Province of Negros del
motion that he be allowed to appear as Norte, de not fall within the meaning and
amicus curiae in this case (dated scope of the term "unit or units affected",
December 27, 1985 and filed with the as referred to in Section 3 of Art. XI of
Court on January 2, 1986) was submitted our Constitution. On this reasoning,
by former Senator Ambrosio Padilla. Said respondents maintain that Batas
motion was granted in Our resolution of Pambansa Blg. 885 does not violate the
January 2, 1986. Constitution, invoking and citing the case
of Governor Zosimo Paredes versus the
Acting on the petition, as well as on the Honorable Executive Secretary to the
supplemental petition for prohibition with President, et al. (G.R. No. 55628, March
preliminary injunction with prayer for 2, 1984 (128 SCRA 61), particularly the
restraining order, the Court, on January pronouncements therein, hereunder
7, 1986 resolved, without giving due quoted:
course to the same, to require
respondents to comment, not to file a 1. Admittedly,this is one of
motion to dismiss. Complying with said those cases where the
resolution, public respondents, discretion of the Court is
represented by the Office of the Solicitor allowed considerable
General, on January 14, 1986, filed their leeway. There is indeed an
Comment, arguing therein that the element of ambiguity in the
challenged statute.-Batas Pambansa use of the expression 'unit
885, should be accorded the presumption or units affected'. It is
of legality. They submit that the said law plausible to assert as
is not void on its face and that the petitioners do that when
petition does not show a clear, certain Barangays are
categorical and undeniable separated from a parent
demonstration of the supposed municipality to form a new
infringement of the Constitution. one, all the voters therein
Respondents state that the powers of the are affected. It is much
Batasang-Pambansa to enact the more persuasive, however,
assailed law is beyond question. They to contend as respondents
claim that Batas Pambansa Big. 885 does do that the acceptable
not infringe the Constitution because the construction is for those
requisites of the Local Government Code voters, who are not from
have been complied with. Furthermore, the barangays to be
they submit that this case has now separated, should be
become moot and academic with the excluded in the plebiscite.
proclamation of the new Province of
Negros del Norte. 2. For one thing, it is in
accordance with the settled
Respondents argue that the remaining doctrine that between two
cities and municipalities of the Province possible constructions, one
of Negros Occidental not included in the avoiding a finding of
unconstitutionality and the fundamental principle of
other yielding such a result, the Constitution to promote
the former is to be local autonomy, the
preferred. That which will preference being for
save, not that which will smaller units. To rule as
destroy, commends itself this Tribunal does is to
for acceptance. After all, follow an accepted
the basic presumption all principle of constitutional
these years is one of construction, that in
validity. ... ascertaining the meaning
of a particular provision
3. ... Adherence to such that may give rise to
philosophy compels the doubts, the intent of the
conclusion that when there framers and of the people
are indications that the may be gleaned from
inhabitants of several provisions in pari materia.
barangays are inclined to
separate from a parent Respondents submit that said ruling in
municipality they should be the aforecited case applies equally with
allowed to do so. What is force in the case at bar. Respondents also
more logical than to maintain that the requisites under the
ascertain their will in a Local Government Code (P.D. 337) for
plebiscite called for that the creation of the new province of
purpose. It is they, and Negros del Norte have all been duly
they alone, who shall complied with, Respondents discredit
constitute the new unit. petitioners' allegations that the requisite
New responsibilities will be area of 3,500 square kilometers as so
assumed. New burdens will prescribed in the Local Government Code
be imposed. A new for a new province to be created has not
municipal corporation will been satisfied. Petitioners insist that the
come into existence. Its area which would comprise the new
birth will be a matter of province of Negros del Norte, would only
choice-their choice. They be about 2,856.56 square kilometers and
should be left alone then to which evidently would be lesser than the
decide for themselves. To minimum area prescribed by the
allow other voters to governing statute. Respondents, in this
participate will not yield a regard, point out and stress that Section
true expression of their will. 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 creating
They may even frustrate it, said new province plainly declares that
That certainly will be so if the territorial boundaries of Negros del
they vote against it for Norte comprise an area of 4,019.95
selfish reasons, and they square kilometers, more or less.
constitute the majority.
That is not to abide by the
As a final argument, respondents insist should not longer deserve further
that instant petition has been rendered consideration.
moot and academic considering that a
plebiscite has been already conducted on Secondly, in Parliamentary Bill No. 3644
January 3, 1986; that as a result thereof, which led to the enactment of Batas
the corresponding certificate of canvass Pambansa Blg. 885 and the creation of
indicated that out of 195,134 total votes the new Province of Negros del Norte, it
cast in said plebiscite, 164,734 were in expressly declared in Sec. 2 of the
favor of the creation of Negros del Norte aforementioned Parliamentary Bill, the
and 30,400 were against it; and because following:
"the affirmative votes cast represented a
majority of the total votes cast in said SEC. 2. The boundaries of
plebiscite, the Chairman of the Board of the new province shall be
Canvassers proclaimed the new province the southern limits of the
which shall be known as "Negros del City of Silay, the
Norte". Thus, respondents stress the fact Municipality of Salvador
that following the proclamation of Negros Benedicto and the City of
del Norte province, the appointments of San Carlos on the South
the officials of said province created were and the natural boundaries
announced. On these considerations, of the northern portion of
respondents urge that this case should the Island of Negros on the
be dismissed for having been rendered West, North and
moot and academic as the creation of the East, containing an area of
new province is now a "fait accompli." 285,656 hectares more or
less. (Emphasis supplied).
In resolving this case, it will be useful to
note and emphasize the facts which However, when said Parliamentary Bill
appear to be agreed to by the parties No. 3644 was very quickly enacted into
herein or stand unchallenged. Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, the boundaries
of the new Province of Negros del Norte
Firstly, there is no disagreement that the were defined therein and its boundaries
Provincial Treasurer of the Province of then stated to be as follows:
Negros Occidental has not disbursed, nor
was required to disburse any public funds SECTION 1. The Cities of
in connection with the plebiscite held on Silay, Cadiz, and San Carlos
January 3, 1986 as so disclosed in the and the municipalities of
Comment to the Petition filed by the Calatrava, Toboso,
respondent Provincial Treasurer of Escalante, Sagay, Manapla,
Negros Occidental dated January 20, Victorias, E.R. Magalona;
1986 (Rollo, pp. 36-37). Thus, the prayer and Salvador Benedicto, all
of the petitioners that said Provincial in the northern portion of
Treasurer be directed by this Court to the Island of Negros, are
desist from ordering the release of any hereby separated from the
public funds on account of such plebiscite Province of Negros
 Occidental and constituted (Sq. Km.)
into a new province to be
known as the Province of 1. Silay City
Negros del Norte. .......................................
............................214.8
SEC. 1. The boundaries of
the new province shall be 2. E.B.
the southern limits of the Magalona.........................
City of Silay, the ...................................11
Municipality of Salvador 3.3
Benedicto and the City of
San Carlos on the south 3.
and the territorial limits of Victorias...........................
the northern portion of the .......................................
Island of Negros on the ...133.9
West, North and East,
comprising a territory of 4.
4,019.95 square kilometers Manapla...........................
more or less. .......................................
....112.9
Equally accepted by the parties is the fact
that under the certification issued by 5. Cadiz City
Provincial Treasurer Julian L. Ramirez of .......................................
the Province of Negros Occidental, dated ...........................516.5
July 16, 1985, it was therein certified as
follows: 6. Sagay
.......................................
xxx xxx xxx ..................................389
.6
This is to certify that the
following cities and 7. Escalante
municipalities of Negros .......................................
Occidental have the land .............................124.0
area as indicated
hereunder based on the 8.
Special Report No. 3, Toboso.............................
Philippines 1980, .......................................
Population, Land Area and ...123.4
Density: 1970, 1975 and
1980 by the National 9.
Census and Statistics Calatrava..........................
Office, Manila. .......................................
....504.5
Land Area
 10. San Carlos 2,685.2 square kilometers, representing
City.................................. the total land area of the Cities of Silay,
.........................451.3 San Carlos and Cadiz and the
Municipalities of E.R. Magalona, Victorias,
11. Don Salvador Manapla, Sagay, Escalante, Taboso and
Benedicto......................... Calatrava, will result in approximately an
........... (not available) area of only 2,765.4 square kilometers
using as basis the Special Report,
This certification is issued Philippines 1980, Population, Land Area
upon the request of Dr. and Density: 1970, 1975 and 1980 of the
Patricio Y. Tan for whatever National Census and Statistics Office,
purpose it may serve him. Manila (see Exhibit "C", Rollo, p. 90).

(SGD.) JULIAN L. RAMIREZ No controversion has been made by

respondent with respect to the
Provincial Treasurer (Exh. allegations of petitioners that the original
"C" of Petition, Rollo, p. provision in the draft legislation,
90). Parliamentary Bill No. 3644, reads:

Although in the above certification it is SEC. 4. A plebiscite shall be

stated that the land area of the relatively conducted in the areas
new municipality of Don Salvador affected within a period of
Benedicto is not available, it is an one hundred and twenty
uncontradicted fact that the area days from the approval of
comprising Don Salvador municipality, this Act. After the
one of the component units of the new ratification of the creation
province, was derived from the City of of the Province of Negros
San Carlos and from the Municipality of del Norte by a majority of
Calatrava, Negros Occidental, and added the votes cast in such
thereto was a portion of about one-fourth plebiscite, the President
the land area of the town of Murcia, shall appoint the first
Negros Occidental. It is significant to officials of the new
note the uncontroverted submission of province.
petitioners that the total land area of the
entire municipality of Murcia, Negros However, when Batas Pambansa Blg. 885
Occidental is only 322.9 square was enacted, there was a significant
kilometers (Exh. "D", Rollo, p. 91). One- change in the above provision. The
fourth of this total land area of Murcia statute, as modified, provides that the
that was added to the portions derived requisite plebiscite "shall be conducted in
from the land area of Calatrava, Negros the proposed new province which are the
Occidental and San Carlos City (Negros areas affected."
Occidental) would constitute, therefore,
only 80.2 square kilometers. This area of It is this legislative determination limiting
80.2 square kilometers if then added to the plebiscite exclusively to the cities and
towns which would comprise the new this might tempt again those who strut
province that is assailed by the about in the corridors of power to
petitioners as violative of the provisions recklessly and with ulterior motives,
of our Constitution. Petitioners submit create, merge, divide and/or alter the
that Sec. 3, ART XI thereof, contemplates boundaries of political subdivisions,
a plebiscite that would be held in the unit either brazenly or stealthily, confident
or units affected by the creation of the that this Court will abstain from
new province as a result of the entertaining future challenges to their
consequent division of and substantial acts if they manage to bring about a fait
alteration of the boundaries of the accompli.
existing province. In this instance, the
voters in the remaining areas of the In the light of the facts and
province of Negros Occidental should circumstances alluded to by petitioners
have been allowed to participate in the as attending to the unusually rapid
questioned plebiscite. creation of the instant province of Negros
del Norte after a swiftly scheduled
Considering that the legality of the plebiscite, this Tribunal has the duty to
plebiscite itself is challenged for non- repudiate and discourage the
compliance with constitutional requisites, commission of acts which run counter to
the fact that such plebiscite had been the mandate of our fundamental law,
held and a new province proclaimed and done by whatever branch of our
its officials appointed, the case before Us government. This Court gives notice that
cannot truly be viewed as already moot it will not look with favor upon those who
and academic. Continuation of the may be hereafter inclined to ram through
existence of this newly proclaimed all sorts of legislative measures and then
province which petitioners strongly implement the same with indecent haste,
profess to have been illegally born, even if such acts would violate the
deserves to be inquired into by this Constitution and the prevailing statutes
Tribunal so that, if indeed, illegality of our land. It is illogical to ask that this
attaches to its creation, the commission Tribunal be blind and deaf to protests on
of that error should not provide the very the ground that what is already done is
excuse for perpetuation of such wrong. done. To such untenable argument the
For this Court to yield to the respondents' reply would be that, be this so, the Court,
urging that, as there has been fait nevertheless, still has the duty and right
accompli then this Court should passively to correct and rectify the wrong brought
accept and accede to the prevailing to its attention.
situation is an unacceptable suggestion.
Dismissal of the instant petition, as On the merits of the case.
respondents so propose is a proposition
fraught with mischief. Respondents' Aside from the simpler factual issue
submission will create a dangerous relative to the land area of the new
precedent. Should this Court decline now province of Negros del Norte, the more
to perform its duty of interpreting and significant and pivotal issue in the
indicating what the law is and should be, present case revolves around in the
interpretation and application in the case We find no way to reconcile the holding
at bar of Article XI, Section 3 of the of a plebiscite that should conform to said
Constitution, which being brief and for constitutional requirement but eliminates
convenience, We again quote: the participation of either of these two
component political units. No amount of
SEC. 3. No province, city, rhetorical flourishes can justify exclusion
municipality or barrio may of the parent province in the plebiscite
be created, divided, because of an alleged intent on the part
merged abolished, or its of the authors and implementors of the
boundary substantially challenged statute to carry out what is
altered, except in claimed to be a mandate to guarantee
accordance with the criteria and promote autonomy of local
established in the local government units. The alleged good
government code, and intentions cannot prevail and overrule
subject to the approval by the cardinal precept that what our
a majority of the votes in a Constitution categorically directs to be
plebiscite in the unit or done or imposes as a requirement must
units affected. first be observed, respected and
complied with. No one should be allowed
It can be plainly seen that the aforecited to pay homage to a supposed
constitutional provision makes it fundamental policy intended to
imperative that there be first obtained guarantee and promote autonomy of
"the approval of a majority of votes in the local government units but at the same
plebiscite in the unit or units affected" time transgress, ignore and disregard
whenever a province is created, divided what the Constitution commands in
or merged and there is substantial Article XI Section 3 thereof. Respondents
alteration of the boundaries. It is thus would be no different from one who
inescapable to conclude that the hurries to pray at the temple but then
boundaries of the existing province of spits at the Idol therein.
Negros Occidental would necessarily be
substantially altered by the division of its We find no merit in the submission of the
existing boundaries in order that there respondents that the petition should be
can be created the proposed new dismissed because the motive and
province of Negros del Norte. Plain and wisdom in enacting the law may not be
simple logic will demonstrate than that challenged by petitioners. The principal
two political units would be affected. The point raised by the petitioners is not the
first would be the parent province of wisdom and motive in enacting the law
Negros Occidental because its but the infringement of the Constitution
boundaries would be substantially which is a proper subject of judicial
altered. The other affected entity would inquiry.
be composed of those in the area
subtracted from the mother province to Petitioners' discussion regarding the
constitute the proposed province of motives behind the enactment of B.P.
Negros del Norte. Blg. 885 to say the least, are most
enlightening and provoking but are case was based on a claimed prerogative
factual issues the Court cannot properly of the Court then to exercise its discretion
pass upon in this case. Mention by on the matter. It did not resolve the
petitioners of the unexplained changes or question of how the pertinent provision
differences in the proposed of the Constitution should be correctly
Parliamentary Bill No. 3644 and the interpreted.
enacted Batas Pambansa Blg. 885; the
swift and surreptitious manner of The ruling in the aforestated case
passage and approval of said law; the of Paredes vs. The Honorable Executive
abrupt scheduling of the plebiscite; the Secretary, et al. (supra) should not be
reference to news articles regarding the taken as a doctrinal or compelling
questionable conduct of the said precedent when it is acknowledged
plebiscite held on January 3, 1986; all therein that "it is plausible to assert, as
serve as interesting reading but are not petitioners do, that when certain
the decisive matters which should be Barangays are separated from a parent
reckoned in the resolution of this case. municipality to form a new one, all the
voters therein are affected."
What the Court considers the only
significant submissions lending a little It is relevant and most proper to mention
support to respondents' case is their that in the aforecited case of Paredes vs.
reliance on the rulings and Executive Secretary, invoked by
pronouncements made by this Court in respondents, We find very lucidly
the case of Governor Zosimo Paredes expressed the strong dissenting view of
versus The Honorable Executive Justice Vicente Abad Santos, a
Secretary to the President, et al., G.R. distinguished member of this Court, as he
No. 55628, March 2, 1984 (128 SCRA 6). therein voiced his opinion, which We
In said case relating to a plebiscite held hereunder quote:
to ratify the creation of a new
municipality from existing barangays, this 2. ... when the Constitution
Court upheld the legality of the plebiscite speaks of "the unit or units
which was participated in exclusively by affected" it means all of the
the people of the barangay that would people of the municipality if
constitute the new municipality. the municipality is to be
divided such as in the case
This Court is not unmindful of this solitary at bar or an of the people
case alluded to by respondents. What is, of two or more
however, highly significant are the municipalities if there be a
prefatory statements therein stating that merger. I see no ambiguity
said case is "one of those cases where in the Constitutional
the discretion of the Court is allowed provision.
considerable leeway" and that "there is
indeed an element of ambiguity in the This dissenting opinion of Justice Vicente
use of the expression unit or units Abad Santos is the— forerunner of the
affected." The ruling rendered in said ruling which We now consider applicable
to the case at bar, In the analogous case result in the removal of approximately
of Emilio C. Lopez, Jr., versus the 2,768.4 square kilometers from the land
Honorable Commission on Elections, L- area of an existing province whose
56022, May 31, 1985, 136 SCRA 633, this boundaries will be consequently
dissent was reiterated by Justice Abad substantially altered. It becomes easy to
Santos as he therein assailed as suffering realize that the consequent effects cf the
from a constitutional infirmity a division of the parent province
referendum which did not include all the necessarily will affect all the people living
people of Bulacan and Rizal, when such in the separate areas of Negros
referendum was intended to ascertain if Occidental and the proposed province of
the people of said provinces were willing Negros del Norte. The economy of the
to give up some of their towns to parent province as well as that of the new
Metropolitan Manila. His dissenting province will be inevitably affected, either
opinion served as a useful guideline in for the better or for the worse. Whatever
the instant case. be the case, either or both of these
political groups will be affected and they
Opportunity to re-examine the views are, therefore, the unit or units referred
formerly held in said cases is now to in Section 3 of Article XI of the
afforded the present Court. The reasons Constitution which must be included in
in the mentioned cases invoked by the plebiscite contemplated therein.
respondents herein were formerly
considered acceptable because of the It is a well accepted rule that "in
views then taken that local autonomy ascertaining the meaning of a particular
would be better promoted However, provision that may give rise to doubts,
even this consideration no longer retains the intent of the framers and of the
persuasive value. people, may be gleaned from the
provisions in pari materia." Parliamentary
The environmental facts in the case Bill No. 3644 which proposed the creation
before Us readily disclose that the subject of the new province of Negros del Norte
matter under consideration is of greater recites in Sec. 4 thereof that "the
magnitude with concomitant multifarious plebiscite shall be conducted in
complicated problems. In the earlier the areas affected within a period of one
case, what was involved was a division of hundred and twenty days from the
a barangay which is the smallest political approval of this Act." As this draft
unit in the Local Government Code. legislation speaks of "areas," what was
Understandably, few and lesser problems contemplated evidently are plurality of
are involved. In the case at bar, creation areas to participate in the plebiscite.
of a new province relates to the largest Logically, those to be included in such
political unit contemplated in Section 3, plebiscite would be the people living in
Art. XI of the Constitution. To form the the area of the proposed new province
new province of Negros del Norte no less and those living in the parent province.
than three cities and eight municipalities This assumption will be consistent with
will be subtracted from the parent the requirements set forth in the
province of Negros Occidental. This will Constitution.
We fail to find any legal basis for the Negros del Norte, the province of Negros
unexplained change made when Occidental would be deprived of the long
Parliamentary Bill No. 3644 was enacted established Cities of Silay, Cadiz, and San
into Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 so that it Carlos, as well as the municipality of
is now provided in said enabling law that Victorias. No controversion has been
the plebiscite "shall be conducted in the made regarding petitioners' assertion
proposed new province which are the that the areas of the Province of Negros
areas affected." We are not disposed to Occidental will be diminished by about
agree that by mere legislative fiat the unit 285,656 hectares and it will lose seven of
or units affected referred in the the fifteen sugar mills which contribute to
fundamental law can be diminished or the economy of the whole province. In
restricted by the Batasang Pambansa to the language of petitioners, "to create
cities and municipalities comprising the Negros del Norte, the existing territory
new province, thereby ignoring the and political subdivision known as Negros
evident reality that there are other Occidental has to be partitioned and
people necessarily affected. dismembered. What was involved was no
'birth' but "amputation." We agree with
In the mind of the Court, the change the petitioners that in the case of Negros
made by those responsible for the what was involved was a division, a
enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 separation; and consequently, as Sec. 3
betrays their own misgivings. They must of Article XI of the Constitution
have entertained apprehensions that by anticipates, a substantial alteration of
holding the plebiscite only in the areas of boundary.
the new proposed province, this tactic
will be tainted with illegality. In As contended by petitioners,—
anticipation of a possible strong
challenge to the legality of such a Indeed, the terms
plebiscite there was, therefore, 'created', 'divided',
deliberately added in the enacted statute 'merged', 'abolished' as
a self-serving phrase that the new used in the constitutional
province constitutes the area affected. provision do not
Such additional statement serves no contemplate distinct
useful purpose for the same is situation isolated from the
misleading, erroneous and far from truth. mutually exclusive to each
The remaining portion of the parent other. A Province
province is as much an area affected. The maybe created where an
substantial alteration of the boundaries existing province
of the parent province, not to mention is divided or two provinces
the other adverse economic effects it merged. Such cases
might suffer, eloquently argue the points necessarily will involve
raised by the petitioners. existing unit or
units abolished and
Petitioners have averred without definitely the boundary
contradiction that after the creation of being substantially altered.
 It would thus be inaccurate a pronouncement that the plebiscite held
to state that where an on January 3, 1986 has no legal effect for
existing political unit is being a patent nullity.
divided or its boundary
substantially altered, as the The Court is prepared to declare the said
Constitution provides, only plebiscite held on January 3, 1986 as null
some and not all the voters and void and violative of the provisions of
in the whole unit which Sec. 3, Article XI of the Constitution. The
suffers dismemberment or Court is not, however, disposed to direct
substantial alteration of its the conduct of a new plebiscite, because
boundary are affected. We find no legal basis to do so. With
Rather, the contrary is true. constitutional infirmity attaching to the
subject Batas Pambansa Big. 885 and
It is also Our considered view that even also because the creation of the new
hypothetically assuming that the merits province of Negros del Norte is not in
of this case can depend on the mere accordance with the criteria established
discretion that this Court may exercise, in the Local Government Code, the
nevertheless, it is the petitioners' case factual and legal basis for the creation of
that deserve to be favored. such new province which should justify
the holding of another plebiscite does not
It is now time for this Court to set aside exist.
the equivocations and the indecisive
pronouncements in the adverted case of Whatever claim it has to validity and
Paredes vs. the Honorable Executive whatever recognition has been gained by
Secretary, et al. (supra). For the reasons the new province of Negros del Norte
already here express, We now state that because of the appointment of the
the ruling in the two mentioned cases officials thereof, must now be erased.
sanctioning the exclusion of the voters That Negros del Norte is but a legal
belonging to an existing political unit fiction should be announced. Its
from which the new political unit will be existence should be put to an end as
derived, from participating in the quickly as possible, if only to settle the
plebiscite conducted for the purpose of complications currently attending to its
determining the formation of another creation. As has been manifested, the
new political unit, is hereby abandoned. parent province of Negros del Norte has
been impleaded as the defendant in a
In their supplemental petition, dated suit filed by the new Province of Negros
January 4, 1986, it is prayed for by del Norte, before the Regional Trial Court
petitioners that a writ of mandamus be of Negros (del Norte), docketed as Civil
issued, directing the respondent Case No. 169-C, for the immediate
Commission on Elections, to schedule the allocation, distribution and transfer of
holding of another plebiscite at which all funds by the parent province to the new
the qualified voters of the entire province province, in an amount claimed to be at
of Negros Occidental as now existing least P10,000,000.00.
shall participate and that this Court make
The final nail that puts to rest whatever islands." The use of the word territory in
pretension there is to the legality of the this particular provision of the Local
province of Negros del Norte is the Government Code and in the very last
significant fact that this created province sentence thereof, clearly reflects
does not even satisfy the area that "territory" as therein used, has
requirement prescribed in Section 197 of reference only to the mass of land area
the Local Government Code, as earlier and excludes the waters over which the
discussed. political unit exercises control.

It is of course claimed by the respondents Said sentence states that the "territory
in their Comment to the exhibits need not be contiguous." Contiguous
submitted by the petitioners (Exhs. C and means (a) in physical contact; (b)
D, Rollo, pp. 19 and 91), that the new touching along all or most of one side; (c)
province has a territory of 4,019.95 near, text, or adjacent (Webster's New
square kilometers, more or less. This World Dictionary, 1972 Ed., p. 307).
assertion is made to negate the proofs "Contiguous", when employed as an
submitted, disclosing that the land area adjective, as in the above sentence, is
of the new province cannot be more than only used when it describes physical
3,500 square kilometers because its land contact, or a touching of sides of two
area would, at most, be only about 2,856 solid masses of matter. The meaning of
square kilometers, taking into account particular terms in a statute may be
government statistics relative to the total ascertained by reference to words
area of the cities and municipalities associated with or related to them in the
constituting Negros del Norte. statute (Animal Rescue League vs.
Respondents insist that when Section Assessors, 138 A.L.R. p. 110). Therefore,
197 of the Local Government Code in the context of the sentence above,
speaks of the territory of the province to what need not be "contiguous" is the
be created and requires that such "territory" the physical mass of land area.
territory be at least 3,500 square There would arise no need for the
kilometers, what is contemplated is not legislators to use the word contiguous if
only the land area but also the land and they had intended that the term
water over which the said province has "territory" embrace not only land area
jurisdiction and control. It is even the but also territorial waters. It can be safely
submission of the respondents that in concluded that the word territory in the
this regard the marginal sea within the first paragraph of Section 197 is meant to
three mile limit should be considered in be synonymous with "land area" only.
determining the extent of the territory of The words and phrases used in a statute
the new province. Such an interpretation should be given the meaning intended by
is strained, incorrect, and fallacious. the legislature (82 C.J.S., p. 636). The
sense in which the words are used
The last sentence of the first paragraph furnished the rule of construction (In re
of Section 197 is most revealing. As so Winton Lumber Co., 63 p. 2d., p. 664).
stated therein the "territory need not be
contiguous if it comprises two or more
The distinction between "territory" and of this case can be resolved without need
"land area" which respondents make is of ascertaining the real motives and
an artificial or strained construction of wisdom in the making of the questioned
the disputed provision whereby the law. No proper challenge on those
words of the statute are arrested from grounds can also be made by petitioners
their plain and obvious meaning and in this proceeding. Neither may this Court
made to bear an entirely different venture to guess the motives or wisdom
meaning to justify an absurd or unjust in the exercise of legislative powers.
result. The plain meaning in the language Repudiation of improper or unwise
in a statute is the safest guide to follow actions taken by tools of a political
in construing the statute. A construction machinery rests ultimately, as recent
based on a forced or artificial meaning of events have shown, on the electorate
its words and out of harmony of the and the power of a vigilant people.
statutory scheme is not to be favored
(Helvering vs. Hutchings, 85 L. Ed., p. Petitioners herein deserve and should
909). receive the gratitude of the people of the
Province of Negros Occidental and even
It would be rather preposterous to by our Nation. Commendable is the
maintain that a province with a small land patriotism displayed by them in daring to
area but which has a long, narrow, institute this case in order to preserve the
extended coast line, (such as La Union continued existence of their historic
province) can be said to have a larger province. They were inspired
territory than a land-locked province undoubtedly by their faithful
(such as Ifugao or Benguet) whose land commitment to our Constitution which
area manifestly exceeds the province first they wish to be respected and obeyed.
mentioned. Despite the setbacks and the hardships
which petitioners aver confronted them,
Allegations have been made that the they valiantly and unfalteringly pursued a
enactment of the questioned state was worthy cause. A happy destiny for our
marred by "dirty tricks", in the Nation is assured as long as among our
introduction and passing of people there would be exemplary citizens
Parliamentary Bill No. 3644 "in secret such as the petitioners herein.
haste" pursuant to sinister designs to
achieve "pure and simple WHEREFORE, Batas Pambansa Blg. 885
gerrymandering; "that recent is hereby declared unconstitutional. The
happenings more than amply proclamation of the new province of
demonstrate that far from guaranteeing Negros del Norte, as well as the
its autonomy it (Negros del Norte) has appointment of the officials thereof are
become the fiefdom of a local also declared null and void.
strongman" (Rollo, p. 43; emphasis
supplied). SO ORDERED.

It is not for this Court to affirm or reject

such matters not only because the merits
 GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993 The petitioners who are allegedly bona-
fide residents and voters of Mauban,
EDWIN V. SARDEA, EDELYN C. DE LA Quezon, and who are "so numerous it is
PEÑA, ROBERTO P. ALQUIROS, impractical to bring them all before the
FRANCISCO C. ENEJOSA, PERFECTO Honorable Court" (p. 2, Rollo), assail the
GEQUINTO, TERESITA L. MANIPOL, Resolution promulgated on June 19,
ROMMEL V. PANSACOLA, 1992, by the respondent Commission on
BLANQUITA M. RIVERA, JUAN M. Elections (COMELEC), in Special Action
CALDERERO, ALEX MORALES, Case No. SPA 92-331, entitled: "In the
JOCELYN VILLAMARZO, NORMA Matter of the Petition to Declare a Failure
CUARESNA, EDWIN PERALTA, of Election in Mauban, Quezon," denying
DELFIN DIAMANTE, RODOLFO C. their petition against the COMELEC, the
DEVERA and such other bona fide Municipal Board of Canvassers of
residents and voters of the Mauban, Quezon, and the private
Municipality of Mauban, Province of respondents who were proclaimed the
Quezon, who are so numerous it is duly elected Mayor, Vice Mayor and
impracticable to bring them all Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
before the Honorable Mauban, Quezon.
Court, petitioners,
vs. The pertinent portion of the Resolution
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON reads as follows:
ELECTIONS, BELLA E. PUTONG,
DIOSCORO I. ALMOZARA and Irregularities such as fraud,
LEONCITA A. PASTRANA, in their vote-buying and terrorism
capacity as Members of the are proper grounds in an
Municipal Board of Canvassers of election contest but may
Mauban, Quezon, FERDINAND V. not as a rule be invoked to
LLAMAS, ROLANDO Q. ELLA, declare a failure of election
JOSHUE B. MALUBAY, CASPAR L. and to disenfranchise the
URSOLINO, REXITO P. BANTAYAN, greater number of the
CESAR P. PASAMBA, ROCKY A. electorate through the
FERRO, LEONCHITO A. misdeeds, precisely, of only
CAPASANGRA and SERGIO M. a relatively few. . . . .
VILLABROZA, respondents. (Grand Alliance for
Democracy, GAD, et al. vs.
Almeda, Javier, Galandines & Associate Comelec, et al., G.R.
Law Offices for petitioners. 78302, 27 May 87, En
Banc, Resolution.)
The Solicitor General for public
respondents. xxx xxx xxx
 . . . it is very clear that as At about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
early as May 14, 1992 May 13, 1992, while the canvassing of
petitioners were already the election returns was going on, some
not in consonance with the sympathizers of petitioner Edwin Sardea,
proceedings of the Board of a defeated mayoralty candidate of
Canvassers. Yet, from LAKAS-NUCD, "stormed the municipal
petitioner EDWIN building" and "destroyed . . . all election
SARDEA'S own admission, materials and paraphernalia including,
he only formally filed on among others, the copies of election
May 18, 1992, his petition returns furnished to respondent Board . .
assailing the legality of the ." (p. 86, Rollo).
canvassing being held,
contrary to the provisions On May 14, 1992, the respondent
of Sec. 17 and 19 of R.A. Municipal Board of Canvassers convened
7166. and assessed the extent of the damage
wrought by the demonstrators. It
xxx xxx xxx discovered that the election returns in
the possession of the MTC Judge of
WHEREFORE, premises Mauban were intact, so it ordered the
considered, the retrieval of said election returns for use
Commission hereby in the canvass. However, due to the
RESOLVES to DENY as it absence of certain forms needed for the
hereby DENIES this canvass, the same was suspended and
petition. (pp. 36-37, Rollo.) moved to May 17, 1992. Still, on said
date, the canvassing was not resumed
Petitioner allege that respondent because the Board had to determine first
COMELEC "acted with grave abuse of the number of returns to be used in the
discretion amounting to lack or excess of canvass.
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed
Resolution, considering that it blatantly The Municipal Board of Canvassers
disregarded its own Rules of Procedure reconvened on May 18, 1992, informed
and, more importantly, it perpetuated the parties that it would continue the
(sic) a clear violation of election laws" canvassing of the election returns based
(p. 85, Rollo). on the copies from the MTC of Mauban.
Atty. Romeo Devera, counsel of LAKAS-
The facts of the case are as follows: NUCD, objected. Later, he filed a petition
in behalf of petitioner Edwin Sardea to
On May 12, 1992, the respondent stop the proceedings of the Board of
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Canvassers on the ground that it had no
Mauban, Quezon, convened at the authority from the COMELEC to use the
Municipal Hall and canvassed the first copies of the election returns obtained
batch of election returns for the just from the MTC of Mauban. The Municipal
concluded May 11, 1992 elections in that Board of Canvassers overruled Attorney
municipality. Devera's objection and denied Sardea's
petition to stop the proceedings, citing On May 26, 1992, Sardea filed a petition
the directive dated May 15, 1992 of the in the Office of the Election Registrar in
Provincial Election Supervisor, Atty. Mauban, Quezon, assailing the
Adolfo Ilagan. The directive was based composition of the Board of Canvassers
on the authority given by Acting and its proceedings. He also filed an
Executive Director Resurreccion Bora of Amended Notice of Appeal.
the COMELEC, "to order the Municipal
Trial Court Judge of Mauban, Quezon to On May 27, 1992, the Municipal Board of
make available the copy of election Canvassers proclaimed the private
returns, etc., in his possession for the use respondents as the duly elected Mayor,
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers" (p. Vice-Mayor and Members of the
86, Rollo). As Sardea manifested that he Sangguniang Bayan of Mauban, Quezon.
would appeal the ruling, the Board of
Canvassers suspended the proceedings On June 10, 1992, petitioners filed
in order that he may formalize his appeal. Special Action Case No. SPA 92-331,
On May 19, 1992, he filed a notice of seeking to declare a failure of election in
appeal. Mauban, Quezon, based on the grounds
that:
On May 22, 1992, the COMELEC held a
special meeting and resolved "to I. The attendant facts and
authorize the Municipal Board of circumstance constitute
Canvassers of Mauban, Quezon to substantial grounds to
reconvene and use the copies of the declare a failure of election
election returns of the Municipal Trial in Mauban, Quezon.
Court Judge" (p. 87, Rollo).
II. Respondent Board
On May 24, 1992, the Municipal Board of gravely abused its
Canvassers reconvened and dismissed discretion amounting to
Sardea's appeal. The letter of Atty. Adolfo lack or excess of
Ilagan dated May 15, 1992 and the jurisdiction in canvassing
minutes of the special meeting of the the impugned election
COMELEC on May 22, 1992, were returns without prior
deemed sufficient authority for it to use authority from the
the MTC Judge's copies of the election Honorable Commission. (p.
returns. A copy of the excerpts of the 14, Rollo.)
minutes contained a written notation of a
certain Cesario Perez addressed to the On June 19, 1992, the COMELEC
chairman of the respondent Board promulgated the challenged resolution,
commanding him to "implement this whereupon Sardea filed this petition
resolution" and that "this is tantamount for certiorari alleging that the COMELEC
to denying the appeal to (sic) your ruling, gravely abused its discretion:
which appeal was not received by this
Commission" (p. 62, Rollo). The 1. in not annulling the
canvassing continued thereafter. proceedings of the
 Municipal Board of Sec. 257. Decision in the
Canvassers of Mauban, Commission. — The
Quezon, despite the failure Commission shall decide all
of election in that election cases brought
municipality; before it within ninety days
from the date of their
2. in considering the submission for decision.
grounds raised by The decision of the
petitioners as proper for an Commission shall become
election contest despite the final thirty days after
nullity of the proceedings of receipt of judgment. (Art.
the Municipal Board of XII, C, Sec. 3, Const.; Art.
Canvassers of Mauban, XVIII, Sec. 193, 1978 EC).
Quezon; and (Underlining supplied.)

3. in ruling that petitioner A perusal of our election laws shows that

did not appeal on time the they do not explicitly provide for an
resolution of the Municipal appeal from the COMELEC to the
Board of canvassers of Supreme Court. Section 7, Art. IX-A of
Mauban, Quezon. the 1987 Constitution provides that:
"unless otherwise provided by this
The respondents asked for the outright Constitution or by law, any decision,
dismissal of the petition based on Section order or ruling of each [Constitutional]
3, Rule 39 of the COMELEC Rules of Commission may be brought to the
Procedure which provides that decisions Supreme Court on certiorari by the
in special action cases "shall become final aggrieved party within thirty [30] days
and executory after the lapse of five (5) from receipt of a copy thereof." The
days from their promulgation, unless petition for certiorari shall be filed under
retrained by the Supreme Court" (p. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rivera vs.
90, Rollo). COMELEC, 199 SCRA 178; Galido vs.
COMELEC, 193 SCRA 79; Dario vs. Mison,
Petitioners, on the other hand, contend 176 SCRA 84; Pedalizo vs. Mariano, UDK-
that the finality of COMELEC decisions or 9819, March 15, 1990).
resolutions is indicated in Sec. 257 of B.P.
881, as amended (Omnibus Election Since no constitutional provision or law
Code) which provides that the decision, fixes a shorter period, the reglementary
order or ruling of the Commission shall period within which a petition
become final thirty (30) days after its forcertiorari may be filed in the Supreme
promulgation. Court against the COMELEC is thirty (30)
days from receipt of a copy of the
Section 257 of the Omnibus Election COMELEC's order, decision, or ruling.
Code provides:
Respondents did not correctly invoke
Sec. 3, Rule 39 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure because this is a petition Court Judge's copies of the election
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules returns as basis for the canvass.
of Court, hence, it falls under Sec. 1, Rule
39 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure His second complaint on May 27, 1992,
and Sec. 257 of the Omnibus Election filed with the Election Registrar, assailed
Code. This petition was therefore the composition and proceedings of the
seasonably filed on July 23, 1992, within Municipal Board of Canvassers. Both
thirty (30) days after the petitioner complaints definitely raised pre-
received the COMELEC resolution on proclamation controversies.
June 23, 1992.
We have already ruled in Gallardo
Nevertheless, it must fail because we find vs. Rimando, 187 SCRA 463; Salvacion
the grounds of the petition to be without vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513; Casimiro
merit. vs. COMELEC, 171 SCRA 468, that pre-
proclamation controversies my no longer
The facts show that Sardea's two (2) be entertained by the COMELEC after the
complaints/petitions involved pre- winning candidates have been
proclamation controversies which are proclaimed and assumed office. The
defined as: proper remedy of the aggrieved party is
an election contest in the Regional Trial
Sec. 241. Definition. — A Court as provided in Sec. 250 of B.P. 881
pre-proclamation and Sec. 2(2),
controversy refers to any Art. IX-C of the Constitution.
question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings In this case, since the authenticity and
of the board of completeness of the returns were never
canvassers which may be questioned and the winning candidates
raised by any candidate or had been proclaimed on May 27, 1992,
by any registered political Sardea's pre-proclamation complaint in
party or coalition of political the COMELEC ceased to be viable.
parties before the board or
directly with the The COMELEC correctly dismissed
Commission, or any matter Sardea's petition on the ground that it
raised under Sections 233, was proper for an election contest.
234, 235 and 236 in
relation to the preparation, But its holding that petitioners' appeal
transmission, receipt, from the resolution of the Municipal
custody and appreciation of Board of Canvassers was late, is
the election returns. (Art. erroneous.
XX Omnibus Election Code:
emphasis supplied.) Section 17, R.A. 7166 deals with the
commencement of pre-proclamation
Sardea's first May 18, 1992 complain controversies while Sec. 19 provides that
questioned the use of the Municipal Trial "parties adversely affected by a ruling of
the Board of Canvassers on questions the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, reads
affecting the composition or proceedings as follows:
of the board may appeal the matter to
the Commission within three (3) days Sec. 6. Failure of election.
from a ruling thereon." — If, on account of force
majeure, violence,
The petitioners properly filed their terrorism, fruad, or other
objection to the use of the election analogous causes the
returns from the MTC during the election in any polling place
canvassing on May 18, 1992, based on has not been held on the
Sec. 20 of R.A. 7166. Said section date fixed, or had been
provides that persons objecting to the suspended before the hour
inclusion in the canvass of any election fixed by law for the closing
returns "shall submit their oral objection of the voting, or after the
to the chairman of the Board of voting and during the
Canvassers at the time questioned return preparation and the
is presented for inclusion in the canvass." transmission of the election
(Emphasis ours.) returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such
By presenting his verbal objection, and election results in a failure
subsequently filing a formal objection, on to elect, and in any of such
May 18, 1992, Sardea acted in cases the failure or
accordance with Sec. 20 of R.A. 7166. His suspension of election
notice of appeal was verbally denied on would affect the result of
May 24, 1992 by the Board of the election, the
Canvassers. He filed a notice of appeal to Commission shall, on the
the Commission on May 26, 1992, or basis of a verified petition
within three (3) days after the denial of by any interested party and
his notice of appeal by the Board of after due notice and
Canvassers. hearing, call for the holding
or continuation of the
This issue on the timeliness of the election not held,
petitioners' appeal to the Commission is suspended or which
actually moot and academic because said resulted in a failure to elect
appeal could not survive after the on a date reasonably close
winning candidates were proclaimed. to the date of the election
not held, suspended or
The lone remaining issue is whether the which resulted in a failure
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in to elect but not later than
denying the petition to declare a failure thirty days after the
of election in Mauban, Quezon province. cessation of the cause of
such postponement or
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, suspension of the election
which is identical to Section 2, Rule 26 of
 or failure to elect. (Sec. 7, The election is to be set aside when it is
1978 EC). impossible from any evidence within
reach, to ascertain the true result - when
In Usman vs. COMELEC (42 SCRA 667, neither from the returns nor from other
690), we held that the pre-conditions for proof, nor from all together can the truth
declaring a failure of election are: "(1) be determined (Law on Public Officers
that no voting has been held in any and Election Law by Hector S. De Leon,
precinct or precincts because of force p. 381, 1990 Ed., citing A Treatise on the
mejeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) Law of Public Offices and Officers, by F.
that the votes not cast therein suffice to MECHEM, note 1 at p. 143).
affect the results of the elections. The
language of the law clearly requires the There is a failure of elections only when
concurrence of the[se] two the will of the electorate has been muted
circumstances to justify the calling of a and cannot be ascertained. If the will of
special election." the people is determinable, the same
must as far as possible be respected.
The destruction and loss of the copies of
the election returns intended for the Since in this case copies of the election
Municipal Board of Canvassers on returns submitted to the MTC of Mauban,
account of violence committed on May Quezon were extant, and their
13, 1992 is not one of the causes that authenticity was not questioned, they
would warrant the declaration of a failure were properly used as basis for the
of election because voting actually took canvass. This is expressly authorized by
place as scheduled on May 11, 1992 and Section 233 of the Omnibus Election
other valid election returns still existed. Code (B.P. 881) which provides that "if
Moreover, the incident did not affect the said returns have been lost or destroyed,
result of the election. the board of canvassers, upon prior
authority of the Commission, may use
The power to throw out or annul an any of the authentic copies of said
election should be exercised with the election returns or a certified copy of said
utmost care and only under election returns issued by the
circumstances which demonstrate Commission . . . ." (Emphasis ours.)
beyond doubt either that the disregard of
the law had been so fundamental or so Thus did we rule in an earlier case:
persistent and continuous that it is
impossible to distinguish and what votes "While it is true that in local elections, the
are lawful and what are unlawful, or to original copy of the election returns is to
arrive at any certain result whatsoever, be delivered to the city or municipal
or that the great body of the voters have board of canvassers as a body for its use
been prevented by violence, intimidation in the city or municipal canvass, there is
and threats from exercising their no provision in the Omnibus Election
franchise (20 C.J., pars. 179-181; Capalla Code stating that the canvass should be
vs. Tabiana, 63 Phil. 95). based only on the original copy of the
election returns. Besides, the duplicate
copy of election returns that were used in each (C&C Commercial Corp. vs. NWSA,
the canvass of votes were not only 21 SCRA 984, citing Sutherland,
authentic copies or certified copies Statutory Construction, Vol. 2 pp. 530-
but duplicate originals. Moreover, 532).
petitioner failed to show or even make an
allegation that the use of the duplicate Section 233 of B.P. 881 ought to be
originals of the returns had in some harmonized with Section 27, par. b(5) of
definite manner caused him prejudice, R.A. 7166. Section 27, par. b(5) of R.A.
like uncounted votes in his favor or 7166 presupposes that other copies of
alteration of an election result otherwise the election returns are existent and may
in his favor." (G.R. No. 82674, In Re: be compared with the copies of the MTC.
Protest of Atty. Alberto de la Rosa, etc. It does not preclude the use of such
vs. Comelec and City Board of authentic copies in the canvass when the
Canvassers of Zamboanga City, copies submitted to the Board of
Resolution en banc dated November 3, Canvassers have been lost or destroyed.
1988.) The letter of Provincial Election
Supervisor Atty. Adolfo Ilagan dated May
There is no merit in the argument of the 15, 1992 and the minutes of the special
petitioners that inasmuch as B.P. 881 has meeting of respondent COMELEC held on
been amended/modified by R.A. May 22, 1992 constitute sufficient
7166, the copies of the election returns
1 authority for the use of such returns in
in the possession of the MTC may not be the canvass.
used for the canvass but merely for
comparison purposes to determine the In light of all the foregoing, the use by
authenticity of other copies of said the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
election returns as provided in Section Mauban, Quezon of the election returns
27, par. b(5) of R.A. 7166. 2 The in the possession of the MTC Judge of
repealing clause of R.A. 7166 Mauban, was not contrary to law, and
enumerates the sections of the Omnibus was in fact the best possible recourse
Election Code which it specifically under the circumstances in order to give
repeals. Sec. 233 is not among them. life to the will of the electorate. The
COMELEC did not abuse its discretion
Since B.P. 881 and R.A. 7166 are statutes when it issued the assailed resolution
in pari materia, they should be so denying the petition to declare a failure
construed as to harmonize with each of election in Mauban, Quezon.
other and with other laws on the same
subject matter, as to form a complete, WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
coherent and intelligible system (Valera DENIED, with costs against the
vs. Tuason, 80 Phil. 823). Prior statutes petitioners.
relating to the same subject matter are
to be compared with the new provisions, SO ORDERED.
and if possible by reasonable
construction, both to be construed that
effect may be given to every provision of
 Lumba-Bayabao during the 11 may 1992
election. There were sixty-seven (67)
G.R. No. 106270-73 February 10, precincts in the municipality.
1994
As was heretofore stated, voter turnout
SULTAN MOHAMAD L. was rather low, particularly in forty-nine
MITMUG, petitioner, (49) precincts where the average voter
vs. turnout was 22.26%, i.e., only 2,330 out
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, of 9,830 registered voters therein cast
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF their votes. Five (5) of these precincts did
CANVASSERS OF LUMBA-BAYABAO, not conduct actual voting at all.1
LANAO DEL SUR, and DATU GAMBAI
DAGALANGIT, respondents. Consequently, COMELEC ordered the
holding of a special election on 30 May
Pimentel, Apostol, Layosa & Sibayan Law 1992 in the five (5) precincts which failed
Office for petitioner. to function during election day. On 30
July 1992 another special election was
Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla for held for a sixth precinct.2
private respondent.
In the interim, petitioner filed a petition
seeking the annulment of the special
election conducted on 30 May 1992
BELLOSILLO, J.: alleging various irregularities such as the
alteration, tampering and substitution of
The turnout of voters during the 11 May ballots. But on 13 July 1992, COMELEC
1992 election in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao considered the petition moot since the
del Sur, was abnormally low. As a result, votes in the subject precincts were
several petitions were filed seeking the already counted.3
declaration of failure of election in
precincts where less than 25% of the Other petitions seeking the declaration of
electorate managed to cast their votes. failure of election in some or all precincts
But a special election was ordered in of Lumba-Bayabao were also filed with
precincts where no voting actually took COMELEC by other mayoralty candidates,
place. The Commission on Elections to wit:
(COMELEC) ruled that for as long as the
precincts functioned and conducted 1. SPA No. 92-324: On 6 June 1992,
actual voting during election day, low private respondent Datu Gamba
voter turnout would not justify a Dagalangit filed an urgent petition
declaration of failure of election. We are praying for the holding of a special
now called upon to review this ruling. election in Precinct No. 22-A alleging
therein that when the ballot box was
Petitioner SULTAN MOHAMAD L. opened, ballots were already torn to
MITMUG and private respondent DATU pieces. On 14 July 1992, the petition was
GAMBAI DAGALANGIT were among the granted and a special election for
candidates for the mayoralty position of
Precinct No. 22-A was set for 25 July On 8 July 1992, petitioner filed a motion
1992.4 to intervene in these four (4)
petitions. 12 But COMELEC treated the
2. SPC No. 92-336: On 16 June 19992, same as a motion for reconsideration and
Datu Elias Abdusalam, another mayoralty promptly denied it considering that under
candidate, filed a petition to declare the COMELEC Rules of Procedure such
failure of election in twenty-nine (29) motion was a prohibited pleading. 13
more precincts as a result of alleged
tampering of ballots5 and clustering of Thereafter, a new board of Election
precincts.6 On 16 July 1992, the petition Inspectors was formed to conduct the
was dismissed. COMELEC ruled that special election set for 25 July 1992.
there must be a situation where there is Petitioner impugned the creation of this
absolute inability to vote before a failure Board. Nevertheless, on 30 July 1992, the
of election can be declared.7 Since voting new Board convened and began the
was actually conducted in the contested canvassing of votes. Finally, on 31 July
precincts, there was no basis for the 1992, private respondent was proclaimed
petition. the duly elected Mayor of Lumba-
Bayabao, Lanao del Sur.
3. SPA No 92-368: On 20 June 1992,
private respondent filed another petition, On 3 August 1992, petitioner instituted
this time seeking to exclude from the the instant proceedings seeking the
counting the ballots cast in six (6) declaration of failure of election in forty-
precincts on the ground that the integrity nine (49) precincts where less than a
of the ballot boxes therein was quarter of the electorate were able to
violated.8Again, on 14 July 1992, cast their votes. He also prayed for the
COMELEC considered the petition moot, issuance of a temporary restraining order
as the issue raised therein was related to to enjoin private respondent from
that of SPA No. 92-311 which on 9 July assuming office.
1992 was already set aside as moot.9
On 10 August 1992, petitioner lodged an
4. SPA No. 92-347: On 1 July 1992, Datu election protest with the Regional trial
Bagato Khalid Lonta, a fourth mayoralty Court of Lanao del Sur disputing the
candidate, filed a petition which in the result not only of some but all the
main sought the declaration of failure of precincts of Lumba-Bayabao, del Sur. 14
election in all sixty-seven (67) precincts
of Respondents, on the other hand, assert
Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, on the that with the filing of an election protest,
ground of massive disenfranchisement of petitioner is already deemed to have
voters. 10 On 9 July 1992, COMELEC abandoned the instant petition.
dismissed the petition, ruling that the
allegations therein did not support a case It may be noted that when petitioner filed
of failure of election.11 his election protest with the Regional
Trial Court of Lanao del Sur, he informed
the trial court of the pendency of these
proceedings. Paragraph 3 of his protest parties indicating therein the date of
states "[T]hat on August 3, 1992, your hearing should be served through the
protestant filed a Petition fastest means available. 18 The hearing
for Certiorari with the of the case will also be summary in
Supreme Court . . . docketed as G.R. No. nature.19
106270 assailing the validity of the
proclamation of the herein protestee. . . Based on the foregoing, the clear intent
." 15 Evidently, petitioner did not intend of the law is that a petition of this nature
to abandon his recourse with this Court. must be acted upon with dispatch only
On the contrary, he intended to pursue after hearing thereon shall have been
it. Where only an election protest ex conducted. Since COMELEC denied the
abundante ad cautela is filed, the Court other petitions 20 which sought to include
retains jurisdiction to hear the petition forty-three (43) more precincts in a
seeking to annul an election. 16 special election without conducting any
hearing, it would appear then that there
The main issue is whether respondent indeed might have been grave abuse of
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitions.
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in denying motu proprio and However, a closer examination of the
without due notice and hearing the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
petitions seeking to declare a failure of particularly Sec. 2, Rule 26, thereof which
election in some or all of the precincts in was lifted from Sec. 6, B.P. 881,
Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. After all, otherwise known as the Omnibus
petitioner argues, he has meritorious Election Code of the Philippines, indicates
grounds in support thereto, viz., the otherwise. It reads —
massive disenfranchisement of voters
due to alleged terrorism and unlawful Sec. 2. Failure of election.
clustering of precincts, which COMELEC — If, on account of force
should have at least heard before majeure, violence,
rendering its judgment. terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes the
Incidentally, a petition to annul an election in any precinct has
election is not a pre-proclamation not been held on the date
controversy. Consequently, the fixed, or had been
proclamation of a winning candidate suspended before the hour
together with his subsequent assumption fixed by law for the closing
of office is not an impediment to the of the voting, or after the
prosecution of the case to its logical voting and during the
conclusion.17 preparation and the
transmission of the election
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, returns or in the custody of
within twenty-four (24) hours from the canvass thereof, such
filing of a verified petition to declare a election results in a failure
failure to elect, notices to all interested to elect, and in any of such
 cases the failure or disregarded and excluded. 22 COMELEC
suspension of election therefore did not commit any abuse of
would affect the result of discretion, much less grave, in denying
the election, the the petitions outright. There was no basis
Commission shall, on the for the petitions since the facts alleged
basis of a verified petition therein did not constitute sufficient
by any interested party and grounds to warrant the relief sought. For,
after due notice and the language of the law expressly
hearing, call for the holding requires the concurrence of these
or continuation of the conditions to justify the calling of a
election not held, special election. 23
suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect Indeed, the fact that a verified petition is
on a date reasonably close filed does not automatically mean that a
to the date of the election hearing on the case will be held before
not held, suspended or COMELEC will act on it. The verified
which resulted in a failure petition must still show on its face that
to elect but not later than the conditions to declare a failure to elect
thirty (30) days after the are present. In the absence thereof, the
cessation of the cause of petition must be denied outright.
such postponement or
suspension of the election Considering that there is no concurrence
or failure to elect. of the two (2) conditions in the petitions
seeking to declare failure of election in
Before COMELEC can act on a verified forty-three (43) more, precincts, there is
petition seeking to declare a failure of no more need to receive evidence on
election, two (2) conditions must alleged election irregularities.
concur: first, no voting has taken place in
the precinct or precincts on the date fixed Instead, the question of whether there
by law or, even if there was voting, the have been terrorism and other
election nevertheless results in failure to irregularities is better ventilated in an
elect; and, second, the votes not cast election contest. These irregularities may
would affect the result of the election. 21 not as a rule be invoked to declare a
failure of election and to disenfranchise
In the case before us, it is indubitable the electorate through the misdeeds of a
that the votes not cast will definitely relative few. 24 Otherwise, elections will
affect the outcome of the election. But, never be carried out with the resultant
the first requisite is missing, i.e., that no disenfranchisement of innocent voters as
actual voting took place, or even if there losers will always cry fraud and terrorism.
is, the results thereon will be tantamount
to a failure to elect. Since actual voting There can be failure of election in a
and election by the registered voters in political unit only if the will of the majority
the questioned precincts have taken has been defiled and cannot be
place, the results thereof cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be determined,
it must be accorded respect. After all, Napolean G. Rama and Remollo
there is no provision in our election laws Melocoton & Associates for Jose L. Ong,
which requires that a majority of Jr.
registered voters must cast their votes.
All the law requires is that a winning
candidate must be elected by a plurality
of valid votes, regardless of the actual DAVIDE, JR., J.:
number of ballots cast. 25 Thus, even if
less than 25% of the electorate in the After the issues had been joined in these
questioned precincts cast their votes, the consolidated cases, the Court resolved to
same must still be respected. There give due course to the petitions therein
is prima facie showing that private and to decide the cases on the merits. It
respondent was elected through a can no longer allow the parties to delay
plurality of valid votes of a valid these cases. Their legal skirmishes, which
constituency. have unduly magnified uncomplicated
issues, have effectively deprived the
WHEREFORE, there being no grave people of the Second Legislative District
abuse of discretion, the Petition of Northern Samar of representation in
for Certiorari is DISMISSED. the House of Representatives for more
than two years now.
SO ORDERED.
These cases are sequels to G. R. No.
105717, entitled "Jose L. Ong, Jr. vs.
Commission on Elections and Wilmar P.
G.R. No. 113107 July 20, 1994 Lucero," which we finally resolved on 22
April 1993. 1 The petitioners were two of
WILMAR P. LUCERO, petitioner, the five candidates 2 for the Second
vs. Legislative District of Northern Samar in
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the synchronized national and local
JOSE L. ONG, JR., respondents. elections held on 11 May 1992.

The canvass of the Provincial Board of

Canvassers (PBC) of Northern Samar
G.R. No. 113509 July 20, 1994 credited Jose L. Ong, Jr. with 24,272
votes and Wilmar P. Lucero with 24,068
JOSE L. ONG, JR., petitioner, votes, or a lead by Ong of 204 votes.
vs. However, this tally did not include the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and results of Precinct No. 7 of the
WILMAR P. LUCERO, respondents. municipality of Silvino Lobos, where the
submitted election returns had not been
Cesar A. Sevilla & Associates for Wilmar canvassed because they were illegible; of
Lucero. Precinct No. 13 of Silvino Lobos, where
the ballot boxes were snatched and no
election was held; and of Precinct No. 16,
also of Silvino Lobos, where all copies of Lobos, pursuant to Section
the election returns were missing. 234 of the Omnibus
Election Code;
On 22 May 1992, Lucero asked the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), in 5. Order a recount of the
SPA No. 92-282, to: votes for Representative in
the 52 precincts herein
1. Forthwith order above enumerated in order
Respondent Provincial to correct "manifest errors"
Board of Canvassers for pursuant to Section 15 of
Northern Samar to suspend Republic Act 7166 and for
the proclamation of Private this purpose order the
Respondent Jose L. Ong, impounding and
Jr.; safekeeping of the ballot
boxes of all said precincts
2. Direct Respondent in order to preserve the
Provincial Board of integrity of the ballots and
Canvassers for Northern other election
Samar to correct the paraphernalia contained
Certificate of Canvass (CEF therein. 3
20) for Las Navas and,
accordingly, to correct the On 2 June 1992, the COMELEC, acting on
total votes so far counted Lucero's urgent manifestation, directed
by it for Petitioner from the PBC to desist from reconvening until
24,068 to 24,088, thus further orders.
reducing the margin it
found in favor of Private On 8 June 1992, Ong moved to lift the
Respondent Jose L. Ong, suspension of the proceedings by the
Jr. from 204 to 184 votes PBC, which Lucero opposed on 10 June
only; 1992 on the ground that the canvass
could not be completed even if the PBC
3. Order a special election were to reconvene because no election
in Precinct 13, Barangay was held in Precinct No. 13 (Barangay
Gusaran, Silvino Lobos, Gusaran) of Silvino Lobos and there was
pursuant to Section 6 of the no canvassing of the votes in Precinct No.
Omnibus Election Code; 7 (Barangay Camayaan) and Precinct No.
16 (Barangay Tubgon) both of Silvino
4. Order a recount of the Lobos.
votes for Representative of
the Second District of On 13 June 1993, the COMELEC en
Northern Samar in Precinct banc promulgated a resolution, the
16, Barangay Tubgon, and dispositive portion of which reads:
Precinct 7, Barangay
Camayaan, both of Silvino
Accordingly, the Silvino Lobos,
Commission hereby Northern Samar,
orders the Provincial and the Chairman
Election Supervisor and members of the
of Northern Samar Boards of Election
to bring to the Inspectors of
Commission within Precincts 7 and 16 of
three (3) days from said municipality to
receipt hereof the appear before the
ballot boxes from Commission within
Precinct 7 and 16 of three (3) days from
Silvino Lobos, to be receipt hereof.
escorted by
representatives Below the signatures of the Chairman
from the petitioner and the six Commissioners, however,
and the respondents Chairman Christian S. Monsod and
as well as other Commissioners Haydee B. Yorac, Dario C.
parties who have an Rama and Regalado E. Maambong
interest to protect, directed as follows:
and to notify said
parties hereof. The We vote in favor of
Municipal Treasurer this resolution
of said town is except that portion
directed to turn over which denied the
custody of said correction of the
ballot boxes to the Certificate of
Provincial Election Canvass for Las
Supervisor, and the Navas. Correction of
keys thereof shall the Certificate of
likewise be turned Canvass for Las
over by the Navas is in order in
appropriate officials view of the
in custody thereof to testimony of the
the PES, who shall in election registrar of
turn give one key for Las Navas to the
each ballot box to effect that Wilmar
the duly authorized Lucero garnered
representatives of 2,537 votes for Las
the petitioner and Navas and not
the respondent. 2,517. Petition for
correction was duly
The Commission filed by Lucero with
likewise orders the the Provincial Board
Election Registrar of of Canvassers of
 Northern Samar on for certiorari i
May 19, 1992. The s GRANTED
Provincial Board of and a writ of
Canvassers of preliminary
Northern Samar is injunction is
therefore directed to hereby
retabulate the total ISSUED
number of votes for directing the
Las Navas for Lucero COMELEC to
and enter the same CEASE and
in the Provincial DESIST from
Certificate of implementing
Canvass. 4 its order of
June 2, 1992,
On 15 June 1992, Lucero filed an urgent and its
motion to constitute a Special Board of resolution
Election Inspectors (SBEI) to count the dated June
votes of Precincts Nos. 7 and 16 of Silvino 13, 1992, and
Lobos.5 the same are
hereby
On 20 June 1992, Ong, in a special civil declared
action for certiorari filed with this Court NULLIFIED.
and subsequently docketed as G. R. No. Consequently
105717, questioned the order for the , the election
recount of ballots in Precincts No. 7 and returns based
16. Despite the pendency of this petition, on the
the COMELEC ordered the recount of the recounted
ballots in Precinct No. 16 by a SBEI which ballots from
recorded 43 votes for Lucero and 2 votes Precinct 16
for Ong. 6 are hereby
DISCARDED
On 25 June 1992, this Court issued in G. and in lieu
R. No. 105717 a temporary restraining thereof,
order against the implementation by the authentic
COMELEC of its Order of 2 June 1992 and returns from
its Resolution of 13 June 1992. said precinct
should
On 23 December 1992, this Court instead be
promulgated its decision in G. R. No. made a basis
105717, 7 the dispositive portion of for the
which reads: canvassing.
The
WHEREFORE Provincial
, the petition Board of
 Canvassers "WHEREFOR
of Northern E, THE
Samar is PETITION IS
hereby GRANTED.
directed to THE JUNE 2,
PROCEED 1992 ORDER
WITH OF
DISPATCH in RESPONDEN
the T
canvassing of COMMISSIO
ballots until N ON
completed ELECTIONS
and to IN SPA NO.
PROCLAIM 92-282 IS
the duly HEREBY
elected ANNULLED
winner of the AND SET
congressional ASIDE. ITS
seat for the JUNE 13,
Second 1992
District of RESOLUTION
Northern THEREIN IS
Samar. LIKEWISE
ANNULLED
This decision AND SET
is ASIDE
immediately INSOFAR AS
executory. 8 IT AFFECTS
PRECINCT
Acting on the motions for reconsideration NO. 7 OF
and clarification respectively filed by the SILVINO
COMELEC and Lucero, this Court, on 22 LOBOS, THE
April 1993, modified 9 its aforesaid RECOUNT OF
disposition in G. R. No. 105717 as VOTES IN
follows; THE 52
OTHER
IN VIEW OF ALL THE PRECINCTS
FOREGOING, the AND THE
dispositive portion of the CORRECTIO
December 23, 1992 N OF THE
Decision is hereby CERTIFICATE
MODIFIED to read as OF CANVASS
follows; OF LAS
NAVAS, BUT
IS AFFIRMED MENTS AND
WITH THE
RESPECT TO EXCEPTIONS
THE ISSUE PROVIDED
OF HOLDING FOR IN
A SPECIAL SECTION 15
ELECTION IN OF R. A. NO.
PRECINCT 7166.
NO. 13 AND
THE WHENEVER
RECOUNT OF WARRANTED
THE BY THE
BALLOTS IN CIRCUMSTA
PRECINCT NCES, THE
NO. 16. COMMISSIO
N MAY (A)
THE CALL A
RESPONDEN SPECIAL
T ELECTION IN
COMMISSIO PRECINCT
N ON NO. 13 OF
ELECTIONS SILVINO
IS HEREBY LOBOS,
DIRECTED NORTHERN
TO ASSIGN SAMAR, AND
SPA NO. 92- (B)
282 TO ANY RECONVENE
OF ITS THE SPECIAL
DIVISIONS MUNICIPAL
PURSUANT BOARD OF
TO ITS RULE CANVASSERS
ON RAFFLE AND THE
OF CASES SPECIAL
FOR IT TO PROVINCIAL
RESOLVE BOARD OF
THE PRE- CANVASSERS
PROCLAMATI IT HAD
ON ISSUES EARLIER
THEREIN, CONSTITUTE
TAKING D OR CREATE
INTO NEW ONES.
ACCOUNT
THE ABOVE ALL THE
PRONOUNCE FOREGOING
 SHOULD BE evidence of both parties who then
DONE WITH submitted their respective memoranda
PURPOSEFUL on 25 June 1994. However, during the
DISPATCH consultations on the case by the
TO THE END Members of the First Division, the
THAT THE concurrence of at least two of them could
WINNING not be obtained; accordingly, pursuant to
CANDIDATE the COMELEC Rules, the case was
FOR elevated for proper disposition to the
CONGRESSM COMELEC en banc to which the parties
AN submitted their respective memoranda
REPRESENTI on 19 November 1993. 12
NG THE
SECOND On 7 January 1994, the COMELEC en
CONGRESSIO banc promulgated a resolution 13 whose
NAL dispositive portion reads as follows:
DISTRICT OF
NORTHERN 1. To direct the special
SAMAR MAY Provincial Board of
BE Canvassers for Northern
PROCLAIMED Samar (a) to include in the
AS SOON AS municipal certificate of
POSSIBLE." 1 canvass of Silvino Lobos
0 the forty-three (43) votes
of petitioner Lucero and the
As to the certificate of canvass of the two (2) votes of private
municipality of Las Navas, this Court respondent Ong as
explicitly stated; reflected in the election
returns of Precinct No. 16
The correction of the (Barangay Tubgon)
certificate of canvass of Las prepared by the special
Navas is likewise in order. Board of Election
Even though a pre- Inspectors constituted by
proclamation issue is the Commission to recount
involved, the correction of the votes (ballots) in said
the manifest error is precinct, as canvassed by
allowed under Section 15 of the special Municipal Board
R. A. No. 7166. 11 of Canvassers for Silvino
Lobos; (b) to include in the
Conformably with the aforesaid modified municipal certificate of
judgment in G. R. No. 105717, SPA No. canvass of Silvino Lobos,
92-282 was raffled to the First Division of the sixty-one (61) votes of
the COMELEC which conducted hearings private respondent Ong
thereon and received the arguments and and 29, 30, or 31 votes of
petitioner Lucero as 2. To issue an Order calling
reflected in the election for a special election in the
returns (MBC Copy last remaining Precinct No.
submitted as "Comelec 13 (Barangay Gusaran) of
Copy") of Precinct No. 7 the Municipality of Silvino
(Barangay Camaya-an), as Lobos if justified by the
canvassed by the special result of the canvass by the
Municipal Board of Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Silvino Canvassers for Northern
Lobos; (c) to retabulate the Samar, and to notify the
total number of votes of parties of the schedule of
petitioner Lucero for the election activities for that
Municipality of Las Navas precinct; and
and to enter in the
provincial certificate of 3. After including in the
canvass the correct total tabulation the results of the
which is two thousand five special election of Precinct
hundred thirty-seven No. 13, to decide the issue
(2,537) as reflected in the of the recount of the votes
Statement of Votes (C. E. (ballots) of Precinct No. 7
Form 20-A) prepared and of Silvino Lobos, pursuant
submitted by the Municipal to Section 236 of the
Board of Canvassers for Las Omnibus Election Code, to
Navas; and (d) to submit to resolve the discrepancy of
the Commission a the votes of petitioner
computation of the votes of Lucero in the same return,
the contending parties if such discrepancy of votes
including therein all the of the candidates
votes of petitioner Lucero concerned would affect the
(with alternative totals) and over-all results of the
private respondent Ong, in election after the totality of
Precinct Nos. 7 and 16 of the votes of the contending
Silvino Lobos and the total parties shall have been
votes of petitioner Lucero determined.
in the Municipality of Las
Navas as corrected. Both Lucero and Ong have come to this
However, under no Court by way of separate special civil
circumstances should the actions for certiorari to challenge the
Board proclaim any winning Resolution.
candidate until instructed
to do so by the In G. R. No. 113107, Lucero maintains
Commission; that (1) the count of the ballots in
Precinct No. 7 of Silvino Lobos must be
unconditional because the election
returns therefrom are invalid; and (2) his t
chances in the special election in Precinct b
No. 13 of Silvino Lobos would be spoiled e
if the returns for Precinct No. 7 were to a
be included beforehand in the canvass. c
o
In G. R. No. 113509, Ong questions (1) u
the authority of the COMELEC to order n
the correction of the alleged manifest t
error in the Municipal Certificate of o
Canvass of Las Navas despite the f
absence of any appeal; and (2) the t
authority of the COMELEC to call for a h
special election in Precinct No. 13 almost e
two years after the regular election. b
a
As we see it, the core issues in these l
consolidated cases are: l
o
( t
1 s
) o
W f
h P
e r
t e
h c
e i
r n
t c
h t
e N
r o
e .
s 7
h o
o f
u S
l i
d l
f v
i i
r n
s o
L s
o p
b e
o c
s i
b a
e l
f e
o l
r e
e c
d t
e i
t o
e n
r i
m n
i P
n r
i e
n c
g i
t n
h c
e t
n N
e o
c .
e 1
s 3
s o
i f
t S
y i
o l
f v
h i
o n
l o
d L
i o
n b
g o
a
s d
: i
s
( c
2 r
) e
W t
h i
e o
t n
h i
e n
r o
t r
h d
e e
C r
O i
M n
E g
L t
E h
C e
a c
c o
t r
e r
d e
w c
i t
t i
h o
g n
r o
a f
v t
e h
a e
b a
u l
s l
e e
o g
f e
d v
m a
a s
n s
i o
f f
e L
s a
t s
e N
r a
r v
o a
r s
i ;
n a
t n
h d
e
M (
u 3
n )
i W
c h
i e
p t
a h
l e
C r
e t
r h
t e
i C
f O
i M
c E
a L
t E
e C
o a
f c
C t
a e
n d
w a
i l
t e
h l
g e
r c
a t
v i
e o
a n
b i
u n
s P
e r
o e
f c
d i
i n
s c
c t
r N
e o
t .
i 1
o 3
n a
i f
n t
c e
a r
l a
l l
i m
n o
g s
f t
o t
r w
a o
s (
p 2
e )
c y
i e
a 1
r 0
s )
, m
o o
r n
m t
o h
r s
e ,
s f
p o
e l
c l
i o
f w
i i
c n
a g
l t
l h
y e
a d
f a
t y
e o
r f
o t
n h
e e
( s
1 y
) n
y c
e h
a r
r o
a n
n i
d z
t e
e d
n e
( l
 e Lobos, pursuant to Section 236 of the
c Omnibus Election Code [and] to resolve
t the discrepancy of the votes of petitioner
i Lucero in the same return, if such
o discrepancy of votes of the candidate
n concerned would affect the over-all
s results of the election after the totality of
. the votes of the contending parties shall
have been determined."
We shall take up these issues seriatim.
Obviously, instead of ordering an outright
I. recount of the ballots of Precinct No. 7,
the COMELEC would first give full faith
The answer to the first issue is in the and credit to the questioned election
affirmative. returns thereof, which it describes as the
"Comelec Copy," and, accordingly, direct
We find the COMELEC's disposition the PBC to include in the municipal
regarding Precinct No. 7 to be unclear. In certificate of canvass of Silvino Lobos the
the first paragraph of the dispositive 61 votes for Ong and the uncertain votes
portion of the challenged resolution, it for Lucero — 29, 30, or 31. The recount
directs the Provincial Board of would only be made if after a special
Canvassers "to include in the municipal election in Precinct No. 13 shall have
certificate of canvas of Silvino Lobos the been held, it shall be determined that
sixty-one (61) votes of private such a recount would be necessary.
respondent Ong and 29, 30, or 31 votes
of petitioner Lucero as reflected in the We fail to grasp the logic of the
election returns (MBC copy submitted as proposition. First, it is clear to us that the
"COMELEC Copy") of Precinct No. 7 COMELEC, which has in its possession
(Barangay Camaya-an), as canvassed by the so-called "Comelec Copy" of the
the special Municipal Board of questioned election returns of Precinct
Canvassers for Silvino Lobos," and "to No. 7 and heard the witnesses who
submit to the Commission a computation testified thereon, doubts the authenticity
of the votes of the contending parties of the so-called "Comelec Copy" of the
including therein all the votes of election returns of Precinct No.
petitioner Lucero (with alternative totals) 7; 14hence, it authorizes the PBC to
and private respondent Ong, in Precinct decide the issue of a recount "pursuant
Nos. 7 and 16 of Silvino Lobos. . . ." On to Section 236 of the Omnibus Election
the other hand, in the fourth paragraph Code." Since it doubts such authenticity,
of the said dispositive portion, it orders it could not, without arbitrariness and
the Provincial Board of Canvassers, after abuse of discretion, order the inclusion of
"including in the tabulation the results of the "votes" of Ong and Lucero found in
the special election of Precinct No. 13," the doubtful "Comelec Copy" of the
to "decide the issue of the recount of the election returns in the municipal
votes (ballots) of Precinct No. 7 of Silvino certificate of canvass. Second, it is an
uncontroverted fact that an election was admitted that the election returns were
held in Precinct No. 7. None was held in prepared at the"munisipyo" or municipal
Precinct No. 13 for reasons the parties building and not at the polling place of
fully knew. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Precinct No. 7 in barangay Camaya-
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), a an. 15 This "munisipyo" is located at
special election may be held in Precinct the poblacion of Silvino Lobos. Under the
No. 13 only if the failure of the election law, the board of election inspectors shall
therein "would affect the result of the prepare the election returns
election." This "result of the election" simultaneously with the counting of votes
means the net result of the election in the in the polling place. 16 There is no
rest of the precincts in a given evidence whatsoever that the COMELEC
constituency, such that if the margin of a had, for valid reasons, authorized the
leading candidate over that of his closest transfer of venue of the counting of the
rival in the latter precincts is less than the votes of Precinct No. 7 from the polling
total number of votes in the precinct place in barangay Camaya-an to the
where there was failure of election, then municipal building and that the counting
such failure would certainly affect "the did in fact take place at the latter.
result of the election"; hence, a special Although in the Concurring and
election must be held. Consequently, the Dissenting Opinion of Commissioners
holding of a special election in Precinct Gorospe and Claravall there is a
No. 13 can only be determined after the reference to Exhibit "E," the Joint
votes in Precinct No. 7 shall have been Affidavit of Sabina Jarito and Mevilyn
included in the canvass by the Provincial Surio wherein they declare that after the
Board of Canvassers. voting the Board of Election Inspectors
unanimously approved to transfer the
We may further state that the so-called counting of votes to the Municipal
"Comelec Copy" of the election returns of Building in the Poblacion of Silvino Lobos,
Precinct No. 7 can by no means be validly which was allegedly concurred in by all
included in the municipal canvass. The the watchers of political parties and the
summary of the evidence in the candidates present, the alleged
"preparation" of the election returns of "counting" at the municipal building was
Precinct No. 7, both in the challenged denied by no less than the Municipal
Resolution and in the separate Election Officer of Silvino Lobos, Antonio
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Tepace, and the Municipal Treasurer
Commissioners Gorospe and Claravall, thereof, Mr. Gabriel Basarte, in their
leaves no room for doubt that there was affidavits marked as Exhibit "F" and
actually no counting of the votes in Exhibit "G,"
Precinct No. 7. Quoted in the challenged respectively. 17
Resolution is a portion of the testimony
of Sabina T. Jarito, Precinct Chairman of Since there was no counting of the votes
Precinct No. 7, which clearly shows that of Precinct No. 7, no valid election
on questions by COMELEC Chairman returns could be made and any copy of
Christian S. Monsod and Commissioner election returns purporting to come
Vicente B. de Lima, the witness candidly therefrom is a fabrication.
A recount thereof, which presupposes of R. A. No.
a prior count, would obviously be 7166.
unwarranted.
Since no motion for reconsideration was
Only a count then of the votes of Precinct filed in that case, the decision therein
No. 13 would heretofore be in order. became final and entry of judgment was
Sections 234, 235, and 236 of the made on 4 August 1993. Consequently,
Omnibus Election Code are thus still Ong cannot now re-litigate the issue of
inapplicable. And, in the light of what we the correction of the certificate of
stated before in relation to the holding of canvass of Las Navas.
a special election, such a count of the
votes of Precinct No. 7 must, perforce, III
precede the special election in Precinct
No. 13. On the authority of the COMELEC to
order the holding of a special election,
II. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
provides:
Ong's first grievance in G. R. No. 113509
is without merit. Sec. 6. Failure of election.
— If, on account of force
The order of the COMELEC for the majeure, violence,
correction of the manifest error in the terrorism, fraud, or other
municipal certificate of canvass of Las analogous causes the
Navas was made pursuant to the election in any polling place
declaration made by this Court in G. R. has not been held on the
No. 105717 (Ong vs. COMELEC) 18 that: date fixed, or had been
suspended before the hour
The fixed by law for the closing
correction of of the voting, or after the
the certificate voting and during the
of canvass of preparation and the
Las Navas is transmission of the election
likewise in returns or in the custody or
order. Even canvass thereof, such
though a pre- election results in a failure
proclamation to elect, and if in any of
issue is such cases the failure or
involved, the suspension of election
correction of would affect the result of
the manifest the election, the
error is Commission shall, on the
allowed basis of a verified petition
under Sec. 15 by any interested party and
after due notice and
 hearing, call for the holding parties admit that the failure of the
or continuation of the election in Precinct No. 13 was due to
election not held, ballot-box snatching and do not dispute
suspended or which the finding of the COMELEC as to the
resulted in a failure to elect necessity and inevitability of the holding
on a date reasonably close of a special election in said precinct, even
to the date of the election if the result of Precinct No. 7 should be
not held, suspended or based on the questionable "Comelec
which resulted in a failure Copy" of its election returns. The
to elect but not later than COMELEC held:
thirty days after the
cessation of the cause of Based on the
such postponement or adjudged
suspension of the election correction of
or failure to elect. the votes in
favor of
The first paragraph of Section 4 of petitioner
R. A. No. 7166 likewise provides: Lucero in the
Municipality
Sec. 4. Postponement, of Las Navas,
Failure of Election and the results of
Special Elections. — The the recount
postponement, declaration of votes
of failure of election and (ballots) of
the calling of special Precinct No.
elections as provided in 16 (Silvino
Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Lobos), and
Omnibus Election Code the votes
shall be decided by the reflected in
Commission sitting en the available
banc by a majority votes of copy of the
its members. The causes election
for the declaration of a returns for
failure of election may Precinct No. 7
occur before or after the (Silvino
casting of votes or on the Lobos), it is
day of the election. safe to
predict that
There are, therefore, two requisites for when the
the holding of special elections under special
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Provincial
Code, viz., (1) that there is a failure of Board of
election, and (2) that such failure would Canvassers
affect the results of the election. The will
reconvene to undoubtedly
sum up the it is inevitable
votes of the that a special
contending election will
parties, the have to be
original lead held in
of private Precinct No.
respondent 13 (Barangay
Ong of two Gusaran) of
hundred four the
(204) votes Municipality
against of Silvino
petitioner Lobos.
Lucero
— 24,272 as ...
against
24,068 — will Given the
be reduced to established
either 175 or lead of
173 private
depending on respondent
whether Ong over
Lucero will be petitioner
credited a Lucero, We
low of 29 or a answer in the
high of 31 affirmative.
votes as According to
reflected in Comelec
the election records, the
returns of number of
Precinct No. registered
7. voters in
Precinct No.
Without 13 is two
preempting hundred
the exact thirteen
figures which (213). Since
only the the lead of
special respondent
Provincial Ong is less
Board of than the
Canvassers number of
can correctly registered
determine, voters, the
 votes in that should be reasonably close to the date of
precinct the election not held, suspended, or
could affect which resulted in failure to elect. The first
the existing involves questions of fact. The second
result must be determined in the light of the
because of peculiar circumstances of a case. In the
the possibility instant case, the delay was not
that attributable to the poor voters of Precinct
petitioner No. 13 or to the rest of the electorate of
Lucero might the Second Legislative District of
get a majority Northern Samar. The delay was, as
over Ong in stated in the opening paragraph of
that precinct this ponencia, primarily caused by the
and that legal skirmishes or maneuvers of the
majority petitioners which muddled simple issues.
might be The Court takes judicial notice of the fact
more than that G. R. No. 113509 is the third case
the present Ong has brought to this
lead of Court. Considering then that the
22

Ong. 19 petitioners themselves must share the

blame for the delay, and taking into
On the basis of the additional votes account the fact that since the term of
credited so far to the parties, 20 the the office of the contested position is only
following computation is in order: to three years, the holding of a special
Ong's 24,272 votes will be added 2 more election in Precinct No. 13 within the next
from Precinct No. 16, to make a total of few months may still be considered
24,274, while to Lucero's 24,068 votes "reasonably close to the date of the
will be added 20 more from Las Navas election not held." Ong's postulation
and 43 from Precinct No. 16, for a total should then be rejected.
of 24,131. Ong's earlier lead will thus be
reduced to 143, which is admittedly less In the course of the deliberations on
than the 213 registered voters in Precinct these cases, the Court considered the
No. 13. 21 possible application, by analogy, of
Section 10, Article VII of the 1987
The two requirements then for a special Constitution providing that no special
election under Section 6 of the Omnibus election in the event of a vacancy in the
Election Code have indeed been met. Offices of the President and Vice
President "shall be called if the vacancy
In fixing the date of the special election, occurs within eighteen months before the
the COMELEC should see to it that: (1) it date of the next presidential election,"
should be not later than thirty days after and of the second paragraph of Section 4
the cessation of the cause of the of R. A. No. 7166 which provides:
postponement or suspension of the
election or the failure to elect, and (2) it
 In case a vacancy occurred within a certain
permanent period before the next presidential
vacancy shall election or the next regular
occur in the election, as the case may be, is
Senate or obviously the avoidance of the
House of expense to be incurred in the
Representati holding of a special election when
ves at least a regular election is, after all, less
one (1) year than a year away. The Court
before the ultimately resolved that the
expiration of aforesaid constitutional and
the term, the statutory proscriptions are
Commission inapplicable to special elections
shall call and which may be called under Section
hold a special 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
election to fill First, the special election in the
the vacancy former is to fill permanent
not earlier vacancies in the Office of the
than sixty President, Vice President, and
(60) days nor Members of Congress occurring
longer than after the election, while the
ninety (90) special election under the latter is
days after the due to or by reason of a failure of
occurrence of election. Second, a special
the vacancy. election under Section 6 would
However, in entail minimal costs because it is
case of such limited to only the precincts
vacancy in involved and to the candidates
the Senate, who, by the result of the election
the special in a particular constituency, would
election shall be affected by the failure of
be held election. On the other hand, the
simultaneousl special election for the Offices of
y with the the President, Vice President, and
next Senators would be nation-wide,
succeeding and that of a Representative,
regular district-wide. Third, Section 6,
election. when specifically applied to the
instant case, presupposes that no
A view was expressed that we candidate had been proclaimed
should not hold the special and therefore the people of the
election because the underlying Second Legislative District of
philosophy for the prohibition to Northern Samar would be
hold the special election if the unrepresented in the House of
 Representatives until the special IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
election shall ultimately determine judgment is hereby rendered:
the winning candidate, such that if
none is held, they would have no I. DISMISSING, for lack of
representation until the end of the merit, the petition in G. R.
term. under the aforesaid No. 113509; and
constitutional and statutory
provisions, the elected officials II. In G. R. No. 113107,
have already served their DIRECTING the respondent
constituencies for more than one- Commission on Elections
half of their terms of office. to:
Fourth, if the law had found it fit
to provide a specific and (1) Reconvene, in its main
determinate time-frame for the office of Manila, within five
holding of a special election under (5) days from notice
Section 6, then it could have easily hereof, the Special Board of
done so in Section 4 of R. A. No. Canvassers of the
7166. municipality of Silvino
Lobos, Northern Samar,
Another serious obstacle to Ong's which shall then, as a
proposition is that, considering the special Board of Election
COMELEC's disposition of Precinct No. 7 Inspectors of Precinct No. 7
in the challenged Resolution, he would of said municipality, within
then be declared and proclaimed the duly forty-eight (48) hours from
elected Representative of the Second its reconvening, count the
Legislative District of Northern Samar ballots of said Precinct No.
despite the fact that as earlier observed, 7, and deliver to the special
there was no counting of the votes of Provincial Board of
Precinct No. 7, and the results of the Canvassers of the said
district elections for Representative Province a copy of the
would be affected by the failure of the election returns;
election in Precinct No. 13. To accept the
proposition is to allow a proclamation (2) Reconvene, in its main
based on an incomplete canvass where office in Manila, within the
the final result would have been affected same period as
by the uncanvassed result of Precinct No. aforestated, the special
7 and by the failure of the election in Provincial Board of
Precinct No. 13 and to impose upon the Canvassers of Northern
people of the Second Legislative District Samar which shall then,
of Northern Samar a Representative within seventy-two (72)
whose mandate is, at the very least, hours from its reconvening:
uncertain, and at the most, inexistent.
(a) Include in
the Municipal
Certificate of prepared,
Canvass of after a
Silvino Lobos recount of
(1) the total the ballots,
number of by the special
votes for Board of
petitioner Canvassers;
Wilmar P. and after
Lucero and such
for petitioner inclusions to
Jose L. Ong, enter the new
Jr., totals of the
respectively, votes for the
in Precinct petitioners in
No. 7 of the
Silvino Lobos Certificate of
as recorded Provincial
in the Canvass;
election
returns (b)
submitted by Retabulate
the the total
aforemention number of
ed special votes for
Municipal Wilmar P.
Board of Lucero for
Canvassers, the
and (2) the Municipality
forty-three of Las Navas,
(43) votes for Northern
petitioner Samar, which
Wilmar P. shall be two
Lucero and thousand and
the two (2) five hundred
votes for thirty-seven
petitioner (2,537) as
Jose L. Ong, reflected in
Jr. as the
reflected in Statement of
the election Votes (C.E.
returns of Form 20-A)
Precinct No. prepared and
16 (Barangay submitted by
Tubgon) the Municipal
Board of hundred and
Canvassers thirteen
of Las Navas, (213), hence
and to enter the failure of
the same in the election
the in Precinct
Certificate of No. 13 would
Provincial unavoidably
Canvass; and
inevitably
(c) After the affect then
accomplishm the result of
ent of all the the election,
foregoing, to to report to
sum up anew the
in the Commission
Certificate of on Elections
Provincial such fact and
Canvass the to furnish the
canvassed latter with a
municipal certified
certificates of photocopy of
canvass of all the
the Certificate of
municipalities Provincial
of the Second Canvass;
Legislative
District of (3) Within three (3) days
Northern after receipt of the
Samar and if aforesaid report from the
the same special Provincial Board of
would Canvassers, to CALL a
establish that special election in Precinct
the No. 13 of Silvino Lobos,
difference in which shall be held not
votes later than thirty (30) days
between from such call; a copy of
petitioner the election returns of said
Wilmar P. special election shall
Lucero and forthwith be transmitted to
petitioner the Special Provincial Board
Jose L. Ong, of Canvassers of Northern
Jr. is less Samar, which shall then
than two enter the results thereof in
 its canvass and make a Petitioner Rolando P. Dela Torre via
final summation of the the instant petition for certiorari seeks
results in the Certificate of the nullification of two resolutions issued
Provincial Canvass, and by the Commission on Elections
thereafter, pursuant to the (COMELEC) allegedly with grave abuse of
Omnibus Election Code, discretion amounting to lack of
pertinent election laws and jurisdiction in SPA No. 95-047, a case for
rules and resolutions of the disqualification filed against petitioner
Commission, proclaim the before the COMELEC.[1]
winning candidate for
The first assailed resolution dated
Representative of the
May 6,1995 declared the petitioner
Second Legislative District
disqualified from running for the position
of Northern Samar.
of Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna in the last
May 8,1995 elections, citing as the
If for any reason
ground therefor, Section 40(a) of
whatsoever it would not be
Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local
possible to immediately
Government Code of 1991)[2] which
reconvene the Special
provides as follows:
Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Silvino Lobos
Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following
and the Special Provincial
persons are disqualified from running for
Board of Canvassers of
any elective local position:
Northern Samar, the
COMELEC may create new
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment
ones.
for an offense involving moral turpitude
or for an offense punishable by one (1)
No pronouncements as to costs.
year or more of imprisonment within two
(2) years after serving sentence;
SO ORDERED.
(b) x x x x x x x x x.

In disqualifying the petitioner, the

COMELEC held that:

Documentary evidence x x x established

that herein respondent (petitioner in this
ROLANDO P. DELA
case) was found guilty by the Municipal
TORRE, petitioner, vs.
Trial Court, x x x in Criminal Case No.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
14723 for violation of P.D. 1612,
and MARCIAL
(otherwise known as the Anti-fencing
VILLANUEVA, respondents.
Law) in a Decision dated June
1,1990. Respondent appealed the said
RESOLUTION
conviction with the Regional Trial Court x
FRANCISCO, J.: x x, which however, affirmed
respondents conviction in a Decision a crime becomes a ground for
dated November 14,1990. Respondents disqualification - i, e., when the
conviction became final on January conviction by final judgment is for an
18,1991. offense involving moral turpitude. And in
this connection, the Court has
xxxxxxxxx consistently adopted the definition in
Blacks Law Dictionary of moral
x x x, there exists legal grounds to turpitude as:
disqualify respondent as candidate for
Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna this coming x x x an act of baseness, vileness, or
elections. Although there is dearth of depravity in the private duties which a
jurisprudence involving violation of the man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 or P.D.1612 x general, contrary to the accepted and
x x, the nature of the offense under P.D. customary rule of right and duty between
1612 with which respondent was man and woman or conduct contrary to
convicted certainly involves moral justice, honesty, modesty, or good
turpitude x x x.[3] morals.[5]

The second assailed resolution, Not every criminal act, however,

dated August 28, 1995, denied involves moral turpitude. It is for this
petitioners motion for reconsideration. In reason that as to what crime involves
said motion, petitioner claimed that moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court
Section 40 (a) of the Local Government to determine.[6] In resolving the
Code does not apply to his case inasmuch foregoing question, the Court is guided
as the probation granted him by the MTC by one of the general rules that
on December 21, 1994 which suspended crimes mala in se involve moral
the execution of the judgment of turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do
conviction and all other legal not[7], the rationale of which was set
consequences flowing therefrom, forth in Zari v. Flores,[8] to wit:
rendered inapplicable Section 40 (a) as
well.[4] It (moral turpitude) implies something
immoral in itself, regardless of the fact
The two (2) issues to be resolved
that it is punishable by law or not. It must
are:
not be merely mala prohibita, but the act
1. Whether or not the crime of itself must be inherently immoral. The
fencing involves moral doing of the act itself, and not its
turpitude. prohibition by statute fixes the moral
turpitude. Moral turpitude does not,
2. Whether or not a grant of
however, include such acts as are not of
probation affects Section 40
themselves immoral but whose illegality
(a)s applicability.
lies in their being positively prohibited.[9]
Particularly involved in the first issue
is the first of two instances contemplated This guideline nonetheless proved
in Section 40 (a) when prior conviction of short of providing a clear-cut solution, for
in International Rice Research Institute "1. A crime of robbery or theft has been
v. NLRC,[10] the Court admitted that it committed;
cannot always be ascertained whether
moral turpitude does or does not exist by 2. The accused who is not a principal or
merely classifying a crime as malum in accomplice in the crime of robbery or
se or as malum prohibitum. There are theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
crimes which are mala in se and yet but acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
rarely involve moral turpitude and there buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
are crimes which involve moral turpitude any article, item, object or anything of
and are mala prohibita only. In the final value, which have been derived from the
analysis, whether or not a crime involves proceeds of the said crime;
moral turpitude is ultimately a question
of fact and frequently depends on all the 3. The accused knows or should have
circumstances surrounding the violation known that the said article, item, object
of the statute.[11] or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of
The Court in this case shall
robbery or theft; and [Underscoring
nonetheless dispense with a review of
supplied.]
the facts and circumstances surrounding
the commission of the crime, inasmuch 4. There is, on the part of the accused,
as petitioner after all does not assail his intent to gain for himself or for
conviction. Petitioner has in effect another.[13]
admitted all the elements of the crime of
fencing. At any rate, the determination of Moral turpitude is deducible from the
whether or not fencing involves moral third element. Actual knowledge by the
turpitude can likewise be achieved by fence of the fact that property received is
analyzing the elements alone. stolen displays the same degree of
Fencing is defined in Section 2 of malicious deprivation of ones rightful
P.D.1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) as: property as that which animated the
robbery or theft which, by their very
a. x x x the act of any person who, with nature, are crimes of moral
intent to gain for himself or for another, turpitude. And although the participation
shall buy, receive, possess, keep, of each felon in the unlawful taking
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or differs in point in time and in degree,
shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal both the fence and the actual
in any article, item, object or anything of perpetrator/s of the robbery or theft
value which he knows, or should be invaded ones peaceful dominion for gain
known to him, to have been derived from - thus deliberately reneging in the
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or process private duties they owe
theft.[12] their fellowmen or society in a
manner contrary to x x x accepted and
From the foregoing definition may be customary rule of right and duty x x x,
gleaned the elements of the crime of justice, honesty x x x or good
fencing which are: morals. The duty not to appropriate, or
to return, anything acquired either by a person is aware of the high probability
mistake or with malice is so basic it finds of its existence unless he actually
expression in some key provisions of the believes that it does not exist. On the
Civil Code on Human other hand, the words should know
Relations and Solutio Indebiti, to wit: denote the fact that a person of
reasonable prudence and intelligence
Article 19. Every person must, in the would ascertain the fact in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duty to another or
performance of his duties, act with would govern his conduct upon
justice, give everyone his due, and assumption that such fact
observe honesty and good faith. exists. [Italics supplied.]
[14]

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to Verily, circumstances normally exist to
law, wilfully or negligently causes forewarn, for instance, a reasonably
damage to another, shall indemnify the vigilant buyer that the object of the sale
latter for the same. may have been derived from the
proceeds of robbery or theft. Such
Article 21. Any person who wilfully circumstances include the time and place
causes loss or injury to another in a of the sale, both of which may not be in
manner that is contrary to morals, good accord with the usual practices of
customs or public policy shall commerce. The nature and condition of
compensate the latter for the damage. the goods sold, and the fact that the
seller is not regularly engaged in the
Article 22. Every person who through an business of selling goods may likewise
act of performance by another, or any suggest the illegality of their source, and
other means, acquires or comes into therefore should caution the buyer. This
possession of something at the expense justifies the presumption found in Section
of the latter without just or legal ground, 5 of P.D. No. 1612 that mere possession
shall return the same to him. of any goods, x x x, object or anything of
value which has been the subject of
Article 2154. If something is received robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
when there is no right to demand it, and evidence of fencing- a presumption that
it was unduly delivered through mistake, is, according to the Court, reasonable for
the obligation to return it arises. no other natural or logical inference can
arise from the established fact of x x x
The same underlying reason holds possession of the proceeds of the crime
even if the fence did not have actual of robbery or theft.[15] All told, the
knowledge, but merely should have COMELEC did not err in disqualifying the
known the origin of the property petitioner on the ground that the offense
received. In this regard, the Court held: of fencing of which he had been
previously convicted by final judgment
When knowledge of the existence of a was one involving moral turpitude.
particular fact is an element of the
offense, such knowledge is established if Anent the second issue where
petitioner contends that his probation
had the effect of suspending the SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS,
applicability of Section 40 (a) of the Local BOARDS OF ELECTION
Government Code, suffice it to say that INSPECTORS FOR PRECINCTS
the legal effect of probation is only to 7-A, 9, 9-A, 10, 13 and 14,
suspend the execution of the MADALUM, care of REGIONAL
sentence. [16] Petitioners conviction of ELECTION DIRECTOR,
fencing which we have heretofore REGION XII; CANDIDATES
declared as a crime of moral turpitude FOR VICE-MAYOR OSOP
and thus falling squarely under the KIRAM, ANGNI ERSA AND
disqualification found in Section 40 (a), IBRAHIM ALAWI, and
subsists and remains totally unaffected CANDIDATES FOR
notwithstanding the grant of COUNCILOR USNGAN
probation. In fact, a judgment of MACASAMBIT, MALIK M.
conviction in a criminal case ipso COSAIN, FARIDA S. TANTAO,
facto attains finality when the accused ALIM A. PATARANDANG,
applies for probation, although it is not HALIL D. DAISANGKAY,
executory pending resolution of the BINOLAWAN L. HASSAN, and
application for probation.[17] Clearly then, ALEX M. ASIZ, respondents.
petitioners theory has no merit.
DECISION
ACCORDINGLY, the instant
petition for certiorari is hereby KAPUNAN, J.:
DISMISSED and the assailed resolutions
of the COMELEC dated May 6,1995 and Petitioner, Hadji Nor Basher L.
August 28,1995 are AFFIRMED in toto. Hassan, and private respondent,
Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan were
SO ORDERED.
candidates for the Office of the Vice-
Mayor while the other private
respondents were candidates for
councilors in Madalum, Lanao del Sur in
the last regular local elections of May 8,
1995. However, due to threats of
violence and terrorism in the area there
HADJI NOR BASHER L. was failure of elections in six out of
HASSAN, petitioner, vs. twenty-four precincts in Madalum.
COMMISSION ON The ballot boxes were burned and
ELECTIONS, MANGONDAYA P. there were threats by unidentified
HASSAN BUATAN; COMELEC persons in Precinct No. 7-A. In Precinct
MONITORING AND Nos. 9, 9-A, 10, 13, and 14, elections did
SUPERVISING TEAM, REGION not take place because the members of
XII; MADALUM ELECTION the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
OFFICER; MADALUM failed to report to their respective polling
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF places.
CANVASSERS; REGULAR and
 Thus, the Monitoring Supervising 3. N. HASSAN - 78
Team (COMELEC Team) headed by
Regional Election Director Virgilio O. 4. ANGNI ESRA - 1
Garcillano recommended to the
COMELEC the holding of special elections 5. IBRAHIM ALAWI - 0
in said precincts. The special elections
were thereby set on May 27, 1995. On Hence the final results are as follows:
said date, however, the members of the
BEI again failed to report for duty in their 1. MANGONDAYA HASSAN - 1,098
respective polling places.
2. PETITIONER NOR HASSAN - 879
In an Order dated May 28, 1995, the
COMELEC Team re-scheduled the 3. OSOP KIRAM - 833
elections in these precincts for May 29,
1995 at Liangan Elementary (Arabic) 4. ANGNI ESRA - 341
School, which is 15 kilometers away from
the designated polling places. 5. IBRAHIM ALAWI - 185[1]
On May 29, 1995, the members of
the Board did not again report for duty. On June 10, 1995, petitioner Hadji
Hence, the COMELEC Team was Nor Basher L. Hassan filed a petition with
constrained to appoint police/military the COMELEC docketed as SPA 95-283
personnel to act as substitute members assailing the validity of the May 29 re-
so as to push through with the elections. scheduled special elections on the
following grounds:
In the May 8 elections, the results for
the Office of the Vice-Mayor were as a) The voting which started at 10:00
follows: A.M. was forcibly ended at around 2:00
p.m. because of exchanges of rapid
1. MANGONDAYA HASSAN - 884 gunfiring and grenade launching
between unknown elements and the
2. OSOP KIRAM - 816 Army or PNP soldiers;

3. PETITIONER HASSAN - 801 b) The voting was moved to Liangan

Elementary (Arabic) School, located
4. ESRA S. ANGNI - 340 about 15 kilometers away from the
respective polling places;
5. IBRAHIM ALAWI - 185
c) Notices in the transfer of venue of the
In the May 29 special elections held voting was sent only on the night of May
in Precinct Nos. 9, 9-A, 10, 13 and 14 the 28, 1995 and only to a few but not to all
following votes were obtained. concerned;

1. M. HASSAN - 214 d) Only 328 out of the 1,645 registered

voters of said 5 precincts were able to
2. OSOP KIRAM - 17 vote constituting only about
21.1%[2] and disenfranchising 78% of not declaring a failure of elections on May
the registered voters thereof; and 29, 1995 in Madalum, Lanao del Sur.
In its Resolution dated February 21,
e) The regular members of the BEI did
1996, the COMELEC ruled that the
not report for duty and were substituted
petition to declare a failure of elections in
by military personnel.[3]
Madalum has no valid grounds since the
outcome of the special elections in the
At the same time, private respondent
said precincts would nonetheless not
Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan also filed
change the final results of the elections
a petition with the COMELEC (docketed
in petitioners favor.
as SPA 95-286) assailing the inaction of
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of The difference between the first and
Madalum on his petition to be proclaimed second place is only 219 votes. The only
the winning vice-mayoralty candidate. precinct left which was not counted since
the ballot box was burned was Precinct
On February 21, 1996 the
7-A and Precinct 7-A has 219 voters. The
COMELEC en banc issued a resolution
COMELEC opined that it would be quite
denying the petition for a declaration of
impossible for all 219 voters to have
failure of elections and to call special
voted for petitioner. Hence, whether or
elections in Precinct Nos. 7-A (Abaga), 9,
not a special election would be held,
9-A, 10, 13 and 14, in Madalum, Lanao
Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan would in
del Sur. It disposed of the consolidated
all probability still come out the winner.
petitions (SPA 95-283 and SPA 95-286)
by directing the Regional Election The authority of the COMELEC to
Director of Region XII in consultation declare a failure of election is provided by
with the Commissioner-in-Charge of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code,
Region XII to reconstitute the Municipal which reads:
Board of Canvassers of Madalum, Lanao
del Sur, of which shall convene forthwith SEC. 6. Failure of election. If, on account
and complete the canvass by proclaiming of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
the winning vice-mayoralty candidate, fraud, or other analogous causes the
Mangondaya P. Hassan Buatan, and election in any polling place has not been
eight winning candidates for member, held on the date fixed, or had been
Sangguniang Bayan of that suspended before the hour fixed by law
municipality. [4]
for the closing of the voting, or after the
voting and during the preparation and
Thus, petitioner went up to this Court
the transmission of the election returns
assailing the aforesaid resolution with a
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
election results in a failure to elect, and
(TRO) to enjoin the proclamation of the
in any of such cases the failure or
winning candidates.
suspension of election would affect the
On March 26, 1996, the Court issued result of the election, the Commission
a Temporary Restraining Order as prayed shall, on the basis of a verified petition by
for pending the resolution of the issue as any interested party and after due notice
to whether or not the COMELEC erred in and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, and under circumstances which
suspended or which resulted in a failure demonstrate beyond doubt and to the
to elect on a date reasonably close to the fullest degree of fundamental and
date of the election not held, suspended wanton disregard of the law. (Grand
or which resulted in a failure to elect but Alliance for Democracy
not later than thirty days after the [GAD] vs. Comelec, 150 SCRA 665;
cessation of the cause of such Reyes vs. Mamba, HRET Case No. 92-
postponement or suspension of the 022, September 14, 1994).[6]
election or failure to elect. (Sec. 7, 1978
EC) While we are aware of the aforesaid
rule, the COMELEC can not turn a blind
In several cases,[5] the Court has eye to the fact that terrorism was so
ruled that the pre-conditions for prevalent in the area, sufficient enough
declaring a failure of election are: (1) that to declare that no voting actually
no voting has been held in any precinct occurred on May 29, 1995 in the areas
or precincts because of force concerned.
majeure, violence or terrorism, and (2)
It must be recalled that elections had
that the votes not cast therein suffice to
to be set for the third time because no
affect the results of the elections. The
members of the Board of Election
concurrence of these two (2)
Inspectors (BEI) reported for duty due to
circumstances are required to justify the
impending threats of violence in the area.
calling of a special election.
This then prompted COMELEC to deploy
Mindful of these two (2) military men to act as substitute
requirements, we rule in favor of the members just so elections could be held;
petitioner. and to thwart these threats of violence,
the COMELEC Team, moreover, decided
The COMELEC explained that:
to transfer the polling places to Liangan
Elementary School which was 15
Jurisprudence holds that terrorism may
kilometers away from the polling place.
not as a rule be invoked to declare a
Nonetheless, voting on May 29 had to be
failure of elections and to disenfranchise
suspended before the hour fixed by law
the greater number of the electorate
for the closing of the voting because of
through the misdeeds of only a relative
threats of violence, grenade launching
few. Otherwise elections will never be
and gunfires. The Memorandum and
carried out with the resultant
Offer of Evidence submitted by the
disenfranchisement of the innocent
petitioner are quite revealing, among
voters, for the losers will always cry fraud
which are the following:
and terrorism. It has been ruled that
annulment of election results and
(1) EXH. A Memorandum of the
consequent disenfranchisement of voters
respondent Comelec Team, dated June
is a very stringent one. The power to
4, 1995, recommending the holding of
annul an election should be exercised
special election in Pct. 7-A, because the
with the greatest care and
ballot box with ballots were set on fire by
circumspection and only in extreme cases
unknown men amounting to failure of ARRIVED AT MARAWI CITY AT ABOUT
election also; 5:00 PM (p. 4)

(2) EXH B Certification by the Madalum xxx

Acting Election Officer on the
appointment of substitute members, who (8) EXH. H Joint Affidavit of Hassans
are military personnel, in the 5 precincts watchers, dated June 11, 1995,
involved in this case, because of failure corroborating that:
of the regular members thereof to report
for duty in the May 29, 1995 special 4. That at about 2:00 p.m. unidentified
election; gunmen began indiscriminately fired
their guns around the polling place which
(3) EXH. C Minutes of Voting for Pct. provoked the military serving the
9, showing that 59 of the 418 registered precincts to close the ballot boxes and
voters voted; voting started the other military men guarding the
at 11:40 a.m. and ended at 2:25 p.m.; polling place reacted and also fired their
only 58 valid ballots were found inside guns which caused panic to the voters
the ballot box; and the reported violence around;
and terrorism, which reads:
That to our evaluation at the closing of
UNTOWARD INCIDENTS HAPPENED. the voting at 2:00 p.m. only more or less
20 percent of the registered voters in
AT ABOUT 2: 15 PM MAY 29, 1995, each of the five precincts have casted
WHILE THE VOTING IS BEING their votes;.[7]
CONDUCTED, AN M-79 OR
M203 GRENADE LAUNCHER WAS FIRED The peculiar situation of Madalum
BEHIND THE WOODEN SCHOOL can not be overstated. Notwithstanding,
BUILDING WHERE PRECINCT NO. 9, 9-A, the notice given on the afternoon of May
AND 13, 14 WERE LOCATED. THIS WAS 28 resetting the special elections to May
FOLLOWED BY RAPID FIRE FROM THE 29 and transferring the venue of the
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP. WE PUT ALL elections 15 kilometers away from the
THE ELECTION PARAPHERNALIA AND farthest barangay/school was too short
FORMS INSIDE THE BALLOT BOX AND resulting to the disenfranchisement of
PADLOCKED THE SAME. THERE voters. Out of the 1,546 registered voters
WERE ABOUT 5 GRENADE LAUNCHERS in the five (5) precincts only 328 actually
WERE FIRED AT THE SCHOOL, THE voted. The COMELEC justified this short
MILITARY SECURITY EXCHANGED FIRE notice in this light:
TO THE GROUP. IT LASTED FOR ABOUT
30 MINUTES. WE LEFT THE SCHOOL x x x. Viewed from ordinary human
(LIANGAN ARABIC SCHOOL) AT experience and the election culture
ABOUT 2:45 PM AND PROCEEDED TO obtaining in the locality, there can be no
MUNICIPAL HALL OF MADALUM. WE doubt that, the date on which special
LEFT MADALUM AT 3:15 PM AND elections were to be held after one that
previously failed, was high in the agenda
of concerns and interests of the where it was called by some authority
constituents involved. In Sabeniano, et after the happening of a condition
al. vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 289, 301 and precedent, or at least there must be a
Quilala vs. Comelec, 188 SCRA 502, the substantial compliance therewith so that
Supreme Court, referring to election it may fairly and reasonably be said that
processes and incidents as matters the purpose of the statute has been
directly affecting the political fortunes of carried into effect.[10] The sufficiency of
a candidate, held that it is a matter of notice is determined on whether the
judicial notice that the candidates, their voters generally have knowledge of the
representatives and watchers station or time, place and purpose of the elections
deploy themselves among the various so as to give them full opportunity to
voting and canvassing centers to watch attend the polls and express their will or
the proceedings from the first hour of on the other hand, whether the omission
voting until the completion of the resulted in depriving a sufficient number
canvassing. In instant case, the May 27 of the qualified electors of the
special elections failed and were reset for opportunity of exercising their franchise
May 29, 1995. Petitioner Hassan cannot so as to change the result of the
claim that the later notice was not good election.[11]
enough for him. He was aware and ready
From the foregoing, it is not difficult
for the May 27 special elections. He was
for us to rule that there was insufficiency
just as alert and prepared for the May 29
of notice given as to the time and transfer
special elections as these are matters
of the polling places. The low turnout of
directly affecting his political fortunes.[8]
voters is more than sufficient proof that
the elections conducted on that day was
We cannot agree with the COMELEC
vitiated. A less than a days notice of time
that petitioner, his followers or the
and transfer of polling places 15
constituents must be charged with notice
kilometers away from the original polls
of the special elections to be held
certainly deprived the electors the
because of the failure of the two (2)
opportunity to participate in the
previous elections. To require the voters
elections.
to come to the polls on such short notice
was highly impracticable. In a place Respondents argue that since voting
marred by violence, it was necessary for actually occurred on May 29, the
the voters to be given sufficient time to substantial requirement of notice was
be notified of the changes and prepare complied with, which should not
themselves for the eventuality. necessarily invalidate the elections; more
so, if the votes not cast therein suffice to
It is essential to the validity of the
affect the results of the elections.
election that the voters have notice in
some form, either actual or constructive We disagree. It was quite sweeping
of the time, place and purpose and illogical for the COMELEC to state
thereof.[9] The time for holding it must be that the votes uncast would not have in
authoritatively designated in advance. any way affected the results of the
The requirement of notice even becomes elections. While the difference between
stricter in cases of special elections the two candidates is only 219 out of the
votes actually cast, the COMELEC totally to be a problem. In the absence of proof
ignored the fact that there were more that actual notice of the special elections
than a thousand registered voters who has reached a great number of voters,
failed to vote. Aside from Precinct 7-A we are constrained to consider the May
where the ballot box had been burned 29 elections as invalid. If only to
and which had 219 voters, the COMELEC ascertain the will of the people and to
failed to consider the disenfranchisement prevent that will from being muted, it is
of about 78% of the registered voters in necessary that a special election be held
the five (5) precincts of Madalum. Out of in view of the failure of elections in
the 1,546 registered voters, only 328 Madalum, Lanao del Sur.
actually voted because of the insufficient
WHEREFORE, the petition is
and ineffectual notice given of the time
GRANTED.
and place of elections. Whether or not
another special election would turn the (1) The COMELEC is hereby
tide in petitioners favor is of no moment enjoined from proclaiming the
because what is more important is that winners for the Office of Vice-
the electors should not have been Mayor and Councilors
deprived of their right to vote which was respectively; and
rather apparent in the case at bar.
(2) The COMELEC is ORDERED
Finally, in Lucero v. COMELEC,[12] we to conduct special elections in
stated that: Madalum, Lanao del Sur as
soon as possible.
In fixing the date of the special election,
SO ORDERED.
the COMELEC should see to it that: (1) it
should be not later than thirty days after
the cessation of the cause of the
postponement or suspension of the
election or the failure to elect, and (2) it
should be reasonably close to the date of
the election not held, suspended, or
which resulted in failure to elect. The first BENJAMIN U. BORJA,
involves questions of fact. The second JR., petitioner, vs.
must be determined in the light of the COMMISSION ON
peculiar circumstances of a case. ELECTIONS, PATEROS
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
The re-scheduling of the special
CANVASSERS and JOSE T.
elections from May 27 to May 29, was
CAPCO, JR., respondents.
done in uncommon haste and
unreasonably too close for all voters to DECISION
be notified of the changes, not only as to
the date but as to the designated polling ROMERO, J.:
place. We must agree with the dissenting
opinion that even in highly urbanized Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr.
areas, the dissemination of notices poses questions the authority of respondent
Commission on Elections en banc to hear Court, arguing the same matters while
and decide at the first instance a petition claiming that the COMELEC committed
seeking to declare a failure of election grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
without the benefit of prior notice and questioned resolution of May 25,
hearing. 1995. He avers that the COMELEC en
banc does not have the power to hear
During the May 8, 1995 elections,
and decide the merits of the petition he
Borja and private respondent Jose T.
filed below because under Article IX-C,
Capco vied for the position of Mayor of
Section 3 of the Constitution, all election
the Municipality of Pateros which was
cases, including pre-proclamation
won by Capco by a margin of 6,330
controversies, shall be heard and decided
votes. Capco was consequently
in division, provided that motions for
proclaimed and has since been serving as
reconsideration of decision shall be
Mayor of Pateros.
decided by the Commission en banc.
Alleging lack of notice of the date and
After a careful scrutiny of petitioners
time of canvass, fraud, violence,
arguments, this Court finds the same to
terrorism and analogous causes, such as
be untenable. The petition must
disenfranchisement of voters, presence
inevitably be dismissed.
of flying voters, and unqualified members
of the Board of Election Inspectors, Borja In order to resolve the threshold
filed before the COMELEC a petition to issue formulated at the outset, there
declare a failure of election and to nullify must first be a determination as to
the canvass and proclamation made by whether a petition to declare a failure of
the Pateros Board of Canvassers. election qualifies as an election case or a
pre-proclamation controversy. If it does,
Concluding that the grounds relied
the Constitution mandates that it be
upon by Borja were warranted only in an
heard and adjudged by
election contest, the COMELEC en
the COMELEC through any of its
banc dismissed the petition in its
Divisions. The COMELEC en banc is only
resolution dated May 25, 1995. It
empowered to resolve motions for
declared that forced majeure, violence,
reconsideration of cases decided by a
terrorism, fraud and other analogous
Division for Article IX-C, Section 3 of the
causes . . . are merely the causes which
Constitution expressly provides:
may give rise to the grounds to declare
failure of elections. These grounds, which
SEC 3. The Commission on Elections may
include (a) no election held on the
sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
designated election date; (b) suspension
promulgate its rules of procedure in order
of election before the hour fixed by law
to expedite disposition of election cases,
for the closing of voting; and (c) election
including pre-proclamation
in any polling place resulted in a failure
controversies. All such election cases
to elect, were not present in Borjas
shall be heard and decided in division,
petition.
provided that motions for reconsideration
Aggrieved by said resolution, shall be decided by the Commission en
petitioner elevated the matter to this banc.
 In the case at bar, no one, much less proclamation. Section 6 of the Omnibus
the COMELEC, is disputing the mandate Election Code lays down the instances
of the aforequoted Article IX-C, Section 3 when a failure of election may be
of the Constitution. As Borja himself declared. It states thus:
maintained, the soundness of this
provision has already been affirmed by SEC. 6. Failure of Election. If, on account
the Supreme Court in a number of cases, of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
albeit with some dissent.[1] In Ong, the fraud, or other analogous causes the
Court declared that if a case raises pre- election in any polling place has not been
proclamation issues, the COMELEC, held on the date fixed, or had been
sitting en banc, has no original suspended before the hour fixed by law
jurisdiction over the same. Accordingly, for the closing of the voting, or after the
said case should be remanded to voting and during the preparation and
the COMELEC which, in turn, will refer the transmission of the election returns
the same to any of its Divisions for proper or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
disposition. election results in a failure to elect, and
in any of such cases the failure or
A petition to declare a failure of
suspension of election would affect the
election is neither a pre-proclamation
result of the election, the Commission
controversy as classified under Section
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by
5(h), Rule 1 of the
any interested party and after due notice,
Revised COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
and hearing, call for the holding or
nor an election case.
continuation of the election not held,
It must be remembered that Capco suspended or which resulted in a failure
was duly elected and proclaimed as to elect on a date reasonably close to the
Mayor of Pateros. Such proclamation date of the election not held, suspended
enjoys the presumption of regularity and or which resulted in a failure to elect but
validity.[2] To destroy the presumption, not later than thirty days after the
Borja must convincingly show that his cessation of the cause of such
opponents victory was procured through postponement or suspension of the
extra-legal means. This he tried to do by election or failure to elect.
alleging matters in his petition which he
thought constituted failure of election, The same provisions are reiterated under
such as lack of notice of the date and Section 2, Rule 26 of the
time of canvass; fraud, violence, Revised COMELEC Rules. In other words,
terrorism and analogous causes; the COMELEC can call for the holding or
disenfranchisement of voters; presence continuation of election by reason of
of flying voters; and unqualified failure of election only when the election
members of the Board of Election is not held, is suspended or results in a
Inspectors. These grounds, however, as failure to elect. The latter phrase, in turn,
correctly pointed out by the COMELEC, must be understood in its literal sense,
are proper only in an election contest but which is nobody was elected. None of
not in a petition to declare a failure of these circumstances is present in the
election and to nullify a case at bar. At best, the grounds cited by
Borja are simply events which give rise to Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the
the three consequences just mentioned. Commission on election contests
involving elective municipal and
In reality, Borjas petition was nothing
barangay offices shall be final, executory,
but a simple election protest involving an
and not appealable.
elective municipal position which, under
Section 251 of the Election Code, falls
The COMELEC, therefore, had no
within the exclusive original jurisdiction
choice but to dismiss Borjas petition, not
of the appropriate Regional Trial
only for being deficient in form but also
Court. Section 251 states:
for having been filed before the wrong
tribunal. This reason need not even be
Section 251. Election contests for
stated in the body of the decision as the
municipal offices. A sworn petition
same is patent on the face of the
contesting the election of a municipal
pleading itself. Nor can Borja claim that
officer shall be filed with the
he was denied due process because
proper regional trial court by any
when the COMELEC en banc reviewed
candidate who has duly filed a certificate
and evaluated his petition, the same was
of candidacy and has been voted for the
tantamount to a fair hearing of his
same office, within ten days after
case. The fact that Capco was not even
proclamation of the results of the
ordered to rebut the allegations therein
election. (Italics supplied)
certainly did not deprive him of his day in
court. If anybody here was aggrieved by
The COMELEC in turn exercises appellate
the alleged lack of notice and hearing, it
jurisdiction over the trial courts decision
was Capco whose arguments were never
pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of
ventilated. If he remained complacent, it
the Constitution which states:
was because the COMELECs actuation
was favorable to him.
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall
exercise the following powers and Certainly, the COMELEC cannot be
functions: said to have committed abuse of
discretion, let alone grave abuse thereof,
xxx xxx xxx in dismissing Borjas petition. For having
applied the clear provisions of the law, it
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction deserves, not condemnation, but
over all contests relating to the elections, commendation.
returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
appellate jurisdiction over all contests hereby DISMISSED. The Resolution of
involving elective municipal officials the Commission on Elections dated May
decided by trial courts of general 25, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED. No
jurisdiction, or involving elective pronouncement as to cost.
barangay officials decided by trial courts SO ORDERED.
of limited jurisdiction.
 control data of the election returns was
not filled up in some precincts; (e) ballot
boxes brought to the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer were
RICARDO "BOY" unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor
CANICOSA, petitioner, self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there
vs. COMMISSION ON was delay in the delivery of election
ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL returns. But the COMELEC en
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF banc dismissed the petition on the
CALAMBA LAGUNA and ground that the allegations therein did
SEVERINO not justify a declaration of failure of
LAJARA, respondents. election.
Indeed, the grounds cited by
DECISION
Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of
BELLOSILLO, J.: failure of election. Section 6 of BP Blg.
881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
RICARDO "BOY" CANICOSA and Election Code, reads:
SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for
mayor in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on
May 1995 elections. After obtaining a account of force majeure, violence,
majority of some 24,000 votes[1] Lajara terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
was proclaimed winner by the Municipal causes the election in any polling place
Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 has not been held on the date fixed, or
Canicosa filed had been suspended before the hour
with the Commission on Elections (COM fixed by law for the closing of the voting,
ELEC) a Petition to Declare Failure of or after the voting and during the
Election and to Declare Null and Void the preparation and the transmission of the
Canvass and Proclamation because of election returns or in the custody or
alleged widespread frauds and anomalies canvass thereof, such election results in
in casting and counting of votes, a failure to elect, and in any of such cases
preparation of election returns, violence, the failure or suspension of election
threats, intimidation, vote buying, would affect the result of the election,
unregistered voters voting, and delay in the Commission shall, on the basis of a
the delivery of election documents and verified petition by any interested party
paraphernalia from the precincts to the and after due notice and hearing, call for
Office of the Municipal the holding or continuation of the
Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred election not held, suspended or which
that: (a) the names of the registered resulted in a failure to elect on a date
voters did not appear in the list of voters reasonably close to the date of the
in their precincts; (b) more than one-half election not held, suspended or which
of the legitimate registered voters were resulted in a failure to elect but not later
not able to vote with strangers voting in than thirty days after the cessation of the
their stead; (c) he was credited with less cause of such postponement or
votes than he actually received; (d)
suspension of the election or failure to list which may be inspected by the public
elect. in their residence or in their office during
office hours.[2]
Clearly, there are only three (3)
Fifteen (15) days before the regular
instances where a failure of election may
elections on 8 May 1995 the final list of
be declared, namely: (a) the election in
voters was posted in each precinct
any polling place has not been held on
pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No.
the date fixed on account of force
7166. Based on the lists thus posted
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
Canicosa could have filed a petition for
other analogous causes; (b) the election
inclusion of registered voters with the
in any polling place had been suspended
regular courts. The question of inclusion
before the hour fixed by law for the
or exclusion from the list of voters
closing of the voting on account of force
involves the right to vote [3] which is not
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
within the power and authority of
other analogous causes; or (c) after the
COMELEC to rule upon. The
voting and during the preparation and
determination of whether one has the
transmission of the election returns or in
right to vote is a justiciable issue properly
the custody or canvass thereof, such
cognizable by our regular courts. Section
election results in a failure to elect on
138, Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election
account of force majeure, violence,
Code states:
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes.
Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and
None of the grounds invoked by exclusion cases. - The municipal and
Canicosa falls under any of those metropolitan trial courts shall have
enumerated. original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters of inclusion and exclusion of
Canicosa bewails that the names of
voters from the list in their respective
the registered voters in the various
municipalities or cities. Decisions of the
precincts did not appear in their
municipal or metropolitan trial courts
respective lists of voters. But this is not a
may be appealed directly by the
ground to declare a failure of
aggrieved party to the proper regional
election. The filing of a petition for
trial court within five days from receipts
declaration of failure of election therefore
of notice thereof, otherwise said decision
is not the proper remedy. The day
of the municipal or metropolitan trial
following the last day for registration of
court shall decide the appeal within ten
voters, the poll clerk delivers a certified
days from the time the appeal was
list of voters to the election registrar,
received and its decision shall be
election supervisor and the
immediately final and executory. No
COMELEC, copies of which are open to
motion for reconsideration shall be
public inspection. On the same day, the
entertained by the courts (Sec. 37, PD
poll clerk posts a copy of the list of
1896, as amended).
registered voters in each polling
place. Each member of the board of
On the other hand, Canicosa could
election inspectors retains a copy of the
have also filed with the COMELEC a
verified complaint seeking the annulment Sec. 199. Challenge of illegal voters. - (a)
of the book of voters pursuant to Sec. 10, Any voter, or watcher may challenge any
of RA No. 7166: person offering to vote for not being
registered, for using the name of another
Sec. 10. Annulment of the List of Voters. or suffering from existing
- Any book of voters the preparation of disqualification. In such case, the board
which has been affected with fraud, of election inspectors shall satisfy itself as
bribery, forgery, impersonation, to whether or not the ground for the
intimidation, force or any other similar challenge is true by requiring proof of
irregularity or which is statistically registration or identity of the voter x x x
improbable may be annulled after due x
notice and hearing by the
Commission motu propio or after the Sec. 202. Record of challenges and
filing of a verified oaths. - The poll clerk shall keep a
complaint: Provided, that no order, prescribed record of challenges and
ruling or decision annulling a book of oaths taken in connection therewith and
voters shall be executed within sixty (60) the resolution of the board of election
days before an election. inspectors in each case and, upon the
termination of the voting, shall certify
If indeed the situation herein described that it contains all the challenges made x
was common in almost all of the 557 xxx
precincts as alleged by Canicosa,[4] then
it was more expedient on his part to avail The claim of Canicosa that he was
of the remedies provided by law in order credited with less votes than he actually
to maintain the integrity of the received and that the control data of the
election. Since Canicosa failed to resort election returns was not filled up should
to any of the above options, the have been raised in the first instance
permanent list of voters as finally before the board of election inspectors or
corrected before the election remains board of canvassers. Section 179, Art.
conclusive on the question as to who had XV, of the Omnibus Election Code clearly
the right to vote in that election, although provides for the rights and duties of
not in subsequent elections.[5] watchers -
Canicosa also avers that more than
Sec. 179. Rights and duties of watchers.
one-half (1/2) of the legitimate
- x x x x The watchers x x x shall have
registered voters were not able to vote,
the right to witness and inform
instead, strangers voted in their
themselves of the proceedings of the
behalf. Again, this is not a ground which
board of election inspectors x x x to file a
warrants a declaration of failure of
protest against any irregularity or
election. Canicosa was allowed to
violation of law which they believe may
appoint a watcher in every precinct. The
have been committed by the board of
watcher is empowered by law to
election inspectors or by any of its
challenge any illegal voter. Thus, Secs.
members or by any persons, to obtain
199 and 202, Art. XVII, of the Omnibus
from the board of election inspectors a
Election Code, provide:
certificate as to the filing of such protest Sec. 16. Certification of votes. - After the
and/or of the resolution thereon x x x and counting of the votes cast in the precinct
to be furnished with a certificate of the and announcement of the results of the
number of votes in words and figures election, and before leaving the polling
cast for each candidate, duly signed and place, the board of election inspectors
thumbmarked by the chairman and all shall issue a certificate of votes upon
the members of the board of election request of the duly accredited watchers x
inspectors x x x x xxx

To safeguard and maintain the Sec. 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence.

sanctity of election returns, Sec. 212, Art. - The provisions of Secs. 235 and 236 of
XVIII, of the Omnibus Election Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
Code states - notwithstanding, the certificate of votes
shall be admissible in evidence to prove
Sec. 212. Election returns. - x x x x tampering, alteration, falsification or
Immediately upon the accomplishment of anomaly committed in the election
the election returns, each copy thereof returns concerned x x x x
shall be sealed in the presence of the
watchers and the public, and placed in From the foregoing provisions, it is
the proper envelope, which shall likewise clear that in case of inconsistency as to
be sealed and distributed as herein the number of votes written in the
provided. election returns and the certificate of
votes, a petition for correction of election
Furthermore, it is provided in Sec. returns must immediately be filed with
215 of the Omnibus Election Code that - COMELEC by all or a majority of the
members of the board of election
Sec. 215. Board of election inspectors to inspectors or any candidate affected by
issue a certificate of the number of votes the error or mistake. In order to make
polled by the candidates for an office to out a case for correction of election
the watchers. - After the announcement returns, there must be an error and at
of the results of the election and before least a majority of the members of the
leaving the polling place, it shall be the board of election inspectors agrees that
duty of the board of election inspectors such error existed. Canicosa never
to issue a certificate of the number of mentioned that he petitioned for the
votes received by a candidate upon correction of the election returns before
request of the watchers. All members of the COMELEC
the board of election inspectors shall sign
Canicosa complains that the election
the certificate.
returns were delivered late and the ballot
Supplementing the preceding boxes brought to the Office of the
provisions, Secs. 16 and 17 of RA No. Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e.,
6646 also require - without padlocks nor self-locking metal
seals. These bare allegations cannot
impel us to declare failure of
election. Assuming that the election
returns were delivered late, we still registered voters were not able to vote
cannot see why we should declare a with strangers voting in their stead; (c)
failure to elect. The late deliveries did not he was credited with less votes than he
convert the election held in Calamba into actually received; (d) the control data of
a mockery or farce to make us conclude the election returns was not filled up in
that there was indeed a failure of some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought
election. to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer
were unsecured, i. e., without padlocks
In fine, the grounds cited by
nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f)
Canicosa in his petition do not fall under
there was delay in the delivery of election
any of the instances enumerated in Sec.
returns.
6 of the Omnibus Election
Code. In Mitmug v. Commission on Clearly, all these matters require the
Elections [6] we ruled that before exercise by the COMELEC of its
COMELECcan act on a verified petition administrative functions. Section 2, Art.
seeking to declare a failure of election, at IX-C, of the 1987 Constitution grants
least two (2) conditions must concur: (a) extensive administrative powers
no voting has taken place in the precincts to the COMELEC with regard to the
on the date fixed by law, or even if there enforcement and administration of all
was voting, the election nevertheless laws and regulations relative to the
resulted in failure to elect; and, (b) the conduct of elections. Likewise, Sec. 52 of
votes that were not cast would affect the BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as
result of the election. From the face of the Omnibus Election Code, states:
the instant petition, it is readily apparent
than an election took place and that it did Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the
not result in a failure to elect.[7] Commission on Elections. - In addition to
the powers and functions conferred upon
Canicosa finally insists that it was
it by the Constitution, the Commission
error on the part of COMELEC sitting en
shall have exclusive charge of the
banc to rule on his petition. He maintains
enforcement and administration of all
that his petition should have first been
laws relative to the conduct of elections
heard by a division of COMELEC and later
for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly
by the COMELEC en banc upon motion
and honest elections x x x x
for reconsideration, pursuant to Sec. 3,
Art. IX-C, of the Constitution.[8]
Quite obviously, it is only in the
But this provision applies only when exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its judicial powers that the COMELEC is
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions mandated to hear and decide cases first
and not when it merely exercises purely by Division and then, upon motion for
administrative functions. To reiterate, reconsideration, by the COMELECen
the grounds cited by Canicosa in his banc. This is when it is jurisdictional. In
petition are that: (a) the names of the the instant case, as aforestated, the
registered voters did not appear in the list issues presented demand only the
of voters in their respective precincts; exercise by the COMELEC of its
(b) more than one-half of the legitimate administrative functions.
 The COMELEC exercises direct and votes obtained by the candidates as
immediate supervision and control over reflected in the election returns. In
national and local officials or employees, making the correction in computation,
including members of any national or the MBC will be acting in an
local law enforcement agency and administrative capacity, under the control
instrumentality of the government and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence,
required by law to perform duties relative any question pertaining to the
to the conduct of elections. Its power of proceedings of the MBC may be raised
direct supervision and control includes directly to the COMELEC en banc in the
the power to review, modify or set aside exercise of its constitutional function to
any act of such national and local decide questions affecting elections.
officials. [9] It exercises immediate
Moreover, it is expressly provided in
supervision and control over the
Rule 27, Sec. 7, of the Comelec Rules of
members of the boards of election
Procedure that any party dissatisfied with
inspectors and canvassers. Its statutory
the ruling of the board of canvassers shall
power of supervision and control
have a right to appeal to the
includes the power to revise, reverse or
COMELEC en banc:
set aside the action of the boards, as well
as to do what
Sec. 7. Correction of Errors in Tabulation
the boards should have done, even if qu
or Tallying of Results by the Board of
estions relative thereto have not
Canvassers. - (a) Where it is clearly
been elevated to it by an aggrieved part
shown before proclamation that manifest
y, for such power includes the authority
errors were committed in the tabulation
to initiate motu proprio or by itselfsuch
or tallying or election returns, or
steps or actions as may be required
certificates of canvass, during the
pursuant to law.[10]
canvassing as where (1) a copy of the
Specifically, Canicosa alleged that he election returns of one precinct or two or
was credited with less votes than he more copies of a certificate of canvass
actually received. But he did not raise were tabulated more than once, (2) two
any objection before the Municipal Board copies of the election returns or
of Canvassers; instead, he went directly certificate of canvass were tabulated
to the COMELEC. He now claims, after separately, (3) there was a mistake in the
the COMELEC en banc dismissed his adding or copying of the
petition, that it was error on the part of figures into the certificate of canvass or i
COMELEC to rule on his petition while nto the statement of votes by precinct,
sitting en banc. or (4) so-called election returns from
non-existent precincts were included in
We have already disposed of this
the canvass, the board may motu
issue in Castromayor v. Commission on
proprio, or upon verified petition by any
Elections [11] thus should be pinpointed
candidate, political party, organization
out, in this connection, that what is
or coalition of political parties, after due
involved here is a simple problem of
notice and hearing, correct the errors
arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is
committed x x x x (h) The appeal shall be
merely a tabulation per precinct of the
heard and decided by the Commission en
banc.

In Tatlonghari v. Commission on
Elections [12] it was made to appear in
the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and
[G.R. No. 127116. April 8, 1997]
Proclamation of the Winning
Candidates that respondent therein
received 4,951 votes or more than what
he actually obtained. In resolving the ALEX L. DAVID, in his own behalf as
case we ruled that the correction of the Barangay Chairman of
manifest mistake in mathematical Barangay 77, Zone 7,
addition calls for a mere clerical task of Kalookan City and as
the board of canvassers. The remedy President of the LIGA NG MGA
invoked was purely BARANGAY SA
administrative. In Feliciano v. PILIPINAS, petitioner, vs.
Lugay [13] we categorized the issue COMMISSION ON
concerning registration of voters, which ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE
Canicosa cited as a ground in his petition SECRETARY, Department of
for declaration of failure of election, as an Interior and Local
administrative question. Likewise, Government, and THE
questions as to whether elections have HONORABLE SECRETARY,
been held or whether certain returns Department of Budget and
were falsified or manufactured and Management, respondents.
therefore should be excluded from the
canvass do not involve the right to
vote. Such questions are properly within
[G.R. No. 128039. April 8, 1997]
theadministrative jurisdiction of
COMELEC, [14] hence, may be acted upon
directly by the COMELEC en banc without
having to pass through any of its LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY QUEZON
divisions. CITY CHAPTER, Represented
by BONIFACIO M.
WHEREFORE, finding no grave
RILLON, petitioner, vs.
abuse of discretion committed by public
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
respondent Commission on Elections, the
and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
petition is DISMISSED and its
AND
Resolution en banc of 23 May 1995
MANAGEMENT, respondents.
dismissing the petition before it on the
ground that the allegations therein did
DECISION
not justify a declaration of failure of
election is AFFIRMED. PANGANIBAN, J.:
SO ORDERED.
The two petitions before us raise a
common question: How long is the term
of office of barangay chairmen and other memoranda within a non-extendible
barangay officials who were elected to period of twenty days from notice. It also
their respective offices on the second requested former Senator Aquilino Q.
Monday of May 1994? Is it three years, Pimentel, Jr.[1] to act as amicus
as provided by RA 7160 (the Local curiae and to file a memorandum also
Government Code) or five years, as within a non-extendible period of twenty
contained in RA 6679? Contending that days. It noted but did not grant
their term is five years, petitioners ask petitioners Urgent Motion for Issuance of
this Court to order the cancellation of the Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ
scheduled barangay election this coming of Preliminary Injunction dated January
May 12, 1997 and to reset it to the 31, 1997 (as well as his Urgent Ex-
second Monday of May, 1999. Parte Second Motion to the same effect,
dated March 6, 1997). Accordingly, the
parties filed their respective
The Antecedents memoranda. The Petition for Leave to
Intervene filed on March 17, 1997 by
G.R. No. 127116 Punong Barangay Rodson F. Mayor was
denied as it would just unduly delay the
In his capacity as barangay chairman resolution of the case, his interest like
of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City those of all other barangay officials being
and as president of the Liga ng mga already adequately represented by
Barangay sa Pilipinas, Petitioner Alex L. Petitioner David who filed this petition as
David filed on December 2, 1996 president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa
a petition for prohibition docketed in this Pilipinas.
Court as G.R. No. 127116, under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, to prohibit the
holding of the barangay election G.R. No. 128039
scheduled on the second Monday of May
1997. On January 14, 1997, the Court On February 20, 1997, Petitioner Liga
resolved to require the respondents to ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter
comment on the petition within a non- represented by its president Bonifacio M.
extendible period of fifteen days ending Rillon filed a petition, docketed as G.R.
on January 29, 1997. No. 128039, to seek a judicial review
On January 29, 1997, the Solicitor by certiorari to declare as
General filed his four-page Comment unconstitutional:
siding with petitioner and praying that
the election scheduled on May 12, 1997 1. Section 43(c) of R.A. 7160 which reads
be held in abeyance. Respondent as follows:
Commission on Elections filed a separate
Comment, dated February 1, 1997 (c) The term of office of barangay
opposing the petition. On February 11, officials and members of the
1997, the Court issued a Resolution sangguniang kabataan shall be for three
giving due course to the petition and (3) years, which shall begin after the
requiring the parties to file simultaneous
regular election of barangay officials on The Issues
the second Monday of May 1994.
Both petitions though worded
2. COMELEC Resolution Nos. 2880 and
differently raise the same ultimate
2887 fixing the date of the holding of the
issue: How long is the term of office of
barangay elections on May 12, 1997 and
barangay officials?
other activities related thereto;
Petitioners[6] contend that under Sec.
3. The budgetary appropriation of P400 2 of Republic Act No. 6653, approved on
million contained in Republic Act No. May 6, 1988, (t)he term of office of
8250 otherwise known as the General barangay officials shall be for five (5)
Appropriations Act of 1997 intended to years x x x. This is reiterated in Republic
defray the costs and expenses in holding Act No. 6679, approved on November 4,
the 1997 barangay elections;[2] 1988, which reset the barangay elections
from the second Monday of November
Comelec Resolution 1988 to March 28, 1989 and provided in
[3]
2880, promulgated on December 27, Sec. 1 thereof that such five-year term
1996 and referred to above, adopted a shall begin on the first day of May 1989
Calendar of Activities and List and Periods and ending on the thirty-first day of May
of Certain Prohibited Acts for the May 12, 1994. Petitioners further aver[7] that
1997 Barangay Elections. On the other although Sec. 43 of RA 7160 reduced the
hand, Comelec Resolution 2887 term of office of all local elective officials
promulgated on February 5, 1997 moved to three years, such reduction does not
certain dates fixed in Resolution 2880.[4] apply to barangay officials because (1)
RA 6679 is a special law applicable only
Acting on the petition, the Court on
February 25, 1997 required respondents to barangays while RA 7160 is a general
to submit their comment thereon within law which applies to all other local
a non-extendible period of ten days government units; (2) RA 7160 does not
expressly or impliedly repeal RA 6679
ending on March 7, 1997. The Court
further resolved to consolidate the two insofar as the term of barangay officials
cases inasmuch as they raised basically is concerned; (3) while Sec. 8 of Article X
of the 1987 Constitution fixes the term of
the same issue. Respondent Commission
filed its Comment on March 6, elective local officials at three years, the
1997[5] and the Solicitor General, in same provision states that the term of
representation of the other respondent, barangay officials shall be determined by
filed his on March 6, 1997. Petitioners law; and (4) thus, it follows that the
Urgent Omnibus Motion for oral constitutional intention is to grant
argument and temporary restraining barangay officials any term, except three
years; otherwise, there would be no
order was noted but not granted. The
petition was deemed submitted for rhyme or reason for the framers of the
resolution by the Court without need of Constitution to except barangay officials
from the three year term found in Sec. 8
memoranda.
(of) Article X of the
Constitution. Petitioners conclude (1)
that the Commission on Elections Government Code of 1991 which
committed grave abuse of discretion prescribes a term of only three
when it promulgated Resolution Nos. years. Finally, Respondent Comelec
2880 and 2887 because it substituted its denies the charge of grave abuse of
own will for that of the legislative and discretion stating that the question
usurped the judicial function x x x by presented x x x is a purely legal one
interpreting the conflicting provisions of involving no exercise of an act without or
Sec. 1 of RA 6679 and Sec. 43 (c) of RA in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
7160; and (2) that the appropriation abuse of discretion.[10]
of P400 million in the General
As amicus curiae, former Senator
Appropriation Act of 1997 (RA 8250) to
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. urges the Court
be used in the conduct of the barangay
to deny the petitions because (1) the
elections on May 12, 1997 is itself
Local Autonomy Code repealed both RA
unconstitutional and a waste of public
6679 and 6653 not only by implication
funds.
but by design as well; (2) the legislative
The Solicitor General agrees with intent is to shorten the term of barangay
petitioners, arguing that RA 6679 was not officials to three years; (3) the barangay
repealed by RA 7160 and thus he officials should not have a term longer
believes that the holding of the barangay than that of their administrative
elections (o)n the second Monday of May superiors, the city and municipal mayors;
1997 is without sufficient legal basis. and (4) barangay officials are estopped
from contesting the applicability of the
Respondent Commission on
three-year term provided by the Local
Elections, through Chairman Bernardo P.
Government Code as they were elected
Pardo, defends its assailed Resolutions
under the provisions of said Code.
and maintains that the repealing clause
of RA 7160 includes all laws, whether From the foregoing discussions of
general or special, inconsistent with the the parties, the Court believes that the
provisions of the Local Government issues can be condensed into three, as
Code, citing this Courts dictum in Paras follows:
vs. Comelec[8] that the next regular
1. Which law governs the
election involving the barangay office is
term of office of barangay
barely seven (7) months away, the same
officials: RA 7160 or RA
having been scheduled in May
6679?
1997. Furthermore, RA 8250 (the
General Appropriations Act for 1997) and 2. Is RA 7160 insofar as it
RA 8189 (providing for a general shortened such term to only
registration of voters) both indicate that three years constitutional?
Congress considered that the barangay
3. Are petitioners estopped from
elections shall take place in May, 1997,
claiming a term other than
as provided for in RA 7160, Sec. 43
that provided under RA 7160?
(c).[9] Besides, petitioners cannot claim a
term of more than three years since they
were elected under the aegis of the Local
The Courts Ruling
 The petitions are devoid of merit. Administrative Code of 1917.[16] Barrios
were granted autonomy by the original
Barrio Charter, RA 2370, and formally
Brief Historical Background of recognized as quasi-municipal
Barangay Elections corporations [17] by the Revised Barrio
Charter, RA 3590. During the martial law
regime, barrios were declared or
For a clear understanding of the
renamed barangays -- a reversion really
issues, it is necessary to delve briefly into
to their pre-Spanish names -- by PD. No.
the history of barangay elections.
86 and PD No. 557. Their basic
As a unit of government, the organization and functions under RA
barangay antedated the Spanish 3590, which was expressly adopted as
conquest of the Philippines. The word the Barangay Charter, were
barangay is derived from the Malay retained. However, the titles of the
balangay, a boat which transported them officials were changed to barangay
(the Malays) to these shores.[11] Quoting captain, barangay councilman, barangay
from Juan de Plasencia, a Franciscan secretary and barangay treasurer.
missionary in 1577, Historian Conrado
Pursuant to Sec. 6 of Batas
Benitez[12] wrote that the barangay was
Pambansa Blg. 222,[18] a Punong
ruled by a dato who exercised absolute
Barangay (Barangay Captain) and six
powers of government. While the
Kagawads ng Sangguniang Barangay
Spaniards kept the barangay as the basic
(Barangay Councilmen), who shall
structure of government, they stripped
constitute the presiding officer and
the dato or rajah of his
members of the Sangguniang Barangay
powers.[13] Instead, power was
(Barangay Council) respectively were
centralized nationally in the governor
first elected on May 17, 1982. They had
general and locally in
a term of six years which began on June
the encomiendero and later, in
7, 1982.
the alcalde mayor and
the gobernadorcillo. The dato or rajah w The Local Government Code of
as much later renamed cabeza de 1983[19] also fixed the term of office of
barangay, who was elected by the local local elective officials at six
citizens possessing property. The years.[20] Under this Code, the chief
position degenerated from a title of officials of the barangay were the punong
honor to that of a mere government barangay, six elective sangguniang
employee. Only the poor who needed a barangay members, the kabataang
salary, no matter how low, accepted the barangay chairman, a barangay
post.[14] secretary and a barangay treasurer.[21]
After the Americans colonized the B.P. Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election
Philippines, the barangays became Code,[22] reiterated that barangay
known as barrios.[15] For some time, the officials shall hold office for six years, and
laws governing barrio governments were stated that their election was to be held
found in the Revised Administrative Code on the second Monday of May nineteen
of 1916 and later in the Revised
hundred and eighty eight and on the SEC. 43. Term of Office. --
same day every six years thereafter.[23]
xxxxxxxxx
This election scheduled by B.P. Blg.
881 on the second Monday of May 1988
(c) The term of office of barangay
was reset to the second Monday of
officials and members of the
November 1988 and every five years
sangguniang kabataan shall be for three
thereafter[24] by RA 6653. Under this law,
(3) years, which shall begin after the
the term of office of the barangay
regular election of barangay officials on
officials was cut to five years[25] and the
the second Monday of May,
punong barangay was to be chosen from
1994 (Underscoring supplied.)
among themselves by seven kagawads,
who in turn were to be elected at large (2) The composition of the Sangguniang
by the barangay electorate.[26] Barangay and the manner of electing its
But the election date set by RA 6653 officials were altered, inter alia, the
on the second Monday of November 1988 barangay chairman was to be elected
was again postponed and reset to March directly by the electorate, as follows:
28, 1989 by RA 6679,[27] and the term of
office of barangay officials was to begin SEC. 387. Chief Officials and Offices. -
on May 1, 1989and to end on May 31, - (a) There shall be in each barangay a
1994. RA 6679 further provided that punong barangay, seven (7) sanggunian
there shall be held a regular election of barangay members, the sanggunian
barangay officials on the second Monday kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary
of May 1994 and on the same day every and a barangay treasurer.
five (5) years thereafter. Their term shall
be for five years x x x.[28] Significantly, xxxxxxxxx
the manner of election of the punong
barangay was changed. Sec. 5 of said SEC. 390. Composition. -- The
law ordained that while the seven Sangguniang barangay, the legislative
kagawads were to be elected by the body of the barangay, shall be composed
registered voters of the barangay, (t)he of the punong barangay as presiding
candidate who obtains the highest officer, and the seven (7) regular
number of votes shall be the punong sanguniang barangay members elected
barangay and in the event of a tie, there at large and the sanguniang kabataan
shall be a drawing of lots under the chairman as members.
supervision of the Commission on
Elections. SEC. 41. Manner of Election. -- (a) The x
x x punong barangay shall be elected at
Under the Local Government Code of large x x x by the qualified voters in the
1991, RA 7160,[29] several provisions barangay. (Underscoring supplied.)
concerning barangay officials were
introduced: Pursuant to the foregoing mandates
of the Local Autonomy Code, the
(1) The term of office was reduced to qualified barangay voters actually
three years, as follows: voted for one punong barangay and
seven (7) kagawads during the barangay on the second Monday of May 1994. This
elections held on May 9, 1994. In other provision is clearly inconsistent with and
words, the punong barangay was elected repugnant to Sec. 1 of RA 6679 which
directly and separately by the electorate, states that such term shall be for five
and not by the seven (7) kagawads from years. Note that both laws refer to the
among themselves. same officials who were elected on the
second Monday of May 1994.
The First Issue: Clear Legislative
Intent and Design to Limit Term to Second. RA 6679 requires the
Three Years barangay voters to elect seven kagawads
and the candidate obtaining the highest
In light of the foregoing brief
number of votes shall automatically be
historical background, the intent and
the punong barangay. RA 6653
design of the legislature to limit the term
empowers the seven elected barangay
of barangay officials to only three (3)
kagawads to select the punong barangay
years as provided under the Local
from among themselves. On the other
Government Code emerges as bright as
hand, the Local Autonomy Code
the sunlight. The cardinal rule in the
mandates a direct vote on the barangay
interpretation of all laws is to ascertain
chairman by the entire barangay
and give effect to the intent of the
electorate, separately from the seven
law.[30] And three years is the obvious
kagawads. Hence, under the Code,
intent.
voters elect eight barangay officials,
First. RA 7160, the Local namely, the punong barangay plus the
Government Code, was enacted later seven kagawads. Under both RA 6679
than RA 6679. It is basic that in case of and 6653, they vote for only seven
an irreconciliable conflict between two kagawads, and not for the barangay
laws of different vintages, the later chairman.
enactment prevails.[31] Legis posteriores
Third. During the barangay elections
priores contrarias abrogant. The
held on May 9, 1994 (second Monday),
rationale is simple: a later law repeals an
the voters actually and directly elected
earlier one because it is the later
one punong barangay and seven
legislative will. It is to be presumed that
kagawads. If we agree with the thesis of
the lawmakers knew the older law and
petitioners, it follows that all the punong
intended to change it. In enacting the
barangays were elected illegally and
older law, the legislators could not have
thus, Petitioner Alex David cannot claim
known the newer one and hence could
to be a validly elected barangay
not have intended to change what they
chairman, much less president of the
did not know. Under the Civil Code, laws
national league of barangays which he
are repealed only by subsequent ones --
[32] and not the other way around. purports to represent in this petition. It
then necessarily follows also that he is
Under Sec. 43-c of RA 7160, the term not the real party-in-interest and on that
of office of barangay officials was fixed at ground, his petition should be summarily
three (3) years which shall begin after dismissed.
the regular election of barangay officials
 Fourth. In enacting the general of office of barangay officials.In its
appropriations act of 1997,[33] Congress repealing clause,[36] RA 7160 states that
appropriated the amount of P400 million all general and special laws x x x which
to cover expenses for the holding of are inconsistent with any of the
barangay elections this year. Likewise, provisions of this Code are hereby
under Sec. 7 of RA 8189, Congress repealed or modified accordingly. There
ordained that a general registration of being a clear repugnance and
voters shall be held immediately after the incompatibility between the two specific
barangay elections in 1997. These are provisions, they cannot stand
clear and express contemporaneous together. The later law, RA 7160, should
statements of Congress that barangay thus prevail in accordance with its
officials shall be elected this May, in repealing clause. When a subsequent law
accordance with Sec. 43-c of RA 7160. encompasses entirely the subject matter
of the former enactments, the latter is
Fifth. In Paras vs. Comelec,[34] this
deemed repealed.[37]
Court said that the next regular election
involving the barangay office concerned
is barely seven (7) months away, the
The Second Issue: Three-Year Term
same having been scheduled in May,
Not Repugnant to Constitution
1997. This judicial decision, per Article 8
of the Civil Code, is now a part of the
legal system of the Philippines. Sec. 8, Article X of the Constitution
states:
Sixth. Petitioners pompously claim
that RA 6679, being a special law, should
SEC. 8. The term of office of elective local
prevail over RA 7160, an alleged general
officials, except barangay officials, which
law pursuant to the doctrine of generalia
shall be determined by law, shall be three
specialibus non derogant. Petitioners are
years, and no such official shall serve for
wrong. RA 7160 is a codified set of laws
more than three consecutive
that specifically applies to local
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
government units. It specifically and
office for any length of time shall not be
definitively provides in its Sec. 43-c that
considered as an interruption in the
the term of office of barangay officials x
continuity of his service for the full term
x x shall be for three years. It is a special
for which he was elected.
provision that applies only to the term of
barangay officials who were elected on
Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay
the second Monday of May 1994. With Quezon City Chapter posits that by
such particularity, the provision cannot excepting barangay officials whose term
be deemed a general law. Petitioner may
shall be determined by law from the
be correct in alleging that RA 6679 is a
general provision fixing the term of
special law, but they are incorrect in elective local officials at three years, the
stating (without however giving the
Constitution thereby impliedly prohibits
reasons therefor) that RA 7160 is
Congress from legislating a three-year
necessarily a general law.[35] It is a term for such officers. We find this theory
special law insofar as it governs the term
rather novel but nonetheless logically and MR. NOLLEDO. One clarificatory
legally flawed. question, Madam
President. What will be the term
Undoubtedly, the Constitution did
of the office of barangay officials
not expressly prohibit Congress from
as provided for?
fixing any term of office for barangay
officials. It merely left the determination MR. DAVIDE. As may be determined
of such term to the lawmaking body, by law.
without any specific limitation or
MR. NOLLEDO. As provided for in the
prohibition, thereby leaving to the
Local Government Code?
lawmakers full discretion to fix such term
in accordance with the exigencies of MR. DAVIDE. Yes.
public service. It must be remembered
xxxxxxxxx
that every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality.[38] For a THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other
law to be nullified, it must be shown that comment? Is there any objection
there is a clear and unequivocal (not just to this proposed new section as
implied) breach of the Constitution.[39] To submitted by Commissioner
strike down a law as unconstitutional, Davide and accepted by the
there must be a clear and unequivocal Committee?
showing that what the fundamental law
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President,
prohibits, the statute permits.[40] The
does this prohibition to serve for
petitioners have miserably failed to
more than three consecutive
discharge this burden and to show clearly
terms apply to barangay
the unconstitutionality they aver.
officials?
There is absolutely no doubt in our
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, the
mind that Sec. 43-c of RA 7160 is
voting that we had on the terms
constitutional. Sec. 8, Article X of the
of office did not include the
Constitution -- limiting the term of all
barangay officials because it was
elective local officials to three years,
then the stand of the Chairman
except that of barangay officials which
of the Committee on Local
shall be determined by law -- was an
Governments that the term of
amendment proposed by Constitutional
barangay officials must be
Commissioner (now Supreme Court
determined by law. So it is now
Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr. According
for the law to determine whether
to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., the
the restriction on the number of
amendment was readily accepted
reelections will be included in the
without much discussion and formally
Local Government Code.
approved. Indeed, a search into the
Record of the Constitutional Commission MR. RODRIGO. So that is up to
yielded only a few pages[41] of actual Congress to decide.
deliberations, the portions pertinent to
MR. DAVIDE. Yes.
the Constitutional Commissions intent
being the following:
 MR. RODRIGO. I just wanted that announcing his candidacy for the office
clear in the record. of punong barangay for Barangay 77,
Zone 7 of Kalookan City and that he was
Although the discussions in the
eligible for said office. The Comelec also
Constitutional Commission were very
submitted as Annex B[44] to its said
brief, they nonetheless provide the exact
memorandum, a certified statement of
answer to the main issue. To the
the votes obtained by the candidates in
question at issue here on how long the
said elections, thus:
term of barangay officials is, the answer
of the Commission was simple, clear and BARANGAY 77
quick: As may be determined by law; CERTIFIED LIST OF
more precisely, (a)s provided for in the CANDIDATES
Local Autonomy Code. And the Local VOTES OBTAINED
Autonomy Code, in its Sec. 43-c, limits
their term to three years. May 9, 1994 BARANGAY ELECTIONS

PUNONG BARANGAY VOTES OBTAINED

The Third Issue: Petitioners
Estopped From Challenging Their 1. DAVID, ALEX
Three-Year Terms L. 112

KAGAWAD
We have already shown that
constitutionally, statutorily, logically, 1. Magalona,
historically and commonsensically, the Ruben 150
petitions are completely devoid of 2. Quinto,
merit. And we could have ended our Nelson L. 130
Decision right here. But there is one last 3. Ramon,
point why petitioners have no moral Dolores Z. 120
ascendancy for their dubious claim to a 4. Dela
longer term of office: the equities of their Pena, Roberto T. 115
own petition militate against them. As 5. Castillo,
pointed out by Amicus Luciana 114
Curiae Pimentel,[42] petitioners are 6. Lorico,
barred by estoppel from pursuing their Amy A. 107
petitions. 7. Valenci
Respondent Commission on Elections a, Arnold 102
submitted as Annex A of its 8. Ang,
memorandum,[43] a machine copy of the Jose 97
certificate of candidacy of Petitioner Alex 9. Dequill
L. David in the May 9, 1994 barangay a, Teresita D. 58
elections, the authenticity of which was 10.Primavera,
not denied by said petitioner. In said Marcelina 52
certificate of candidacy, he expressly
stated under oath that he was
 If, as claimed by petitioners, the do not support them. Extant
applicable law is RA 6679, then (1) jurisprudence militates against
Petitioner David should not have run and them. Reason and common sense reject
could not have been elected chairman of them. Equity and morality abhor
his barangay because under RA 6679, them.They are subtle but nonetheless
there was to be no direct election for the self-serving propositions to lengthen
punong barangay; the kagawad governance without a mandate from the
candidate who obtained the highest governed. In a democracy, elected
number of votes was to be automatically leaders can legally and morally justify
elected barangay chairman; (2) thus, their reign only by obtaining the
applying said law, the punong barangay voluntary consent of the electorate. In
should have been Ruben Magalona, who this case however, petitioners propose to
obtained the highest number of votes extend their terms not by seeking the
among the kagawads -- 150, which was peoples vote but by faulty legal
much more than Davids 112; (3) the argumentation. This Court cannot and
electorate should have elected only will not grant its imprimatur to such
seven kagawads and not one punong untenable proposition. If they want to
barangay plus seven kagawads. continue serving, they must get a new
mandate in the elections scheduled on
In other words, following petitioners
May 12, 1997.
own theory, the election of Petitioner
David as well as all the barangay WHEREFORE, the petitions
chairmen of the two Liga petitioners was are DENIED for being completely devoid
illegal. of merit.
The sum total of these absurdities in SO ORDERED.
petitioners theory is that barangay
officials are estopped from asking for any
term other than that which they ran for
and were elected to, under the law
governing their very claim to such
offices: namely, RA 7160, the Local
Government Code. Petitioners belated
claim of ignorance as to what law JESUS O. TYPOCO,
governed their election to office in 1994 JR., petitioner, vs.
is unacceptable because under Art. 3 of COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
the Civil Code, (i)gnorance of the law (COMELEC) EN BANC, and
excuses no one from compliance JESUS EMMANUEL
therewith. PIMENTEL, respondents.

DECISION
Epilogue GONZAGA_REYES, J.:

It is obvious that these two petitions Before us is a petition

must fail. The Constitution and the laws for certiorari and prohibition to annul and
set aside the resolution of the allegedly prepared in group by only one
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En person and which will materially affect
Banc dated October 12, 1998 which the results of the election for the position
dismissed herein petitioner Jesus of Governor.
Typoco, Jr.s (TYPOCO) petition for
In the meantime, on June 10, 1998,
Annulment of Election or Election Results
TYPOCO and OCO filed with the
and/or Declaration of Failure of Elections
COMELEC En Banc a separate petition for
docketed as SPA No. 98-413.
Annulment of Election or Election Results
The factual antecedents insofar as and/or Declaration of Failure of Elections
pertinent to the instant petition are as in several precincts, docketed as SPA No.
follows: 98-413, subject of the instant
petition. The petition alleged that
TYPOCO and private respondent
massive fraud and irregularities attended
Jesus Pimentel (PIMENTEL) were both
the preparation of the election returns
candidates for the position of Governor in
considering that upon technical
Camarines Norte during the May 11,
examination, 305 election returns were
1998 elections. On May 22, 1998,
found to have been prepared in group by
TYPOCO together with Winifredo Oco
one person.
(OCO), a candidate for the position of
Congressman of the Lone District of On July 15, 1998, the COMELEC En
Camarines Norte filed a Joint Appeal Banc issued an Order directing the Voters
before the COMELEC docketed as SPC- Identification Division of the
No. 98-133. TYPOCO and OCO Commissions Election Records and
questioned therein the ruling of the Statistics Department (ERSD) to examine
Provincial Board of Canvassers of the COMELEC copies of the 305 election
Camarines Norte which included in the returns questioned by TYPOCO.
canvass of votes the Certificate of
On August 12, 1998, the COMELECs
Canvass of the Municipality of Labo,
ERSD Voters Identification Division
Camarines Norte. TYPOCO also filed a
submitted its Questioned Document
Motion to Admit Evidence to Prove That
Report to the COMELEC En Banc on the
a Substantial Number of Election Returns
results of its technical examination of the
Were Manufactured as They Were
questioned election returns. The report
Prepared by One Person based on the
disclosed, among others, that the
report of one Francisco S. Cruz, a
handwritten entries on 278 COMELEC
Licensed Examiner of Questioned
copies of election returns particularly
Document, who examined copies of
under the columns
election returns of the LAKAS-NUCD.
Congressman/Governor/Vice-Governor
On June 4, 1998, COMELEC (Second Nickname or Stage Name, were written
Division) issued an Order dismissing the by one and the same person in groups.[1]
Joint Appeal. Thereafter, TYPOCO filed a
On August 31, 1998, the
Motion for Reconsideration reiterating his
COMELEC En Banc issued the resolution
motion to admit evidence to prove the
denying petitioners motion for
manufacturing and/or spurious character
reconsideration in SPC No. 98-133 on the
of the questioned returns which were
ground that an election protest is the were not cast would affect the result of
proper remedy. the election. From the allegations of the
petition in the instant cases, it is clear
TYPOCO then filed a petition
that an election took place and that it did
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
not result in a failure to elect. In fact, by
65 with prayer for the issuance of a
separate resolution, the Commission has
temporary restraining order and/or writ
authorized the provincial board of
of preliminary injunction assailing the
canvassers to proclaim the winning
Order dated June 4, 1998 and the
candidates and this as been
Resolution dated August 31, 1998,
implemented.
respectively issued in SPC No. 98-133 by
the COMELEC (Second Division) and the
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby
COMELEC En Banc.[2] In a resolution
DISMISSES the petition in each of the
dated September 22, 1998, this Court
above cases, for lack of merit.[3]
dismissed the petition finding no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of
Hence, the instant petition on the
respondent COMELEC in issuing the
grounds that the COMELEC En
aforesaid assailed orders. TYPOCOs
Banc gravely abused its discretion as
motion for reconsideration was likewise
follows: 1. in holding that the grounds
denied by this Court with finality on
cited by TYPOCO do not fall under any of
September 29, 1998.
the instances enumerated in Section 6 of
On October 12, 1998, the the Omnibus Election Code; 2. in refusing
COMELEC En Banc promulgated a to annul the election or the election
resolution in SPA 98-413, dismissing results or to declare a failure of election
TYPOCOs petition for the Declaration of despite the fact that massive fraud and
Failure of Elections and/or Annulment of irregularities attended the preparation of
Elections in Camarines Norte for lack of the election returns; 3. in failing to
merit, thus: proclaim TYPOCO as the winning
candidate for Governor; 4. in failing to
The grounds cited by petitioners do not annul the proclamation of PIMENTEL
fall under any of the instances which is null and void from the
enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus beginning; 5. in ruling that an election
Election Code. protest is the proper remedy and not an
annulment of the election or election
In Mitmug vs. Commission on Elections, results and/or declaration of failure of
230 SCRA 54, the Supreme Court ruled elections.[4]
that before the Comelec can act on a
Simply stated, did the COMELEC
verified petition seeking to declare a
commit grave abuse of discretion in not
failure of elections, at least two (2)
declaring a failure of elections for the
conditions must concur: (a) no voting
position of Governor in Camarines Norte
has taken place in the precincts on the
in the May 11, 1998 elections?
date fixed by law, or even if there was
voting, the election nevertheless resulted In a Manifestation and Motion (In
in failure to elect; and (b) the votes that Lieu of Comment) filed by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), the latter therefore, the case at bar falls within the
joins TYPOCOs prayer for affirmative jurisdiction of COMELEC.
relief. The OSG explains thus:
x x x x x x x x x.
13. The petition a quo (SPA No. 98-413)
specifically prayed for annulment of 18. At any rate, there is merit to
election returns and/or election results in petitioners claim that the votes in the
the protested precincts where massive subject election returns, if correctly
fraud and irregularities were allegedly appreciated, will materially affect the
committed in the preparation of the results of the election for Governor, i.e.,
election returns which, upon technical
examination of their authentic copies, TYPOCO PIMENTEL
were found to have been prepared in
groups by one person (Petition, Annex A, Votes per PBC Canvass 53,454 64,358
p.2).
Less: Votes obtained from
14. On this score, it should be stressed
that election returns are prepared Fraudulent Returns 11,253 27,060
separately and independently by the
Board of Election Inspectors assigned in Difference 42,201 37,325
each and every precinct. Hence,
uniformity in the handwritten entries in Vote Lead of Petitioner 4,876[5]
the election returns emanating from
different electoral precincts, as in this The authority of the COMELEC to
case speaks only of one thing --- THE declare a failure of elections is derived
ELECTION RETURNS WERE FABRICATED from Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166,
OR TAMPERED WITH. otherwise known as, The Synchronized
Elections Law of 1991, which provides
Here, the COMELEC itself, through its that the COMELEC sitting En Banc by a
own Voters Identification Department, majority vote of its members may decide,
certified that out of the 305 election among others, the declaration of failure
returns in the 12 municipalities of of election and the calling of special
Camarines Norte, 278 or 91.14% thereof elections as provided in Section 6 of the
were found to have been written by one Omnibus Election Code. Said Section 6,
person which fact lucidly speaks of in turn, provides as follows:
massive fraud in the preparation of
election returns. Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on
account of force majeure, violence,
15. Precisely, massive fraud committed terrorism, fraud or other analogous
after the voting and during the causes the election in any polling place
preparation of the election returns has not been held on the date fixed or
resulting in a failure to elect, is a ground had been suspended before the hour
for annulment of election under Section fixed by the law for the closing of the
6 of the Omnibus Election Code. As such voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or other analogous cases. Further, in Borja,
canvass thereof, such election results in Jr. vs. Commission on Elections[8], we
a failure to elect, and in any of such cases stated that:
the failure or suspension of election
would affect the result of the election, The COMELEC can call for the holding or
the Commission shall, on the basis of continuation of election by reason of
verified petition by any interested party failure of election only when the election
and after due notice and hearing, call for is not held, is suspended or results in a
the holding or continuation of the failure to elect. The latter phrase, in turn,
election not held, suspended or which must be understood in its literal sense,
resulted in a failure to elect on a date which is nobody was elected.
reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which Clearly then, there are only three (3)
resulted in a failure to elect but not later instances where a failure of election may
than thirty days after the cessation of the be declared, namely: (a) the election in
cause of such postponement or any polling place has not been held on
suspension of the election or failure to the date fixed on account of force
elect. majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes; (b) the election
The same provision is reiterated in any polling place had been suspended
under Section 2, Rule 26 of the Revised before the hour fixed by law for the
COMELEC Rules. closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
Based on the foregoing laws, the
other analogous causes; (c) after the
instant petition must fail because the
voting and during the preparation and
allegations therein do not justify a
transmission of the election returns or in
declaration of failure of election.
the custody or canvass thereof, such
The COMELEC correctly pointed out election results in a failure to elect on
that in the case of Mitmug vs. account of force majeure, violence,
Commission on Elections[6], this Court terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
held that before COMELEC can act on a causes.[9] In all instances there must
verified petition seeking to declare a have been failure to elect; this is obvious
failure of election, two (2) conditions in the first scenario where the election
must concur:first, no voting has taken was not held and the second where the
place in the precincts concerned on the election was suspended. As to the third
date fixed by law or, even if there was scenario, the preparation and
voting, the election nevertheless resulted transmission of the election returns
in a failure to elect; and second, the which give rise to the consequence of
votes cast would affect the result of the failure to elect must as aforesaid be
election. In Loong vs. Commission on literally interpreted to mean that nobody
Elections[7], this Court added that the emerged as a winner.
cause of such failure of election should
None of these circumstances is
have been any of the following: force
present in the case at bar. While the OSG
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud of
joins TYPOCO in pinpointing anomalies in
the preparation of the election returns JOSEPH PETER S. SISON, petitioner,
due to the uniformity of the handwriting vs. COMMISSION ON
in the same, implying that fraud was ELECTIONS, respondents.
committed at that stage, the fact is that
the casting and counting of votes DECISION
proceeded up to the proclamation of the
ROMERO, J.:
winning candidate thus precluding the
declaration of a failure of election. While
Before this Court is a petition
fraud is a ground to declare a failure of
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
election, the commission of fraud must
Revised Rules of Court which impugns
be such that it prevented or suspended
the Resolution[1] of public respondent
the holding of an election including the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
preparation and transmission of the
dated June 22, 1998 that dismissed
election returns.[10]
petitioner Joseph Peter S. Sison's earlier
It can thus readily be seen that the petition[2] in SPC No. 98-134, entitled In
ground invoked by TYPOCO is not proper the Matter of the Petition to Suspend the
in a declaration of failure of Canvassing of Votes and/or Proclamation
election. TYPOCOs relief was for in Quezon City and to Declare a Failure of
COMELEC to order a recount of the votes Elections.
cast, on account of the falsified election
It appears that while the election
returns, which is properly the subject of
returns were being canvassed by the
an election contest.[11]
Quezon City Board of Canvassers but
The COMELEC, therefore, had no before the winning candidates were
choice but to dismiss TYPOCOs petition in proclaimed, petitioner commenced suit
accordance with clear provisions of the before the COMELEC by filing a petition
law and jurisprudence. seeking to suspend the canvassing of
votes and/or proclamation in Quezon City
WHEREFORE, finding no grave
and to declare a failure of elections. The
abuse of discretion committed by public
said petition was supposedly filed
respondent Commission on Elections, the
pursuant to Section 6[3] of the Omnibus
petition is DISMISSED and its
Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,
Resolution En Banc of October 12,1998
as amended) on the ground of massive
dismissing the petition before it on the
and orchestrated fraud and acts
ground that the allegations therein do not
analogous thereto which occurred after
justify a declaration of failure of election
the voting and during the preparation of
is AFFIRMED.
election returns and in the custody or
SO ORDERED. canvass thereof, which resulted in a
failure to elect.[4]
In support of his allegation of
massive and orchestrated fraud,
petitioner cited specific instances which
are summarized and set forth below:
1. The Board of Canvassers 9. Ballot boxes were never in the
announced that election returns custody of the COMELEC and
with no inner seal would be neither the parties nor their
included in the canvass; watchers were allowed to enter
the restricted area where these
2. Board of Election Inspectors
boxes passed through on the
brought home copies of election
way to the basement of the City
returns meant for the City Board
Hall where they were supposedly
of Canvassers;
kept; and
3. Petitioner, through counsel,
10. In the elections in Barangay
raised written objections to the
New Era, there was a clear
inclusion in the canvass of
pattern of voting which would
election returns which were
show that the election returns
either tampered with, altered or
were manufactured and that no
falsified, or otherwise not
actual voting by duly
authentic;
qualified voters took place
4. According to the minutes of therein.
the City Board of Canvassers,
While the petition was pending
there were precincts with
before the COMELEC, the City Board of
missing election returns;
Canvassers proclaimed the winners of
5. Several election returns with the elections in Quezon City, including
no data on the number of votes the winning candidate for the post of vice
cast for vice mayoralty position; mayor. On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC
promulgated its challenged resolution
6. Highly suspicious persons
dismissing the petition before it on the
sneaking in some election
ground (1) that the allegations therein
returns and documents into the
were not supported by sufficient
canvassing area;
evidence, and (2) that the grounds
7. Concerned citizen found recited were not among the pre-
minutes of the counting, keys, proclamation issues set fourth in Section
locks and metal seal in the 17 of Republic Act No. 7166.[5]
COMELEC area for disposal as
Hence, this petition.
trash;
Alleging that COMELEC overstepped
8. Board of Election Inspectors
the limits of reasonable exercise of
have volunteered information
discretion in dismissing SPC No. 98-134,
that they placed the copy of the
petitioner argues in the main that the
election returns meant for the
electoral body failed to afford him basic
City Board of Canvassers in the
due process, that is, the right to a
ballot boxes deposited with the
hearing and presentation of evidence
City Treasurer allegedly due to
before ruling on his petition. He then
fatigue and lack of sleep;
proceeded to argue that the election
returns themselves, as well as the
minutes of the canvassing committee of Under the pertinent codal provision
the City Board of Canvassers were, by of the Omnibus Election Code, there are
themselves, sufficient evidence to only three (3) instances where a failure
support the petition. of elections may be declared, namely: (a)
the election in any polling place has not
Upon a meticulous study of the
been held on the date fixed on account
parties arguments together with the
of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
pertinent statutory provisions and
fraud, or other analogous causes; (b)
jurisprudence, this Court is of the opinion
the election in any polling place had been
that there is no compelling reason why
suspended before the hour fixed by law
we should withhold our imprimatur from
for the closing of the voting on account
the questioned resolution.
of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
At the outset, we notice that fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c)
petitioner exhibits an ambivalent stand as after the voting and during the
to what exactly is the nature of the preparation and transmission of the
remedy he availed of at the time he election returns or in the custody or
initiated proceedings before the canvass thereof, such election results in
COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134. At the a failure to elect on account of force
start, he anchors his initiatory petition majeure, violence, terrorism , fraud, or
under Section 6[6] of the Omnibus other analogous causes.[9] (Underscoring
Election Code regarding failure of supplied) We have painstakingly
elections but he later builds his case as a examined petitioners petition before the
pre-proclamation controversy which is COMELEC but found nothing therein that
covered by Sections 241-248 of the could support an action for declaration of
Omnibus Election Code, as amended by failure of elections. He never alleged at
R.A. No. 7166.[7] In this respect, the rule all that elections were either not held or
is, what conjointly determine the nature suspended. Furthermore, petitioners
of a pleading are the allegations therein claim of failure to elect stood as a bare
made in good faith, the stage of the conclusion bereft of any substantive
proceeding at which it is filed, and the support to describe just exactly how the
primary objective of the party filing the failure to elect came about.
same.
With respect to pre-proclamation
In any case, petitioner nonetheless controversy, it is well to note that the
cannot succeed in either of the remedies scope of pre-proclamation controversy is
he opted to pursue. Recently, only limited to the issues enumerated
in Matalam v. Commission on under Section 243[10] of the Omnibus
Elections,[8] we have already declared Election Code, and the enumeration
that a pre-proclamation controversy is therein is restrictive and
not the same as an action for annulment exclusive. [11] The reason underlying the
of election results or declaration of failure delimitation both of substantive ground
of elections, founded as they are on and procedure is the policy of the election
different grounds. law that pre-proclamation controversies
should be summarily decided, consistent
with the law's desire that the canvass and
proclamation be delayed as little as disqualification, failure of elections or
possible.[12] That is why such questions analogous cases. But as we have earlier
which require more deliberate and declared, his petition, though assuming
necessarily longer consideration, are left to seek a declaration of failure of
for examination in the corresponding elections, is actually a case of pre-
election protest.[13] proclamation controversy and, hence,
not falling within the ambit of the
However, with the proclamation of
exception. In any case, that omnibus
the winning candidate for the position
resolution would not have been applied
contested, the question of whether the
in the first place because that was issued
petition raised issues proper for a pre-
posterior to the date when the herein
proclamation controversy is already of no
challenge resolution was promulgated
consequence since the well-entrench rule
which is June 22, 1998. There was no
in such situation is that a pre-
provision that such omnibus resolution
proclamation case before the COMELEC
should have retroactive effect.
is no longer viable, the more appropriate
remedies being a regular election protest Finally, as to petitioners claim that he
or a petition for quo warranto.[14] We was deprived of his right to due process
have carefully reviewed all recognized in that he was not allowed to present his
exceptions[15] to the foregoing rule but evidence before the COMELEC to support
found nothing that could possibly apply his petition, the same must likewise fail.
to the instant case based on the
First, we note that his citation of
recitations of the petition. What is more,
Section 242 of the Omnibus Election
in paragraph 3 of the COMELECs
Code as basis for his right to present
Omnibus Resolution No. 3049 (Omnibus
evidence is misplaced. The phrase after
Resolution on Pending Cases) dated June
due notice refers only to a situation
29, 1998, it is clearly stated therein
where the COMELEC decides and, in fact,
that All other pre-proclamation cases x x
takes steps to either partially or totally
x shall be deemed terminated pursuant
suspend or annul the proclamation of any
to Section 16, R. A.
candidate-elect. Verba legis non est
7166.[16] (Underscoring
recedendum. From the words of the
supplied). Section 16 which is referred to
statute there should be no
in the aforecited omnibus resolution
departure. The statutory provision
refers to the termination of pre-
cannot be expanded to embrace any
proclamation cases when the term of the
other situation not contemplated therein
office involved has already begun, which
such as the one at bar where the
is precisely what obtains here. We are, of
COMELEC is not taking any step to
course, aware that petitioner cites the
suspend or annul a proclamation.
said omnibus resolution in maintaining
that his petition is one of those cases Second, presentation of evidence
which should have remained active before the COMELEC is not at all
pursuant to paragraph 4 thereof. That indispensable in order to satisfy the
exception, however, operates only when demands of due process. Under the
what is involved is not a pre-proclamation amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7166,
controversy such as petitions for particularly Section 18 thereof, all that is
required now is that the COMELEC shall resolution of COMELEC in SPC No. 98-134
dispose of pre-proclamation dated June 22, 1998 is AFFIRMED.
controversies on the basis of the records
No costs.
and evidence elevated to it by the board
of canvassers. This is but in keeping with SO ORDERED.
the policy of the law that cases of this
nature should be summarily decided and
the will of the electorate as reflected on
the election returns be determined as
speedily as possible. What exactly those
records and evidence are upon which the
COMELEC based its resolution and how
[G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999]
they have been appreciated in respect of
their sufficiency, are beyond this Courts
scrutiny. But we have reason to believe,
owing to the presumption of regularity of TUPAY T. LOONG, petitioner,
performance of official duty and the vs. COMMISSION ON
precept that factual findings of the ELECTIONS and ABDUSAKUR
COMELEC based on its assessments and TAN, respondents, YUSOP
duly supported by gathered evidence, are JIKIRI, intervenor.
conclusive upon the court, that the
COMELEC did arrive at its conclusion with DECISION
due regard to the available evidence PUNO, J.:
before it. That this is so can, in fact, be
gleaned from petitioners own allegation In a bid to improve our elections,
and admission in his petition that the Congress enacted R.A. No. 8436 on
election returns themselves as well as the December 22, 1997 prescribing the
minutes of the Canvassing Committees adoption of an automated election
and the City Board of Canvassers x x x system. The new system was used in
are in the possession of the the May 11, 1998 regular elections held
COMELEC.[17] He even cites paragraph in the Autonomous Region in Muslim
(g), Section 20 of the Omnibus Election Mindanao (ARMM) which includes the
Code to validate such allegation. Hence, Province of Sulu. Atty. Jose Tolentino, Jr.
it is not really correct to say that the headed the COMELEC Task Force to have
COMELEC acted without evidentiary basis administrative oversight of the elections
at all or that petitioner was deprived of in Sulu.
his right to due process.
The voting in Sulu was relatively
WHEREFORE, finding no grave peaceful and orderly.[1] The problem
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or started during the automated counting of
excess of jurisdiction on the part of public votes for the local officials of Sulu at the
respondent Commission on Elections Sulu State College. At about 6 a.m. of
(COMELEC), the instant petition is hereby May 12, 1998, some election
DISMISSED. Consequently, the inspectors and watchers informed Atty.
Tolentino, Jr. of discrepancies between of the misaligned ovals. There was lack
the election returns and the votes cast for of agreement. Those who recommended
the mayoralty candidates in a shift to manual count were Brig.
the municipality of Pata. Some ballots Generals Espinosa and Subala, PNP
picked at random by Atty. Tolentino, Jr. Director Alejandrino, gubernatorial
confirmed that votes in favor of a candidates Tan and Tulawie and
mayoralty candidate were not reflected in congressional candidate Bensandi
the printed election returns. He Tulawie. Those who insisted on an
suspended the automated counting of automated count were gubernatorial
ballots in Pata and immediately candidates Loong and Jikiri. In view of
communicated the problem to the their differences in opinion, Atty.
technical experts of COMELEC and the Tolentino, Jr. requested the parties to
suppliers of the automated submit their written position papers.[4]
machine. After consultations, the
Reports that the automated
experts told him that the problem
counting of ballots in
was caused by the misalignment of
other municipalities in Sulu was not
the ovals opposite the names of
working well were received by
candidates in the local ballots. They
the COMELEC Task Force. Local
found nothing wrong with the
ballots in five (5) municipalities
automated machines. The error was
were rejected by the automated
in the printing of the local ballots, as a
machines. These municipalities
consequence of which, the automated
were Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul
machines failed to read them correctly.[2]
and Jolo. The ballots were
At 12:30 p.m. of the same rejected because they had the
day, Atty. Tolentino, Jr. called for an wrong sequence code.[5]
emergency meeting of the local
Private respondent Tan and Atty.
candidates and the military-police
Tolentino, Jr. sent separate
officials overseeing the Sulu
communications to the COMELEC en
elections. Those who attended were the
banc in Manila. Still, on May 12, 1998,
various candidates for governor, namely,
Tan requested for the suspension of the
petitioner Tupay Loong, private
automated counting of ballots
respondent Abdusakur Tan, intervenor
throughout the Sulu province.[6] On the
Yusop Jikiri and Kimar Tulawie. Also in
same day, COMELEC issued Minute
attendance were Brig. Gen. Edgardo
Resolution No. 98-1747 ordering a
Espinosa, AFP, Marine forces, Southern
manual count but only in the municipality
Philippines, Brig. Gen. Percival Subala,
of Pata. The resolution reads:[7]
AFP, 3rd Marine Brigade, Supt.
Charlemagne Alejandrino, Provincial "x x x x x x x x x
Director, Sulu, PNP Command and
congressional candidate Bensandi "In the matter of the Petition dated May
Tulawie.[3] 12, 1998 of Abdusakur Tan, Governor,
Sulu, to suspend or stop counting of
The meeting discussed how the
ballots through automation (sic)
ballots in Pata should be counted in light
machines for the following grounds, 'The Pata incident can be confirmed by
quoted to wit no less than Atty. Jose Tolentino, Head,
Task Force Sulu, whose attention was
'1.. The Election Returns for the called regarding the discrepancies;
Municipality of Pata, Province of Sulu-
District II do not reflect or reveal the 'The foregoing is a clear evidence that
mandate of the voters: the automated machine (scanner) cannot
be relied upon as to truly reflect the
'DISCUSSIONS contents of the ballots. If such happened
in the Municipality of Pata, it is very
'That the watchers called the attention of possible that the same is happening in
our political leaders and candidates the counting of votes in the other
regarding their discovery that the municipalities of this province. If this will
election returns generated after the last not be suspended or stopped, the use of
ballots for a precinct is scanned revealed automated machines will serve as a
that some candidates obtained zero vehicle to frustrate the will of the
votes, among others the Provincial Board sovereign people of Sulu;
Members, Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and the
councilors for the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; 'Wherefore, the foregoing premises
considered and in the interest of an
'That the top ballot, however, honest and orderly election, it is
reveals that the ballots contained respectfully prayed of this Honorable
votes for Anton Burahan, candidate Commission that an Order be issued
for Municipal Mayor while the immediately suspending or stopping the
Election Return shows zero vote; use of the automated machine (scanner)
in the counting of votes for all the
'That further review of the eighteen (18) municipalities in the
Election Return reveals that John Province of Sulu and in lieu thereof, to
Masillam, candidate for Mayor avoid delay, counting be done through
under the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP- the usual way known and tested by us.'
MNLF obtains (sic) 100% votes of
the total number of voters "While the commission does not
who actually voted; agree with the conclusions stated in
the petition, and the failure of
'The foregoing discrepancies were the machine to read the votes may
likewise noted and confirmed by the have been occasioned by other
chairmen, poll clerks and members of the factors, a matter that requires
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) such immediate investigation, but in the
as Rena Jawan, Matanka Hajirul, Dulba public interest, the Commission,
Kadil, Teddy Mirajuli, Rainer Talcon, Mike
Jupakal, Armina Akmad, Romulo Roldan 'RESOLVED to grant the Petition
and Lerma Marawali to mention some; dated May 12, 1998 and to Order
that the counting of votes shall be
done manually in the Municipality of
PATA, the only place in Sulu where "1. Unsigned letter dated May 12, 1998
the automated machine failed to submitted by Congressman Tulawie for
read the ballots, subject to notice to manual counting and canvassing;
all parties concerned."'
"2. Petition of Governor Sakur Tan for
Before midnight of May 12,1998, Atty. manual counting;
Tolentino, Jr. was able to send to the
COMELEC en banc his report and "3. Position paper of Tupay Loong,
recommendation, urging the use of the Benjamin Loong and Asani Tamang for
manual count in the entire Province of automated count;
Sulu, viz:[8]
"4. MNLF Position for automated count;
"The undersigned stopped the counting and
in the municipality of Pata since he
discovered that votes for a candidate for "5. Recommendation of General E.V.
mayor was credited in favor of the other Espinosa, General PM Subala, and PD CS
candidate. Verification with the Sulu Alejandrino for manual count;
Technical Staff, including Pat Squires of
ES & S, reveals that the cause of the error "Additional marines have been deployed
is the way the ballot was printed. Aside at the SSC. The undersigned is not sure
from misalignment of the ovals and use if it is merely intended to tame a
of codes assigned to another municipality disorderly crowd, inside and outside SSC,
(which caused the rejection of all local or a show of force.
ballots in one precinct in Talipao), error
messages appeared on the screen "It is submitted that since an error
although the actual condition of the was discovered in a machine which
ballots would have shown a different is supposed to have an error rate of
message. Because of these, the 1: 1,000,000, not a few people
undersigned directed that counting for all would believe that this error in Pata
ballots in Sulu be stopped to enable the would extend to the other
Commission to determine the problem municipalities. Whether or not this
and rectify the same. It is submitted that is true, it would be more prudent
stopping the counting is more in to stay away from a lifeless thing
consonance with the Commission's that has sown tension and anxiety
mandate than proceeding with an among and between the voters of
automated but inaccurate count. Sulu.

"In view of the error discovered in Pata R

and the undersigned's order to suspend e
the counting, the following documents s
were submitted to him. p
e
c
t
 f O
u ,
l J
l R
y .
s "
u
The next day, May 13, 1998,
b
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 98-1750
m
approving Atty. Tolentino, Jr.'s
i
recommendation and the manner of its
t
implementation as suggested by
t
Executive Director Resurreccion Z.
e
Borra.The Resolution reads:[9]
d
:
"In the matter of the Memorandum dated
1
13 May 1998 of Executive Director
2
Resurreccion Z. Borra, pertinent portion
M
of which is quoted as follows:
a
y
"In connection with Min. Res. No. 98-
1
1747 promulgated May 12, 1998 which
9
resolved to order that the counting of
9
votes shall be done manually in the
8
municipality of Pata, the only place in
(
Sulu where the automated counting
S
machine failed to read the ballots,
g
subject to notice to all parties concerned,
d
please find the following:
.
"1. )Handwritten Memo of Director Jose
J
M. Tolentino, Jr., Task Force Head, Sulu,
O
addressed to the Executive Director on
the Ssubject counting and canvassing in
the Emunicipality of Pata due to the errors
M counting of votes by the machine
of the
.
brought about by the error in the printing
T ballot, causing misalignment of
of the
O and use of codes assigned to
ovals
L
another municipality.
E
N
He recommended to revert to the manual
T
counting of votes in the whole of Sulu. He
I
attached the stand of Congressman
N
Tulawie, Governor Sakur Tan and
recommendation of Brigadier General in PICC with proper security, both
Edgardo Espinosa, General Percival inside and outside the perimeters of
Subla, P/Supt. Charlemagne Alejandrino the venue at PICC.
for manual counting. The position paper
of former Governor Tupay Loong, Mr. "2. With this process, there will be
Benjamin Loong and Mr. Asani S. an objective analysis and
Tammang, who are candidates for supervision of the automated and
Governor and Congressman of 1st and manual operations by both the MIS
2nd Districts respectively, who wanted and Technical Expert of the ES & S
the continuation of the automated away from the thundering mortars
counting. and the sounds of sophisticated
heavy weapons from both sides of
"While the forces of AFP are ready the warring factions.
to provide arm (sic) security to our
Comelec officials, BEIs and other "3. Lastly, it will be directly under the
deputies, the political tensions and close supervision and control of
imminent violence and bloodshed Commission on Elections En Banc.
may not be prevented, as per
report received, the MNLF forces "RESOLVED:
are readying their forces
to surround the venue for "1. To transport all counting
automated counting machines from Jolo, Sulu by C130 to
and canvassing in Sulu in order that Manila for purposes of both
the automation process will automated and manual operations,
continue. with notice to all parties concerned;

"Director Borra recommends, that while "2. To authorize the official travel of
he supports Minute Resolution No. 98- the board of canvassers concerned
1747, implementation thereof shall be for the conduct of the automated
done as follows: and manual operations of the
counting of votes at PICC under the
"1. That all the counting machines close supervision and control of the
from Jolo, Sulu be transported back Commission En Banc. For this
by C130 to Manila and be located at purpose, to make available a
the available space at PICC for designated space at the PICC;
purposes of both automated and
manual operations. This approach "3. To authorize the presence of
will keep the COMELEC officials only the duly authorized
away from violence and bloodshed representative of the political
between the two camps who are parties concerned and the
determined to slug each other as candidates watchers both outside
above mentioned in Jolo, Sulu. Only and inside the perimeters of the
authorized political party and venue at PICC."
candidate watchers will be allowed
 Atty. Tolentino, Jr. furnished the '1. Manual counting of the local ballots of
parties with copies of Minute the automated election system in Pata,
Resolution No. 98-1750 and called Sulu;
for another meeting the next day,
May 14, 1998, to discuss the '2. Automated counting of the national
implementation of the ballots considering that there are no
resolution.[10] The meeting was questions raised on the National Elective
attended by the parties, by Lt. Gen. Officials as pre-printed in the mark-
Joselin Nazareno, then the Chief of the sensed ballots;
AFP Southern Command, the NAMFREL,
media, and the public. Especially '3. The creation of the following Special
discussed was the manner of Boards of Inspectors under the
transporting the ballots and the counting supervision of Atty. Jose M. Tolentino,
machines to the PICC in Manila. They Jr., Task Force Head, Sulu, namely:
agreed to allow each political party to
have at least one (1) escort/ watcher for a) Atty. Mamasapunod M. Aguam
every municipality to acompany the Ms. Gloria Fernandez
flight. Two C130s were used for the Ms. Esperanza Nicolas
purpose.[11]
b) Director Ester L. Villaflor-Roxas
On May 15, 1998, the Ms. Celia Romero
COMELEC en banc issued Minute Ms. Rebecca Macaraya
Resolution No. 98-1796 laying down
the rules for the manual c) Atty. Zenaida S. Soriano
count, viz:[12]
Ms. Jocelyn Guiang
Ma. Jacelyn Tan
"In the matter of the Memorandum dated
15 May 1998 of Executive Director d) Atty. Erlinda C. Echavia
Resurreccion Z. Borra, quoted to wit: Ms. Theresa A. Torralba
Ms. Ma. Carmen Llamas
'In the implementation of COMELEC Min.
Resolution No. 98-1750 promulgated 13 e) Director Estrella P. de Mesa
May 1998 in the manual counting of Ms. Teresita Velasco
votes of Pata, Sulu, and in view of the Ms. Nelly Jaena
arrival of the counting machines, ballot
boxes, documents and other election '4. Additional Special Board of Inspectors
paraphernalia for the whole province of may be created when necesary.
Sulu now stored in PICC, as well as the
arrival of the Municipal Board of '5. The Provincial Board of Canvassers
Canvassers of said Municipality in Sulu, which by standing Resolution is headed
and after conference with some members by the Task Force Sulu Head shall
of the Senior Staff and Technical consolidate the manual and automated
Committee of this Commission, the results as submitted by the Municipal
following are hereby respectfully Boards of Canvassers of the whole
recommended: province with two members composed of
Directors Estrella P. de Mesa and Ester L. "2. There are strong indications that in
Villaflor-Roxas; the municipality of Pata the ballots of the
said municipality were rejected by the
'6. The political parties and the counting machine because the ballots
candidates in Sulu as well as the Party- were tampered and/or the texture of the
List Candidates are authorized to appoint ballots fed to the counting machine are
their own watchers upon approval of the not the official ballots of the Comelec;
Commission',
"3. The automated counting machines of
'RESOLVED to approve the foregoing the Comelec have been designed in such
recommendations in the implementation a way that only genuine official ballots
of Min. Resolution No. 98-1750 could be read and counted by the
promulgated on 13 May 1998 providing machine;
for the manual counting of votes in the
municipality of Pata, Sulu. "4. The counting machines in the other
municipalities are in order. In fact, the
'RESOLVED, moreover, considering the automated counting has already
recommendation of Comm. Manolo B. started. The automated counting in the
Gorospe, Commissioner-In-Charge, municipalities of Lugus and Panglima
ARMM, to conduct a parallel manual Tahil has been completed. There is no
counting on all 18 municipalities of Sulu legal basis for the 'parallel manual
as a final guidance of the reliability of the counting' ordained in the disputed minute
counting machine which will serve as resolution."
basis for the proclamation of the winning
candidates and for future reference on Nonetheless, COMELEC started the
the use of the automated counting manual count on the same date, May
machine."' 18,1998.
On May 25, 1998, petitioner filed
On May 18, 1998, petitioner filed his
with this Court a petition for certiorari
objection to Minute Resolution No. 98-
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
1796, viz:[13]
Rules of Court. He contended that: (a)
COMELEC issued Minute Resolution Nos.
"1. The minute resolution under agenda
98-1747, 98-1750, and 98-1798 without
No. 98-1796 violates the provisions of
prior notice and hearing to him; (b) the
Republic Act No. 8436 providing for an
order for manual counting violated R.A.
automated counting of the ballots in the
No. 8436; (c) manual counting gave
Autonomous Region in Muslim
"opportunity to the following election
Mindanao. The automated counting is
cheatings," namely:
mandatory and could not be substituted
by a manual counting. Where the
"(a) The counting by human hands of the
machines are allegedly defective, the
tampered, fake and counterfeit ballots
only remedy provided for by law is to
which the counting machines have been
replace the machine. Manual counting is
programmed to reject (Section 7, 8 & 9
prohibited by law;
of Rep. Act 8436).
"(b) The opportunity to substitute the of the Province of Sulu but instead
ballots all stored at the PICC. In fact, no proceed with the automated counting of
less than the head of the COMELEC Task the ballots, preparation of the election
Force of Sulu, Atty. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr. returns and MBC, PBC certificates of
who recommended to the COMELEC the canvass and proclaim the winning
anomalous manual counting, had candidates on the basis of the automated
approached the watchers of petitioners counting and consolidation of results;
to allow the retrieval of the ballots,
saying "tayo, tayo lang mga "2. this petition be given due course and
watchers, pag-usapan natin," dearly the respondents be required to answer;
indicating overtures of possible bribery of
the watchers of petitioner (ANNEX E). "3. after due hearing, the questioned
COMELEC En Banc Minute Resolutions of
"(c) With the creation by the COMELEC of May 12, 13, 15, and 17, 1998 be all
only 22 Boards of Election Inspectors to declared null and void ab initio for having
manually count the 1,194 precincts, the been issued without jurisdiction and/or
manipulators are given sufficient time to with grave abuse of discretion amounting
change and tamper the ballots to be to lack of jurisdiction and for being in
manually counted. violation of due process of law;

"(d) There is the opportunity of delaying " 4. the winning candidates of the
the proclamation of the winning Province of Sulu be proclaimed on the
candidates through the usually dilatory basis of the results of the automated
moves in a pre-proclamation controversy counting, automated election returns,
because the returns and certificates of automated MBC and PBC certificates of
canvass are already human (sic) canvass;
made. In the automated counting there
is no room for any dilatory pre- "x x x."
proclamation controversy because the
On June 8, 1998, private
returns and the MBC and PBC certificates
respondent Tan was
of canvass are machine made and
proclaimed governor- elect of Sulu
immediate proclamation is ordained
on the basis of the manual
thereafter."
count.[14] Private respondent
garnered 43,573 votes. Petitioner
Petitioner then prayed:
was third with 35,452 votes or a
difference of 8,121 votes.
"WHEREFORE, it is most especially
prayed of the Honorable Court that: On June 23, 1998, this Court
required the respondents to file their
"1. upon filing of this petition, a Comment to the petition and directed the
temporary restraining order be issued parties "to maintain the status quo
enjoining the COMELEC from conducting prevailing at the time of the filing of the
a manual counting of the ballots of the petition."[15] The vice-governor elect was
1,194 precincts of the 18 municipalities
allowed to temporarily discharge the 2-b. Are its factual bases
powers and functions of governor. reasonable?
On August 20, 1998, Yusop Jikiri, the 2.c. Were the petitioner and
LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP-MNLF candidate for the intervenor denied due
governor filed a motion for intervention process by the COMELEC
and a Memorandum in when it ordered a manual
Intervention. [16] The result of the manual count?
count showed he received 38,993 votes
3. Assuming the manual count is
and placed second. Similarly, he alleged
illegal and that its result is
denial of due process, lack of factual
unreliable, whether or not it is
basis of the COMELEC resolutions and
proper to call for a special
illegality of manual count in light of R.A.
election for the position of
No. 8436. TheCourt noted his
governor of Sulu.
intervention.[17] As similar petition for
intervention filed by Abdulwahid We shall resolve the issues
Sahidulla, a candidate for vice-governor, in seriatim.
on October 7, 1998 was denied as it was
First. We hold that certiorari is the
filed too late.
proper remedy of the petitioner. Section
In due time, the parties filed their 7, Article IX(A) of the 1987 Constitution
respective Comments. On September 25, states that if "unless provided by this
1998, the Court heard the parties in oral Constitution or by law, any decision,
arguments[18] which was followed by the order or ruling of each Commission may
submission of their written memoranda. be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within
The issues for resolution are the
thirty days from receipt of a copy
following:
thereof." We have interpreted this
1. Whether or not a petition provision to mean final orders, rulings
for certiorari and prohibition and decisions of the COMELEC rendered
under Rule 65 of the Rules of in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
Court is the appropriate quasi-judicial powers.[19] Contrariwise,
remedy to invalidate the administrative orders of the COMELEC
disputed COMELEC are not, as a general rule, fit subjects of
resolutions. a petition for certiorari. The main issue in
the case at bar is whether the COMELEC
2. Assuming the appropriateness
gravely abused its discretion when it
of the remedy, whether or not
ordered a manual count of the 1998 Sulu
COMELEC committed grave
local elections. A resolution of the issue
abuse of discretion amounting
will involve an interpretation of R.A. No.
to lack of jurisdiction in
8436 on automated election in relation to
ordering a manual count.
the broad power of the COMELEC under
2.a. Is there a legal basis for Section 2(1), Article IX(C) of the
the manual count? Constitution "to enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election x x x." The issue is Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapal
not only legal but one of first impression and Jolo were carefully
and undoubtedly suffused with analyzed by the technical
significance to the entire nation. It is experts of COMELEC and the
adjudicatory of the right of the petitioner, supplier of the automated
the private respondent and the machines.All of them found
intervenor to the position of governor of nothing wrong with the
Sulu.These are enough considerations to automated machines. They
call for an exercise of the certiorari traced the problem to the
jurisdiction of this Court. printing of local ballots by the
National Printing Office. In the
Second. The big issue, one of first
case of the municipality of
impression, is whether the COMELEC
Pata, it was discovered that
committed grave abuse of discretion
the ovals of the local ballots
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
were misaligned and could not
ordered a manual count in light of R.A.
be read correctly by the
No. 8436. The post election realities on
automated machines. In the
ground will show that the order for a
case of the municipalities of
manual count cannot be characterized as
Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapal
arbitrary, capricious or whimsical.
and Jolo, it turned out that the
a. It is well established that the local ballots contained the
automated machines failed to wrong sequence code.Each
read correctly the ballots in municipality was assigned a
the municipality of Pata. A sequence code as a security
mayoralty candidate, Mr. measure. Ballots with the
Anton Burahan, obtained zero wrong sequence code were
votes despite the programmed to be rejected by
representations of the the automated machines.
Chairman of the Board of
It is plain that to continue with the
Election Inspectors and others
automated count in these five (5)
that they voted for
municipalities would result in a grossly
him. Another candidate
erroneous count. It cannot also be
garnered 100% of the votes.
gainsaid that the count in these five (5)
b. It is likewise conceded that municipalities will affect the local
the automated machines elections in Sulu. There was no need for
rejected and would not count more sampling of local ballots in these
the local ballots in the municipalities as they suffered from the
municipalities of Talipao, same defects. All local ballots in Pata with
Siasi, Indanan, Tapal and misaligned ovals will be erroneously read
Jolo. by the automated machines. Similarly, all
local ballots in Talipao, Siasi, Indanan,
c. These flaws in the automated
Tapal and Jolo with wrong sequence
counting of local ballots in the
codes are certain to be rejected by the
municipalities of Pata,
automated machines. There is no
showing in the records that the local "While the forces of AFP are ready
ballots in these five (5) municipalities are to provide arm (sic) security to our
dissimilar which could justify the call for COMELEC officials, BEI's and
their greater sampling. other deputies, the political
tensions and imminent violence and
Third. These failures of automated
bloodshed may not be prevented, as
counting created post election tension in
per report received, the MNLF
Sulu, a province with a history of violent
forces are readying their forces
elections. COMELEC had to act decisively
to surround the venue for
in view of the fast deteriorating peace
automated counting
and order situation caused by the delay
and canvassing in Sulu in order that
in the counting of votes. The evidence of
automation process will continue."
this fragile peace and order cannot be
downgraded. In his handwritten report to
Last but not the least, the military and
the COMELEC dated May 12, 1998, Atty.
the police authorities unanimously
Tolentino, Jr. stated:
recommended manual counting to
"x x x preserve peace and order. Brig. Gen.
Edgardo V. Espinosa, Commanding
"Additional marines have been deployed General, Marine Forces Southern
at the SSC. The undersigned is not sure Philippines, Brig. Gen. Percival M. Subala,
if it is merely intended to tame a Commanding General, 3rd Marine
disorderly crowd inside and outside SSC, Brigade, and Supt. Charlemagne S.
or a show of force. Alejandrino, Provincial Director, Sulu PNP
Command explained that it "x x x will not
"It is submitted that since an error was only serve the interest of majority of the
discovered in a machine which is political parties involved in the electoral
supposed to have an error rate of process but also serve the interest of the
1:1,000,000, not a few people would military and police forces in maintaining
believe that this error in Pata would peace and order throughout the province
extend to the other of Sulu."
municipalities. Whether or not this is
An automated count of the local
true, it would be more prudent
votes in Sulu would have resulted in a
to stay away from a lifeless thing
wrong count, a travesty of the
that has sown tension and anxiety
sovereignty of the electorate. Its
among and between the voters of
aftermath could have been a
Sulu."
bloodbath. COMELEC avoided this
imminent probability by ordering a
Executive Director Resurreccion Z. Borra,
manual count of the votes. It would be
Task Force Head, ARMM in his May
the height of irony if the Court condemns
13,1998 Memorandum to the COMELEC
COMELEC for aborting violence in the
likewise stated:
Sulu elections.
"x x x
Fourth. We also find that petitioner
Loong and intervenor Jikiri were not
denied due process. The Tolentino "In his attempt to remedy the situation,
memorandum clearly shows that they the TF Head suspended the counting of
were given every opportunity to oppose all ballots for said municipality to enable
the manual count of the local ballots in COMELEC field technicians to determine
Sulu. They were orally heard. They later the cause of the technical error, rectify
submitted written position papers. Their the same, and thereafter proceed with
representatives escorted the transfer of automated counting. In the meantime,
the ballots and the automated machines the counting of the ballots for the other
from Sulu to Manila. Their watchers municipalities proceeded under the
observed the manual count from automated system.
beginning to end. We quote the
Tolentino memorandum, viz: "Technical experts of the supplier based
in Manila were informed of the problem
"x x x
and after numerous consultations
through long distance calls, the technical
"On or about 6:00 a.m. of May 12, 1998,
experts concluded that the cause of the
while automated counting of all the
error was in the manner the ballots for
ballots for the province of Sulu was being
local positions were printed by the
conducted at the counting center located
National Printing Office (NPO), namely,
at the Sulu State College, the COMELEC
that the ovals opposite the names of the
Sulu Task Force Head (TF Head)
candidates were not properly aligned. As
proceeded to the room where the
regards the ballots for national positions,
counting machine assigned to the
no error was found.
municipality of Pata was installed to
verify the cause of the commotion
"Since the problem was not machine-
therein.
related, it was obvious that the use of
counting machines from other
"During the interview conducted by the
municipalities to count the ballots of the
TF Head, the members of the Board of
municipality of Pata would still result in
Election Inspectors (BEI) and watchers
the same erroneous count. Thus, it was
present in said room stated that the
found necessary to determine the extent
counting machine assigned to the
of the error in the ballot printing process
municipality of Pata did not reflect the
before proceeding with the automated
true results of the voting thereat. The
counting.
members of the BEI complained that
their votes were not reflected in the
"To avoid a situation where proceeding
printout of the election returns since per
with automation will result in an
election returns of their precincts, the
erroneous count, the TF Head, on or
candidate they voted for obtained
about 11:45 a.m. ordered the suspension
"zero". After verifying the printout of
of the counting of all ballots in the
some election returns as against the
province to enable him to call a meeting
official ballots, the TF Head discovered
with the heads of the political parties
that votes cast in favor of a mayoralty
which fielded candidates in the province,
candidate were credited in favor of his
opponents.
inform them of the technical error, and 1. Brig. Gen. Edgardo Espinoza
find solutions to the problem.
2. Brig. Gen. Percival Subala
"On or about 12:30 p.m., the TF Head
presided over a conference at Camp 3. Provincial Dir. Charlemagne
General Bautista (3rd Marine Brigade) to Alenjandrino
discuss the process by which the will of
the electorate could be 4. Gubernatorial Candidate Abdusakur
determined. Present during Tan
the meeting were:
5. Gubernatorial Candidate Kimar
1. Brig. Gen. Edgardo Espinoza Tulawie
Marine Forces, Southern Philippines
6. Congressional Candidate Bensaudi
2. Brig. Gen. Percival Subala Tulawie and those in favor of an
3rd Marine Brigade automated count were:

3. Provincial Dir. Charlemagne 1. Gubernatorial Candidate

Alejandrino Tupay Loong
Sulu PNP Command
2. Gubernatorial Candidate
Yusop Jikiri
4. Gubernatorial Candidate Tupay
Loong
"Said parties were then requested
LAKAS-NUCD Loong Wing
by the TF Head to submit their
respective position papers so that
5. Gubernatorial Candidate Abdusakur
the same may be forwarded to the
Tan
Commission en banc, together with
LAKAS-NUCD Tan Wing
the recommendations of the TF
Head.
6. Gubernatorial Candidate Yusop
Jikiri
'The TF Head returned to the counting
LAKAS-NUCD-MNLF Wing
center at the Sulu State College and
called his technical staff to determine the
7. Gubernatorial Candidate Kimar
extent of the technical error and to
Tulawie
enable him to submit the appropriate
LAMMP
recommendation to the Commission en
banc.
8. Congressional Candidate Bensaudi
Tulawie
"Upon consultation with the technical
LAMMP
staff, it was discovered that in the
Municipality of Talipao, some of the local
"During said meeting, all of the above
ballots were rejected by the
parties verbally advanced their
machine. Verification showed that while
respective positions. Those in favor of
the ballots were genuine, ballot paper
a manual count were:
bearing a wrong "sequence code" was position, the machine will credit the
used by the NPO during the printing shaded oval for the position where the
process. machine is programmed to "read" the
oval. Thus, instead of rejecting the ballot,
"Briefly, the following is the manner by the machine will credit the votes of a
which a sequence code" determined candidate in favor of his opponent, or in
genuineness of a ballot. A municipality is the adjacent space where the oval should
assigned a specific machine (except for be properly placed.
Jolo, which was assigned two (2)
machines, and sharing of one (1) "It could not be determined if the other
machine by two (2) municipalities, municipalities also had the same
namely, H.P. Tahil and Maimbung, technical error in their official ballots
Pandami and K. Caluang, Pata and since the "misaligned ovals" were
Tongkil and Panamao and Lugus). A discovered only after members of the
machine is then assigned a specific Board of Election Inspectors of the
"sequence code" as one of the security Municipality of Pata complained that their
features to detect whether the ballots votes were not reflected in the printout
passing through it are genuine. Since a of the election returns.
counting machine is programmed to read
the specific "sequence code" assigned to "As the extent or coverage of the
it, ballots which bear a "sequence code" technical errors could not be determined,
assigned to another the TF Head, upon consultation with his
machine/municipality, even if said ballots technical staff, was of the belief that it
were genuine, will be rejected by the would be more prudent to count the
machine. ballots manually than to proceed with an
automated system which will result in an
"Other municipalities, such as Siasi, erroneous count.
Indanan, Tapul and Jolo also had the
same problem of rejected "The TF Head thus ordered the indefinite
ballots. However, since the machine suspension of counting of ballots until
operators were not aware that one of the such time as the Commission shall have
reasons for rejection of ballots is the use resolved the petition/position papers to
of wrong "sequence code", they failed to be submitted by the parties. The TF Head
determine whether the cause for and his staff returned to Camp General
rejection of ballots for said municipalities Bautista to await the submission of the
was the same as that for the municipality position papers of the parties concerned.
of Talipao.
"Upon receipt of the position papers
"In the case of 'misaligned ovals', the of the parties, the TF Head faxed the
counting machine will not reject the same in the evening of May
ballot because all the security features, 12, 1998, together with his
such as "sequence code", are present in handwritten recommendation
the ballot, however, since the oval is to proceed with a manual
misaligned or not placed in its proper count." Attached are copies of the
recommendations of the TF Head (Annex representatives of the NAMFREL, media
"1"), and the position papers of the and the public.
Philippine Marines and Philippine National
Police (Annex "2"), LAKAS-NUCD Tan "After hearing the sides of all
Wing Annex (Annex "3"), Lakas-NUCD parties concerned, including that of
Loong Wing (Annex "4"), LAKAS-NUCD- NAMFREL, the procedure by which
MNLF Wing (Annex "5") and LAMMP the ballots and counting machines
(Annex "6"). Said recommendations and were to be transported to Manila
position papers were the bases for the was finalized, with each political
promulgation of COMELEC Minute party authorized to send at least
Resolution No. 98-1750 dated May 13, one (1) escort/watcher for every
1998 (Annex "7"), directing among other municipality to accompany the
things, that the ballots and counting ballot boxes and counting machines
machines be transported by C130 to from the counting center at the
Manila for both automated and manual Sulu State College to the Sulu
operations. Airport up to the PICC, where the
COMELEC was then conducting its
"Minute Resolution No. 98-1750 Senatorial Canvass. There being
was received by the TF Head four parties, a total of seventy-
through fax on or about 5:30 in the two (72) escorts/watchers
evening of May 13, 1998. Copies accompanied the ballots
were then served through personal and counting machines.
delivery to the heads of the political
parties, with notice to them that "Two C130s left Sulu on May 15,
another conference will 1998 to transport all the ballot
be conducted at the 3rd Marine boxes and counting machines,
Brigade on May 14, 1998 at 9:00 accompanied by all the authorized
o'clock in the morning, this time, escorts. Said ballots boxes
with Lt. General Joselin Nazareno, reached the PICC on the same day,
then AFP Commander, with all the
Southern Command. Attached is a escorts/watchers allowed to
copy of said notice (Annex station themselves at the ballot box
"8") bearing the signatures of storage area. On May 17, 1998,
candidates Tan (Annex "8-A") and another C130 left Sulu to ferry the
Loong (Annex "8-B"), and the members of the board of
representatives of candidates canvassers."
Tulawie (Annex "8-C") and Jikiri
(Annex "8-D"). Fifth. The evidence is clear that the
integrity of the local ballots was
"On May 14, 1998, the TF Head presided safeguarded when they were transferred
over said conference in the presence of from Sulu to Manila and when they were
the heads of the political parties of Sulu, manually counted.
together with their counsel, including Lt.
As shown by the Tolentino
Gen. Nazareno, Brig. Gen. Subala,
memorandum, representatives of the
political parties escorted the transfer of (
ballots from Sulu to PICC. Indeed, in his Sgd.) Tupay T. Loong
May 14, 1992 letter to Atty. Tolentino,
Jr., petitioner Tupay Loong himself (
submitted the names of his Sgd.) Asani S. Tammang"
representatives who would accompany
the ballot boxes and other election The ballot boxes were consistently
paraphernalia, viz:[20] under the watchful eyes of the parties'
representatives. They were placed in an
"Dear Atty. Tolentino: open space at the PICC. The watchers
stationed themselves some five (5)
"Submitted herewith are the names of meters away from the ballot boxes. They
escort(s) to accompany the ballot boxes watched 24 hours a day and slept at the
and other election pharaphernalia to be PICC.[21]
transported to COMELEC, Manila, to wit:
The parties' watchers again
accompanied the transfer of the ballot
1. Jolo - Joseph Lu
boxes from PICC to the public schools of
2. Patikul - Fathie B. Loong
Pasay City where the ballots were
3. Indanan - - Dixon Jadi
counted. After the counting they once
4. Siasi - Jamal Ismael
more escorted the return of the ballot
5. K. Kaluang - Enjimar Abam
boxes to PICC.[22]
6. Pata - Marvin Hassan
7. Parang - Siyang Loong In fine, petitioner's charge that the
8. Pangutaran - Hji. Nasser Loong ballots could have been tampered with
9. Marunggas - Taib Mangkabong before the manual counting is totally
10. Luuk - Jun Arbison unfounded.
11. Pandami - Orkan Osman
Sixth. The evidence also reveals
12. Tongkil - Usman Sahidulla
that the result of the manual count is
13. Tapul - Alphawanis Tupay
reliable.
14. Lugus - Patta Alih
15. Maimbong - Mike Bangahan It bears stressing that the ballots
16. P. Estino - Yasir lbba used in the case at bar were specially
17. Panamao - Hamba Loong made to suit an automated election. The
18. Talipao - Ismael Sali ballots were uncomplicated. They had
fairly large ovals opposite the names of
"Hoping for your kind and (sic) candidates. A voter needed only to check
consideration for approval on this matter. the oval opposite the name of his
candidate. When the COMELEC ordered a
"Thank you. manual count of the votes, it issued
special rules as the counting involved a
V kind of ballot, albeit, more
different
ery truly yours, simple ballots. The Omnibus Election
Code rules on appreciation of ballots
cannot apply for they only apply to
elections where the names of candidates determine the number of
are handwritten in the ballots. The rules voters who actually voted.
were spelled out in Minute Resolution 98-
1798, viz:[23] - If there are more ballots than
the number of voters who
"In the matter of the Memorandum dated actually voted, the poll
17 May 1998 of Executive Director clerk shall draw out as
Resurreccion Z. Borra, re procedure of many local and national
the counting of votes for Sulu for the ballots as may be equal to
convening of the Board of Election the excess and place them
Inspectors, the Municipal Board of in the envelope for excess
Canvassers and the Provincial Board of ballots.
Canvassers on May 18, 1998 at 9:00 a.m.
at the Philippine International 'II Counting of Votes
Convention Center (PICC),
'A. National Ballots:
'RESOLVED to approve the following
procedure for the counting of votes for '1. If the national ballots have
Sulu at the PICC: already been counted,
return the same inside the
'I. Common Provisions: envelope for counted
ballots, reseal and place
'1. Open the ballot box, retrieve the envelope inside the
the Minutes of Voting and ballot box;
the uncounted ballots or
the envelope containing '2. If the national ballots have
the counted ballots as the not yet been counted, place
case may be; them inside an envelope
and give the envelope
'2. Segregate the national ballots through a liaison officer to
from the local ballots; the machine operator
concerned for counting and
'3. Count the number of pieces of printing of the election
both the national and local returns;
ballots and compare the
same with the number of '3. The machine operator shall
votes who actually voted as affix his signature and
stated in the Minutes of thumbmark thereon, and
Voting: return the same to the
members of the BEI
- If there is no Minutes of Voting, concerned for their
refer to the Voting Records signatures and
at the back of the VRRs to thumbmarks;
'4. The said returns shall then be placed '6. Return all pertinent election
in corresponding envelopes for documents and paraphernalia inside the
distribution; ballot box.

'B. Local Ballots: 'III. Consolidation of Results

'1. Group the local ballots in piles of fifty 'A. National Ballots
(50);
'1. The results of the counting for
'2. The Chairman shall read the the national ballots for each
votes while the poll clerk municipality shall be
and the third member shall consolidated by using the
simultaneously accomplish ERs of the automated
the election returns and the election system;
tally board respectively.
'2. After the consolidation, the
'If the voters shaded Machine Operator shall
more ovals than the print the certificate of
number of positions to canvass by municipality
be voted for, no vote and statement of votes by
shall be counted precinct;
in favor of any
candidate. '3. To consolidate the provincial results,
the MO shall load all the diskettes used in
'3. After all the local ballots shall the scanner to the ERs;
have been manually
counted, the same shall be '4. The MO shall print the provincial
given to the machine certificate of canvass and the SOV by
operator concerned for municipality;
counting by the scanning
machine. The machine '5. In case there is system failure
operator shall then save in the counting and/or
the results in a diskette and consolidation of the results,
print out the election the POBC/MOBC shall
returns for COMELEC revert to manual
reference. consolidation.

'4. The BEI shall accomplish the 'B. Local Ballots

certification portion of the election
returns and announce the results; '1. - The consolidation of votes shall be
done manually by the
'5. Place the election returns in their Provincial/Municipal Board of
respective envelopes and distribute them Canvassers;
accordingly;
'2. The proclamation of winning "1. Gotamco Elementary School,
candidates shall be based on the manual Gotamco Street, Pasay City - for the
consolidation. municipalities of Indanan, Pangutaran,
Panglima Tahil, Maimbung;
'RESOLVED, moreover, that
the pertinent provisions of "2. Zamora Elementary School, Zamora
COMELEC Resolution Street, Pasay City - for the municipalities
Nos. 2971 and 3030 shall of Jolo, Talipao, Panglima Estino, and
apply. Tapul;

'Let the Executive Director implement "3. Epifanio Elementary School, Tramo
this resolution."' Street, Pasay City - for the municipalities
of Parang, Lugus, Panamao;
As aforestated, five (5) Special
Boards were initially created under Atty. "4. Burgos Elementary School, Burgos
Tolentino, Jr. to undertake the manual Street, Pasay City - for the municipalities
counting,[24] viz: of Luuk and Tongkil;

"a) Atty. Mamasapunod M. Aguam 5. Palma Elementary School - for the

Ms. Gloria Fernandez municipalities of Siasi and Kalingalang
Ms. Esperanza Nicolas Caluang."

b) Director Ester L. Villaflor-Roxas From beginning to end, the

Ms. Celia Romero manual counting was done with
Ms. Rebecca Macaraya the watchers of the parties
concerned in
c) Atty. Zenaida S. Soriano attendance. Thereafter,
Ms. Jocelyn Guiang the certificates of canvass were
Ma. Jocelyn Tan prepared and signed by
the City/Municipal Board of
d) Atty. Erlinda C. Echavia Canvassers composed of the
Ms. Teresa A. Torralba Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and
Ms. Ma. Carmen Llamas Secretary. They were also signed by
the parties' watchers.[26]
e) Director Estrella P. de Mesa
Ms. Teresita Velasco The correctness of the manual count
Ms. Nelly Jaena" cannot therefore be doubted. There was
no need for an expert to count the
Later, the COMELEC utilized the services votes. The naked eye could see the
of 600 public school teachers from Pasay checkmarks opposite the big
City to do the manual counting. Five (5) ovals. Indeed, nobody complained that
elementary schools served as the venues the votes could not be read and
of the counting, viz:[25] counted. The COMELEC representatives
had no difficulty counting the votes. The
600 public school teachers of Pasay City
had no difficulty. The watchers of the ballots in five (5) municipalities in
parties had no difficulty.Petitioner did not Sulu. Section 9 of R.A. No. 8436
object to the rules on manual count on provides:
the ground that the ballots cannot be
manually counted. Indeed, in his original "SEC. 9. Systems Breakdown in the
Petition, petitioner did not complain that Counting Center. In the event of a
the local ballots could not be counted by systems breakdown of all assigned
a layman. Neither did the intervenor machines in the counting center, the
complain in his petition for Commission shall use any available
intervention. The allegation that it will machine or any component thereof from
take a trained eye to read the ballots is another city/municipality upon approval
more imagined than real. of the Commission En Banc or any of its
divisions.
This is not all. As private respondent
Tan alleged, the manual count could not
The transfer of such machines or any
have been manipulated in his favor
component thereof shall be undertaken
because the results show that most of his
in the presence of representatives of
political opponents won. Thus, "the
political parties and citizens' arm of the
official results show that the two
Commission who shall be notified by the
congressional seats in Sulu were won by
election officer of such transfer.
Congressman Hussin Amin of the LAKAS-
MNLF Wing for the 1st District and There is a systems breakdown in the
Congressman Asani Tammang of the counting center when the machine fails
LAKAS-Loong Wing for the 2nd to read the ballots or fails to store/save
District. In the provincial level, of the results or fails to print the results after it
eight (8) seats for the Sangguniang has read the ballots; or when the
Panlalawigan, two (2) were won by the computer fails to consolidate election
camp of respondent Tan; three (3) by the results/reports or fails to print election
camp of petitioner Loong; two (2) by the results/reports after consolidation."
MNLF; and one (1) by LAMMP. In the
mayoral race, seven (7) out of eighteen As the facts show, it was inutile for the
(18) victorious municipal mayors were COMELEC to use other machines to count
identified with respondent Tan; four (4) the local votes in Sulu. The errors in
with petitioner Loong; three (3) with the counting were due to the misprinting of
MNLF; two (2) with LAMMP and one (1) ovals and the use of wrong sequence
with REPORMA."[27] There is logic to codes in the local ballots.The errors were
private respondent Tan's contention that not machine-related. Needless to state,
if the manual count was tampered, his to grant petitioner's prayer to continue
candidates would not have miserably the machine count of the local ballots will
lost. certainly result in an erroneous count and
Seventh. We further hold that subvert the will of the electorate.
petitioner cannot insist on automated Eighth. In enacting R.A. No. 8436,
counting under R.A. No. 8436 after the Congress obviously failed to provide a
machines misread or rejected the local remedy where the error in counting is not
machine-related for human foresight is In the case at bar, the COMELEC order
not all-seeing. We hold, however, that for a manual count was not only
the vacuum in the law cannot prevent the reasonable. It was the only way to count
COMELEC from levitating above the the decisive local votes in the six (6)
problem. Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of municipalities of Pata, Talipao, Siasi,
the Constitution gives the COMELEC the Tudanan, Tapul and Jolo. The bottom
broad power "to enforce and administer line is that by means of the manual
all laws and regulations relative to the count, the will of the voters of Sulu was
conduct of an election, plebiscite, honestly determined. We cannot kick
initiative, referendum and away the will of the people by giving a
recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent literal interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A.
of this provision is to have COMELEC all 8436 did not prohibit manual counting
the necessary and incidental powers for when machine count does not
it to achieve the objective of holding free, work. Counting is part and parcel of the
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible conduct of an election which is under the
elections. Congruent to this intent, this control and supervision of the
Court has not been niggardly in defining COMELEC. It ought to be self-evident
the parameters of powers of COMELEC in that the Constitution did not envision a
the conduct of our elections. Thus, we COMELEC that cannot count the result of
held in Sumulong v. COMELEC:[28] an election.
Ninth. Our elections are not
"Politics is a practical matter, and political
conducted under laboratory
questions must be dealt with realistically
conditions. In running for public offices,
- not from the standpoint of pure
candidates do not follow the rules
theory. The Commission on Elections,
of Emily Post. Too often, COMELEC has
because of its fact-finding facilities, its
to make snap judgments to meet
contacts with political strategists, and its
unforseen circumstances that threaten to
knowledge derived from actual
subvert the will of our voters. In the
experience in dealing with political
process, the actions of COMELEC may not
controversies, is in a peculiarly
be impeccable, indeed, may even be
advantageous position to decide complex
debatable. We cannot, however, engage
political questions x x x. There are no
in a swivel chair criticism of these actions
ready made formulas for solving public
often taken under very difficult
problems. Time and experience are
circumstances. Even more, we cannot
necessary to evolve patterns that will
order a special election unless demanded
serve the ends of good government. In
by exceptional circumstances. Thus, the
the matter of the administration of laws
plea for this Court to call a special
relative to the conduct of election, x x x
election for the governorship of Sulu is
we must not by any excessive zeal take
completely off-line. The plea can only be
away from the Commission on Elections
grounded on failure of election. Section 6
the initiative which by constitutional and
of the Omnibus Election Code tells us
legal mandates properly belongs to it."
when there is a failure of election, viz:
"Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If on The grounds for failure of election - force
account of force majeure, terrorism, majeure, terrorism, fraud or other
fraud, or other analogous causes, the analogous causes - clearly involve
election in any polling place has not been questions of fact. It is for this reason that
held on the date fixed, or had been they can only be determined by the
suspended before the hour fixed by law COMELEC en banc after due notice and
for the closing of the voting, or after the hearing to the parties. In the case at bar,
voting and during the preparation and petitioner never asked the COMILEC en
the transmission of the election returns banc to call for a special election in
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such Sulu. Even in his original petition with
election results in a failure to elect, and this Court, petitioner did not pray for a
in any of such cases the failure or special election.His plea for a special
suspension of election would affect the election is a mere afterthought. Too late
result of the election, the Commission in the day and too unprocedural. Worse,
shall on the basis of a verified petition by the grounds for failure of election are
any interested party and after due notice inexistent. The records show that the
and hearing, call for the holding or voters of Sulu were able to cast their
continuation of the election, not held, votes freely and fairly. Their votes were
suspended or which resulted in a failure counted correctly, albeit manually. The
to elect but not later than thirty days people have spoken. Their sovereign will
after the cessation of the cause of such has to be obeyed.
postponement or suspension of the
There is another reason why a
election or failure to elect."
special election cannot be ordered by this
Court. To hold a special election only for
To begin with, the plea for a special
the position of Governor will
election must be addressed to the
be discriminatory and will violate the
COMELEC and not to this Court. Section
right of private respondent to equal
6 of the Omnibus Election Code should be
protection of the law. The records show
read in relation to Section 4 of R.A. No.
that all elected officials in Sulu have been
7166 which provides:
proclaimed and are now discharging their
powers and duties. Thus, two (2)
"Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of
congressmen, a vice-governor, eight (8)
Election and Special Elections. - The
members of the Sangguniang
postponement, declaration of failure of
Panlalawigan and eighteen (18) mayors,
elections and the calling of special
numerous vice-mayors and municipal
elections as provided in Sections 5, 6,
councilors are now serving in their official
and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall
capacities. These officials were
be decided by the Commission en banc
proclaimed on the basis of the same
by a majority vote of its members. The
manually counted votes of Sulu. If
causes for the declaration of a failure of
manual counting is illegal, their
election may occur before or after casting
assumption of office cannot also be
of votes or on the day of the election."
countenanced. Private respondent's
election cannot be singled out
as invalid for alikes cannot be The 1987 Constitution quickened this
treated unalikes. trend of strengthening the
COMELEC. Today, COMLEC enforces and
A final word. Our decision merely
administers all laws and regulations
reinforces our collective efforts to endow
relative to the conduct of elections,
COMELEC with enough power to hold
plebiscites, initiatives, referenda and
free, honest, orderly and credible
recalls. Election contests involving
elections. A quick flashback of its history
regional, provincial and city elective
is necessary lest our efforts be lost in the
officials are under its exclusive original
labyrinth of time.
jurisdiction. All contests involving
The COMELEC was organized under elective municipal and barangay officials
Commonwealth Act No. 607 enacted on are under its appellate jurisdiction.[32]
August 22,1940. The power to enforce
Our decisions have been in cadence
our election laws was originally vested in
with the movement towards empowering
the President and exercised through the
the COMELEC in order that it can more
Department of Interior. According to
effectively perform its duty of
Dean Sinco,[29] the view ultimately
safeguarding the sanctity of our
emerged that an independent body could
elections. In Cauton
better protect the right of suffrage of our
vs. COMELEC,[33] we laid down this
people. Hence, the enforcement of our
liberal approach, viz:
election laws, while an executive power,
was transferred to the COMELEC. xxx
From a statutory creation, the
'The purpose of the Revised Election
COMELEC was transformed to a
Code is to protect the integrity of
constitutional body by virtue of the 1940
elections and to suppress all evils that
amendments to the 1935 Constitution
may violate its purity and defeat the will
which took effect on December 2,
of the voters. The purity of the elections
1940. COMELEC was generously granted
is one of the most fundamental requisites
the power to "have exclusive charge of
of popular government. The Commission
the enforcement and administration of all
on Elections, by constitutional mandate,
laws relative to the conduct of elections
must do everything in its power to secure
x x x."[30]
a fair and honest canvass of the votes
Then came the 1973 Constitution. It cast in the elections. In the performance
further broadened the powers of of its duties, the Commission must be
COMELEC by making it the sole Judge of given a considerable latitude in adopting
all election contests relating to the means and methods that will insure the
election, returns and qualifications of accomplishment of the great objective
members of the national legislature and for which it was created -- to promote
elective provincial and city officials.[31] In free, orderly, and honest elections. The
fine, the COMELEC was given judicial choice of means taken by the
power aside from its traditional Commission on Elections, unless
administrative and executive functions. they are clearly illegal or constitute
grave abuse of discretion, should JOSE EMMANUEL L.
not be interfered with." CARLOS, petitioner, vs. HON.
ADORACION G. ANGELES, IN
In Pacis vs. COMELEC,[34] we HER CAPACITY AS THE
reiterated the guiding principle that ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE
"clean elections control the OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
appropriateness of the remedy." The COURT IN CALOOCAN CITY
dissent, for all its depth, is out of step (BRANCH 125) and ANTONIO
with this movement. It condemns the M. SERAPIO, respondents.
COMELEC for exercising its discretion to
resort to manual count when this was its DECISION
only viable alternative. It would set aside
PARDO, J.:
the results of the manual count even
when the results are free from fraud and
irregularity. Worse, it would set aside the The Case
judgment of the people electing the
private respondent as
Governor. Upholding the sovereignty The case before the Court is an
of the people is what democracy is original special civil action for certiorari
all about. When the sovereignty of and prohibition with preliminary
the people expressed thru the ballot injunction or temporary restraining order
is at stake, it is not enough for this seeking to annul the decision of the
Court to make a statement but it Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City,
should do everything to have that Branch 125, the dispositive portion of
sovereignty obeyed by all. Well which reads as follows:
done is always better than well said.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition
proclamation of the Protestee, Jose
of Tupay Loong and the petition in
Emmanuel Carlos, by the Board of
intervention of Yusop Jikiri are dismissed,
Canvassers is accordingly SET ASIDE.
there being no showing that public
respondent gravely abused its discretion
The Court hereby FINDS the Protestant,
in issuing Minute Resolution Nos. 98-
ANTONIO SERAPIO, as the DULY
1748, 98-1750, 98-1796 and 98-
ELECTED MAYOR OF VALENZUELA CITY.
1798. Our status quo order of June 23,
1998 is lifted. No costs. SO ORDERED.[1]
SO ORDERED.
The Facts

Petitioner Jose Emmanuel L. Carlos

and respondent Antonio M. Serapio were
candidates for the position of mayor of
the municipality of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila (later converted into a City) during 2. Both parties admit that the
the May 11, 1998 elections. protestant was a candidate
during the May 11, 1998
On May 21, 1998, the Municipal
election;
Board of Canvassers, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila proclaimed petitioner as the duly 3. Both parties admit that the
elected mayor of Valenzuela having protestee has been
obtained 102,688 votes, the highest proclaimed as the elected
number of votes in the election returns. mayor of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, on May 21, 1998;
On June 1, 1998, respondent Antonio
M. Serapio who obtained 77,270 votes, 4. Both parties admit that the
the second highest number of votes, filed protestee allegedly obtained
with the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela, 102,688 votes while the
Metro Manila, an election protest protestant obtained 77,270
challenging the results. Due to the votes per canvass of election
inhibition of all judges of the Regional returns of the Board of
Trial Court in Valenzuela, the case was Canvassers.
ultimately assigned to the Regional Trial
The pre-trial was then concluded and
Court, Caloocan City, Branch 125,
the parties agreed to the creation of
presided over by respondent Judge
seven (7) revision committees consisting
Adoracion G. Angeles.
of a chairman designated by the court
On June 26, 1998, petitioner filed and two members representing the
with the trial court an answer with protestant and the protestee.
affirmative defenses and motion to
Meantime, on May 12, 1999,
dismiss. The court denied the motion to
petitioner filed a consolidated motion
dismiss by order dated January 14,
that included a prayer for authority to
1999. Petitioner elevated the order to the
photocopy all the official copies of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) on
revision reports in the custody of the trial
petition for certiorari and
court. However, the trial court denied the
prohibition,[2] which, however, has
issuance of such authorization.[3] The
remained unresolved up to this moment.
court likewise denied a motion for
In the course of the protest, the reconsideration of the denial.[4] Then
municipal treasurer of Valenzuela, who petitioner raised the denial to the
by law has custody of the ballot boxes, COMELEC on petition for certiorari and
collected the ballot boxes and delivered mandamus,[5] which also remains
them to the Regional Trial Court, unresolved until this date.
Caloocan City. The trial court conducted
a pre-trial conference of the parties but it
The Revision Results
did not produce a substantial result as
the parties merely paid superficial service
and only agreed on the following:
The revision of the ballots showed
1. Both parties admit their the following results:
capacity to sue and be sued;
(1) Per physical count of the ballots: 3. Some schools where various
precincts were located
(a) protestant Serapio - experienced brownouts
76,246 votes. during the counting of votes
causing delay in the counting
(b) protestee Carlos - 103,551
although there was no undue
votes.
commotion or violence that
occurred;
(2) Per revision, the court invalidated
9,697 votes of the protestant but 4. Some of the assigned
validated 53 stray votes in his favor. watchers of protestant were
not in their posts during the
The court invalidated 19,975 votes of the counting of votes.
protestee and validated 33 stray votes in
his favor. On the basis of the foregoing badges
of fraud, the trial court declared that
The final tally showed: there was enough pattern of fraud in the
conduct of the election for mayor in
(a) protestant Serapio Valenzuela. The court held that the fraud
- 66,602 votes. was attributable to the protestee who
had control over the election
(b) protestee Carlos paraphernalia and the basic services in
- 83,609 votes, giving the the community such as the supply of
latter a winning margin electricity.
of 17,007 votes.
On April 24, 2000, the trial court
rendered a judgment ruling that the
The Trial Courts Ruling perpetuation of fraud had undoubtedly
suppressed the true will of the electorate
of Valenzuela and substituted it with the
Nevertheless, in its decision, the trial will of the protestee. Notwithstanding the
court set aside the final tally of valid plurality of valid votes in favor of the
votes because of its finding of significant protestee, the trial court set aside the
badges of fraud, namely: proclamation of protestee Jose
1. The keys turned over by the Emmanuel Carlos by the Municipal Board
City Treasurer to the court did of Canvassers and declared protestant
not fit into the padlocks of the Antonio M. Serapio as the duly elected
ballot boxes that had to be mayor of Valenzuela City.[6]
forcibly opened; Hearing news that the protestant had
2. Seven (7) ballot boxes did not won the election protest, the protestee
contain any ballot and two (2) secured a copy of the decision from the
ballot boxes out of the seven trial court on May 4, 2000. On the other
(7) ballot boxes did not hand, notice of the decision was received
contain any election returns; by the protestant on May 03, 2000.
 On May 4, 2000, protestant filed with (4) The assailed decision is
the trial court a motion for execution contrary to law, based on
pending appeal.[7] On May 4, 2000, the speculations and not
trial court gave protestee five (5) days supported by the evidence as
within which to submit his comment or shown in the decision itself.[11]
opposition to the motion.[8]

The Issues
Petitioners Appeal to Comelec

The issues raised are the following:

Meantime, on May 04, 2000,
1. Whether the Supreme Court
petitioner filed a notice of appeal from
has jurisdiction to review, by
the decision of the trial court to the
petition for certiorari as a
Commission on Elections.[9]
special civil action, the
decision of the regional trial
The Petition at bar court in an election protest
case involving an elective
municipal official considering
On May 8, 2000, petitioner filed the that it has no appellate
present recourse.[10] jurisdiction over such
decision.
Petitioner raised the following legal
basis: 2. Whether the trial court acted
without jurisdiction or with
(1) The Supreme Court has
grave abuse of discretion
original jurisdiction to
when the court set aside the
entertain special civil actions
proclamation of petitioner and
of certiorari and prohibition;
declared respondent Serapio
(2) There are important reasons as the duly elected mayor of
and compelling circumstances Valenzuela City despite its
which justify petitioners direct finding that petitioner
recourse to the Supreme garnered 83,609 valid votes
Court; while respondent obtained
66,602 valid votes, or a
(3) Respondent judge
winning margin of 17,007
committed grave abuse of
votes.
discretion when she declared
respondent Serapio as the
duly elected mayor of TRO Issued
Valenzuela despite the fact
that she found that petitioner
obtained 17,007 valid votes On May 8, 2000, we issued a
higher than the valid votes of temporary restraining order ordering
respondent Serapio; respondent court to cease and desist
from further taking cognizance of I. The Supreme Court is vested
Election Protest No. 14-V-98 more with original jurisdiction to
specifically from taking cognizance of and issue writs of certiorari,
acting on the Motion for Execution prohibition and mandamus
Pending Appeal filed by respondent against the decision of the
Serapio on May 4, 2000.[12] regional trial court in the
election protest case before it,
regardless of whether it has
Respondents Position
appellate jurisdiction over
such decision.
On May 15, 2000, respondent Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987
Serapio filed his comment with omnibus Constitution provides that:
motion to lift the temporary restraining
order and to declare petitioner in Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
contempt of court for violating the rule following powers:
against forum shopping.[13] He submitted
that Comelec and not the Supreme Court (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over
has jurisdiction over the present petition cases affecting ambassadors, other
for certiorari assailing the decision dated public ministers and consuls, and over
April 24, 2000 of the regional trial court. petitions
Assuming that this Court and Comelec for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
have concurrent jurisdiction and applying quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
Comelec has jurisdiction since petitioner xxx
has perfected his appeal therewith before Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules
the filing of the instant petition. Certiorari of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides
cannot be a substitute for an appeal; the that:
present petition is violative of Revised
Circular No. 28-91 on forum-shopping; SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.When
issues raised are factual, not correctible any tribunal, board or officer exercising
by certiorari; and that the temporary judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
restraining order should be lifted, the acted without or in excess of its or his
petition dismissed, and petitioner and jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
counsel should be made to explain why discretion amounting to lack or excess of
they should not be punished for jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
contempt of court. any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the course of law, a person aggrieved
The Courts Ruling
thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be
We find the petition impressed with rendered annulling or modifying the
merit.[14] proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental In the face of the foregoing disquisitions,
reliefs as law and justice may require. the court must, as it now does, abandon
the ruling in
The petition shall be accompanied by a the Garcia and Uy and Veloria cases. We
certified true copy of the judgment, order now hold that the last paragraph
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all of Section 50 of B. P. Blg. 697 providing
pleadings and documents relevant and as follows:
pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as The Commission is vested with exclusive
provided in the third paragraph of section authority to hear and decide petitions for
3, Rule 46. certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
involving election cases.
By Constitutional fiat, the
Commission on Election (Comelec) has remains in full force and effect but only
appellate jurisdiction over election in such cases where, under paragraph
protest cases involving elective municipal (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the
officials decided by courts of general Constitution, it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction, as provided for in Article IX jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC
(C), Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution: has the authority to issue the
extraordinary writs of certiorari,
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections prohibition, and mandamus only in
shall exercise the following powers and aid of its appellate
functions: jurisdiction. (Emphasis ours).

(1) x x x. Consequently, both the Supreme

Court and Comelec have concurrent
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
over all contests relating to the elections, prohibition, and mandamus over
returns and qualifications of all elective decisions of trial courts of general
regional, provincial, and city officials, and jurisdiction (regional trial courts) in
appellate jurisdiction over all contests election cases involving elective
involving elective municipal officials municipal officials. The Court that takes
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction, or involving elective jurisdiction over the case.[17]
barangay officials decided by trial courts
of limited jurisdiction.
Ergo, this Court has jurisdiction over
the present petition of certiorari as a
In like manner, the Comelec has special civil action expressly conferred on
original jurisdiction to issue writs of it and provided for in the Constitution.
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus Relative to the appeal that petitioner
involving election cases in aid of its filed with the COMELEC, the same would
appellate jurisdiction.[15] This point has not bar the present action as an
been settled in the case of Relampagos exception to the rule because under the
vs. Cumba,[16] where we held: circumstances, appeal would not be a
speedy and adequate remedy in the all republican forms of government the
ordinary course of basic idea is that no one can be declared
law.[18] The exception is sparingly elected and no measure can be declared
allowed in situations where the abuse carried unless he or it receives a majority
of discretion is not only grave and or plurality of the legal votes cast in the
whimsical but election.[24] In case of protest, a revision
also palpable and patent, and or recount of the ballots cast for the
the invalidity of the assailed act is candidates decides the election protest
shown on its face. case. The candidate receiving the highest
number or plurality of votes shall be
II. Certiorari lies. The trial court
proclaimed the winner. Even if the
acted with grave abuse of
candidate receiving the majority votes is
discretion amounting to lack
ineligible or disqualified, the candidate
or excess of jurisdiction. Its
receiving the next highest number of
decision is void.
votes or the second placer, can not be
The next question that arises is declared elected.[25] The wreath of
whether certiorari lies because the trial victory cannot be transferred from the
court committed a grave abuse of disqualified winner to the repudiated
discretion amounting to lack or excess of loser because the law then as now only
jurisdiction in deciding the way it did authorizes a declaration of election in
Election Protest Case No. 14-V-98, favor of the person who has obtained a
declaring respondent Serapio as the duly plurality of votes and does not entitle a
elected mayor of Valenzuela, Metro candidate receiving the next highest
Manila. number of votes to be declared
elected.[26] In other words, a defeated
In this jurisdiction, an election means
candidate cannot be deemed elected to
the choice or selection of candidates to
the office.[27]
public office by popular vote[19] through
the use of the ballot, and the elected
Election contests involve public interest,
officials of which are determined through
and technicalities and procedural barriers
the will of the electorate.[20] An election
should not be allowed to stand if they
is the embodiment of the popular will, the
constitute an obstacle to the
expression of the sovereign power of the
determination of the true will of the
people.[21] Specifically, the term election,
electorate in the choice of their elective
in the context of the Constitution, may
officials. Laws governing election
refer to the conduct of the polls, including
contests must be liberally construed to
the listing of voters, the holding of the
the end that the will of the people in the
electoral campaign, and the casting and
choice of public officials may not be
counting of votes.[22] The winner is the
defeated by mere technical objections. In
candidate who has obtained a majority or
an election case, the court has an
plurality of valid votes cast in the
imperative duty to ascertain by all means
election.[23] Sound policy dictates that
within its command who is the real
public elective offices are filled by those
candidate elected by the electorate. The
who receive the highest number of votes
Supreme Court frowns upon any
cast in the election for that office. For, in
interpretation of the law or the rules that overwhelming winner in the May 11,
would hinder in any way not only the free 1998 elections.
and intelligent casting of the votes in an
However, the trial court set aside the
election but also the correct
final tally of votes because of what the
ascertainment of the results. [28]
trial court perceived to be significant
badges of fraud attributable to the
In this case, based on the revision of
protestee.[29] These are:
ballots, the trial court found that:
First: The failure of the keys turned
First, by canvass of the Municipal Board over by the City Treasurer to the trial
of Canvassers the results were: court to fit the padlocks on the ballot
boxes that compelled the court to forcibly
Carlos - 102,668 votes open the padlocks. The trial court
concluded that the real keys were lost or
Serapio - 77,270 votes, or a winning the padlocks substituted pointing to
margin of 25,418 votes possible tampering of the contents of the
ballot boxes.
Ramon Ignacio - 20 votes.
Procedurally, the keys to the ballot
and consequently, the Board of boxes were turned over by the Board of
Canvassers proclaimed petitioner Carlos Election Inspectors from the precinct
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela, level to the Municipal Board of
Metro Manila. Canvassers and finally to the municipal
treasurer for safekeeping. The three-
Second, by physical count of the level turn-over of the keys will not
ballots, the results were: prevent the possibility of these keys
being mixed up. This is an ordinary
Carlos - 103,551 votes occurrence during elections. The mere
inability of the keys to fit into the
Serapio - 76,246 votes, or a winning padlocks attached to the ballot boxes
margin of 27,305 votes. does not affect the integrity of the
ballots. At any rate, the trial court easily
Third, by revision of the ballots, the forced open the padlocks and found valid
trial court found in a final tally that the votes cast therein;
valid votes obtained by the candidates
were as follows: Second: Seven (7) ballot boxes
were found empty. Thus, the trial court
Carlos - 83,609 votes concluded that there were missing ballots
and missing election returns. This is pure
Serapio - 66,602 votes, or a winning speculation without factual basis. The
margin of 17,007 votes. sea of suspicion has no shore, and the
court that embarks upon it is without
Consequently, the final tally clearly rudder or compass.[30] On the other
showed petitioner Carlos as the hand, the Summary of Votes as revised
does not show any
unaccounted precinct or whether there is the candidates own look-out to protect
was any precinct without any ballot or his interest during the counting of votes
election returns. It is a standard and canvassing of election returns. As
procedure of the Commission on long as notices were duly served to the
Elections (Comelec) to provide extra parties, the counting and canvassing of
empty ballot boxes for the use of the votes may validly proceed in the absence
Board of Election Inspectors or the Board of watchers. Otherwise, candidates may
of Canvassers, in case of necessity. easily delay the counting of votes or
canvassing of returns by simply not
The empty ballot boxes found could
sending their watchers. There was no
be the empty reserve ballot boxes that
incomplete canvass of returns, contrary
were not used by the Board of Election
to what the trial court declared. The
Inspectors or the Board of Canvassers
evidence showed complete canvass in
since there was neither proof nor
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.[31]
even a claim of missing ballots or
missing election returns. We cannot allow an election
protest on such flimsy averments to
Third: Some schoolhouses
prosper, otherwise, the whole election
experienced brownout during the
process will deteriorate into an endless
counting of votes. There was nothing
stream of crabs pulling at each other,
extraordinary that would invite serious
racing to disembank from the water.[32]
doubts or suspicion that fraud was
committed during the brownout that Assuming for the nonce that the trial
occurred. Indeed, one witness stated court was correct in holding that the final
that it was the first time that he observed tally of valid votes as per revision report
brownout in Dalandanan Elementary may be set aside because of the
School and another stated that the significant badges of fraud, the same
brownout was localized in Coloong would be tantamount to a ruling that
Elementary School. Since counting of there were no valid votes cast at all for
votes lasted until midnight, the the candidates, and, thus, no winner
brownouts had caused only slight delay could be declared in the election
in the canvassing of votes because the protest case. In short, there was failure
election officials availed themselves of of election.
candles, flashlights and emergency
In such case, the proper remedy is
lights. There were no reports of cheating
an action before the Commission on
or tampering of the election returns. In
Elections en banc to declare a failure of
fact, witnesses testified that the counting
election or to annul the
of votes proceeded smoothly and no
election.[33] However, the case below
commotion or violence occurred. So, the
was an election protest case involving an
brownouts had no effect on the integrity
elective municipal position which, under
of the canvass.
Section 251 of the Election Code, falls
Fourth: The absence of watchers within the exclusive original jurisdiction
for candidate Serapio from their posts of the appropriate regional trial court.[34]
during the counting of votes. This cannot
be taken against candidate Carlos since it
 Nonetheless, the annulment of an or in the custody of canvass thereof, such
election on the ground of fraud, election results in a failure to elect, and
irregularities and violations of election in any of such cases the failure or
laws may be raised as an incident to an suspension of election would affect the
election contest. Such grounds for result of the election,
annulment of an election may be invoked the Commission shall, on the basis of a
in an election protest case. However, an verified petition by any interested party
election must not be nullified and the and after due notice and hearing, call for
voters disenfranchised whenever it is the holding or continuation of the
possible to determine a winner on the election not held, suspended or which
basis of valid votes cast, and discard the resulted in a failure to elect on a date
illegally cast ballots. In this case, the reasonably close to the date of the
petitioner admittedly received 17,007 election not held, suspended or which
valid votes more than the protestee, resulted in a failure to elect but not later
and therefore the nullification of the than thirty (30) days after the cessation
election would not lie. The power to of the cause of such postponement or
nullify an election must be exercised with suspension of the election or failure to
the greatest care with a view not to elect. (Emphasis supplied)
disenfranchise the voters, and only under
circumstances that clearly call for such Likewise, RA 7166 provides that:
drastic remedial measure.[35]
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election
As heretofore stated, in this
and Special Elections.-- The
jurisdiction, elections are won on the
postponement, declaration of failure of
basis of a majority or plurality of votes
election and the calling of special
cast and received by the candidates. The
elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and
right to hold an elective office is rooted
7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be
on electoral mandate, not perceived
decided by the Commission sitting en
entitlement to the office.[36]
banc by a majority vote of its
More importantly, the trial court has members. The causes for the
no jurisdiction to declare a failure of declaration of a failure of election may
election.[37] occur before or after the casting of votes
or on the day of the election. (Emphasis
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
supplied)
Code provides that:
It is the Commission (Comelec)
Sec. 6. Failure of Election.If, on account
sitting en banc that is vested with
of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure
fraud or other analogous causes the
of election.[38]
election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed, or had been In a petition to annul an election
suspended before the hour fixed by law under Section 6, Batas Pambansa Blg.
for the closing of the voting, or after the 881, two conditions must be averred in
voting and during the preparation and order to support a sufficient cause of
the transmission of the election returns action. These are: (1) the illegality
must affect more than 50% of the herein-above stated, the trial court erred
votes cast and (2) the good votes can to the extent of ousting itself of
be distinguished from the bad jurisdiction because the grounds for
ones. It is only when these two failure of election were not significant
conditions are established that the and even non-existent. More
annulment of the election can be justified importantly, the commission of fraud can
because the remaining votes do not not be attributed to the protestee. There
constitute a valid constituency.[39] was no evidence on record that protestee
had a hand in any of the irregularities
We have held that: To declare a
that protestant averred. It is wrong for
failure of election, two (2) conditions
the trial court to state that the protestee
must occur: first, no voting has taken
had control over the election
place in the precincts concerned on the
paraphernalia or over electric
date fixed by law or, even if there were
services. The Commission on Elections
voting, the election nevertheless resulted
has control over election paraphernalia,
in a failure to elect; and, second, the
through its officials and deputies.[42] The
votes not cast would affect the result of
Comelec can deputize with the
the election.[40] Neither of these
concurrence of the President, law
conditions was present in the case at bar.
enforcement agencies and
More recently, we clarified that, instrumentalities of the government,
Under the pertinent codal provision of the including the Armed Forces of the
Omnibus Election Code, there are only Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of
three (3) instances where a failure of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful,
elections may be declared, namely: (a) and credible elections.[43] On the other
the election in any polling place has not hand, electric utility services in Metro
been held on the date fixed on account Manila, including Valenzuela are under
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, the control of its franchise holder,
fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) particularly the Manila Electric Company,
the election in any polling place had been a public service company, certainly not
suspended before the hour fixed by law owned or controlled by the protestee. In
for the closing of the voting on account fact, during election period, Comelec has
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, control over such utilities as electric and
fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) even telephone service.[44] What is
after the voting and during the important, however, is that the voters of
preparation and transmission of the Valenzuela were able to cast their votes
election returns or in the custody or freely and fairly. And in the election
canvass thereof, such election results in protest case, the trial court was able to
a failure to elect on account of force recount and determine the valid votes
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or cast.
other analogous causes.[41]
Assuming that the trial court has
Thus, the trial court in its decision jurisdiction to declare a failure of
actually pronounced a failure of election election, the extent of that power is
by disregarding and setting aside the limited to the annulment of the election
results of the election. Nonetheless, as and the calling of special
elections.[45] The result is a failure of evidence, but on its own intuition, ipse
election for that particular office. In such dixit.[51] How was this voice
case, the court can not declare a communicated to the trial
winner.[46] A permanent vacancy is thus court? Certainly not by competent
created. In such eventuality, the duly evidence adduced before the court as it
elected vice-mayor shall succeed as should be, but by extra-sensory
provided by law.[47] perception. This is invalid in
law. Contrary to its own finding that
We find that the trial court
petitioner obtained 83,600 valid votes
committed a grave abuse of discretion
against 66,602 valid votes for the
amounting to lack or excess of
respondent as second placer, or a
jurisdiction in rendering its decision
plurality of 17,007 votes, the trial court
proclaiming respondent Serapio the duly
declared the second placer as the
elected mayor of Valenzuela, Metro
winner. This is a blatant abuse of judicial
Manila, on the basis of its perception of
discretion by any account. It is a raw
the voice of the people of Valenzuela,
exercise of judicial function in an
even without a majority or plurality votes
arbitrary or despotic manner, amounting
cast in his favor. In fact, without a single
to evasion of the positive duty to act in
vote in his favor as the trial court
accord with law.[52]
discarded all the votes. Thus, the
decision is not supported by the highest In a special civil action for certiorari,
number of valid votes cast in his the burden is on petitioner to prove not
favor. This violated the right to due merely reversible error, but grave abuse
process of law of petitioner who was not of discretion amounting to lack or excess
heard on the issue of failure of election, of jurisdiction on the part of the public
an issue that was not raised by the respondent Judge. By grave abuse of
protestant. A decision is void for lack of discretion is meant capricious and
due process if, as a result, a party is whimsical exercise of judgment as is
deprived of the opportunity of being equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere
heard.[48] The trial court can not decide abuse of discretion is not enough. It must
the election protest case outside the be grave abuse of discretion as when the
issues raised. If it does, as in this case, power is exercised in an arbitrary or
the trial court is ousted of its despotic manner by reason of passion or
jurisdiction. Likewise, it is a basic personal hostility, and must be so patent
principle that a decision with absolutely and so gross as to amount to an evasion
nothing to support it is void.[49] A void of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
decision may be assailed or impugned at perform the duty enjoined or to act at all
any time either directly or collaterally, by in contemplation of law.[53] We must
means of a petition filed in the same case emphasize that election to office is
or by means of a separate action, or by determined by the highest number of
resisting such decision in any action or votes obtained by a candidate in the
proceeding where it is invoked.[50] Here, election.
the trial court indulged in speculations on
its view of the voice of the people, and
The Judgment
decided the case disregarding the
 WHEREFORE, the Court Before us is a petition
GRANTS the petition. The Court ANNULS for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
and DECLARES VOID the decision dated Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the
April 24, 2000 of the trial court in Election reversal of an en
Protest Case No. V-14-98. banc Resolution dated August 10, 1998
[1]

by the public respondent Commission on

The temporary restraining order we
Elections (COMELEC, for brevity) which
issued on May 8, 2000, is made
dismissed SPA No. 98-333, a petition to
permanent.
declare a failure of elections and to call
Let Election Protest Case No. V-14-98 for a special elections in several precincts
be remanded to the trial court for in the Municipality of Calanogas, Lanao
decision within a non-extendible period del Sur.
of fifteen (15) days from notice of this
The facts are:
decision. The judge shall report to this
Court on the decision rendered within Petitioner ZAIPAL D. BENITO and
five (5) days from rendition submitting a private respondent IBRAHIM
copy thereof to the Office of the Clerk of PAGAYAWAN were two (2) of eight (8)
Court en banc. candidates vying for the position of
municipal mayor in Calanogas, Lanao del
This decision is immediately
Sur during the May 11, 1998 elections. Of
executory.
the municipalitys election precincts, five
No costs. (5) were clustered in Sultan Disimban
Elementary School. These were precincts
SO ORDERED.
15A (Barangay Tagoranao), 6A/6A1
(Barangay Luguna), 17A (Barangay
Tambak), 2A/2A1 (Barangay
Calalanoan), and 13A (Barangay
Pindulonan). The election in the first
three (3), namely precincts 15A, 6A/6A1
and 17A are the subject of BENITOs
ZAIPAL D. BENITO, petitioner, petition to declare failure of elections
vs. COMMISSION ON filed before the respondent COMELEC.
ELECTIONS, IBRAHIM On the day of the election, voting
PAGAYAWAN, and the started peacefully at the polling
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF place. Shortly before noon, however, the
CANVASSERS OF proceedings were interrupted when
CALANOGAS, LANAO DEL some thirty (30) armed men appeared at
SUR, respondents. the school premises and fired shots into
the air. This sowed panic among the
DECISION voters and election officials, causing
DE LEON, JR., J.: them to scatter in different directions. A
spot report[2] issued by the commanding
officer of the Alfa Company, 28th Infantry
Battalion, 4th Infantry Division of the
Philippine Army, Captain Benedicto S. private respondent submitted a Final
Manquiquis summarized the incident in Incident Report[3] issued by the same
the following manner: Captain Manquiquis, the full text of which
is hereunder reproduced:
00a 1113009 May 98, election held at
HEADQUARTERS
Sultan Disimban Elem school
ALFA COMPANY, 28TH INFANTRY
comprising Brgys Luguna,
BATTALION, 4TH INF DIV, PA
Calalanoan, Pindolonan, Tagoranao,
Calanugas, Lanao del Sur
and
Tambak. All of Calanogas Lanao del
28A- 11 May 1998
Sur was suspended when more or
less 30 armed men with cal. 30 LMG
SUBJECT: Final Incident Report
under Mayoralty candidate Jabbar
Macapodi Maruhom fired shots on
TO: Atty. Wynnie Asdala
the air which cause the voters and
Head, COMELEC Task Force Team
BEIs to scamper in different direction
Marawi City
THRU: Acting Election Officer
(
Calanugas, Lanao del Sur
signed)
B 1. 00A 111200H May 98, election
ENEDICTO S. MANQUIQUIS held at Sultan Disimban
C Elementary School comprising
APT (INF) PA Brgys Laguna, Calalanoan,
C Pindulonan, Tagoranao and
O, A CO, ISIB, 4ID Tambak all of Calanugas,
Lanao del Sur was suspended
Both parties contest alleged events
when more or less thirty (30)
transpiring after the interruption of the
armed men equipped with
voting. By petitioners account, the ballot
HPFAs including Cal. .30 LMG
boxes and other election materials were
under Mayoralty Candidate
taken to the municipal hall by the military
Jabbar Macapodi Maruhom
forces providing security. From then on,
fired shots on the air which
the voting allegedly never resumed, even
cause the voters and BEIs to
when voters who had not yet cast their
scamper into different
ballots returned to their respective
directions.
polling places after the lawless elements
had left. 2. That about one (1) hour
thereafter, the voting
In direct opposition,
resumed in an orderly and
private respondent avers that voting in
peaceful manner until about
fact resumed when the armed men left
1500H same day without any
at about
trouble or untoward
1:00 oclock in the afternoon. There wer
incident. After 1500H when
e no further untoward incidents until
no voter was in the premises
voting closed at 3:00 oclock. As proof,
of the voting precincts, the
 casting of votes was closed by PRECINCT NO. OFVOTES
the different BEIs. 15A REGISTERED CAST
6A/6A1 VOTERS 1
(
17A 177 19
signed)
225 21
B
188
ENEDICTO S. MANQUIQUIS
41
C
TOTAL 590
apt (INF) PA
Considering that private
C
respondent would still lead petitioner by
ommanding Officer
seven (7) votes even if all forty-one (41)
These turn of events, votes from the three (3) excluded
notwithstanding, the ballot boxes for the precincts were counted in the latters
five (5) precincts in Disimban Elementary favor, private respondent was proclaimed
School were taken together with those mayor of Calanogas.
from the nineteen (19) other precincts of
On May 25, 1998, petitioner filed an
Calanogas, to Marawi City for
amended petition[4] to declare failure of
counting. The votes from precincts 15A,
election and to call a special elections in
6A/6A1 and 17A were excluded upon
precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A, docketed
objection by petitioners counsel who, it is
as SPA No. 98-333. He also filed a
claimed, arrived only after the ballots
separate petition[5] for the annulment of
from the other nineteen (19) precincts
the proclamation of private respondent,
had already been tabulated.
docketed as SPC No. 98-159.
After counting, these results
On June 10, 1998, the COMELEC
emerged:
issued an Order[6] consolidating SPC No.
CANDIDATENO. OF 98-159 with SPA No. 98-333. On June 29,
VOTES 1998, it also issued Resolution No.
Ibrahim 927 3049[7] wherein SPA No. 98-333 and SPA
Pagayawan 879 No. 98-159 were included among those
Zaipal 524 cases certified as active even beyond
Benito (no data June 30, 1998.
Amoran available)
Abbreviating the proceedings, after
Macaborod
the parties had filed their respective
Jabbar
answers, replies, memoranda, and other
Maruhom
related pleadings, on August 10, 1998,
Private respondent won over
the COMELEC issued the assailed
petitioner by forty-eight (48) votes.
resolution, the dispositive portion of
On the other hand, the total votes which reads:
cast for the three (3) excluded precincts
numbered forty-one (41) only, which is WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
broken down as follows: petition is hereby dismissed for lack of
merit. Precincts 6A/6A1, 15A and 17A
functioned on 11 May 1998
elections. The Municipal Board of SUSPENDED ON THE BASIS
Canvassers of Calanogas, Lanao del Sur OF THE ALLEGED FINAL
is hereby ordered to reconvene and REPORT OF CAPTAIN
count the remaining uncounted MANQUIQUIS;
votes for the three precincts
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE
aforementioned. Thereafter, they shall
COMELEC ACTED WITH
proclaim the three other un-proclaimed
GRAVE ABUSE OF
municipal councilors and enter the
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
correct votes garnered by the parties in
LACK OR EXCESS OF
the Consolidation of Votes and
JURISDICTION IN NOT
Proclamation.
HOLDING A SPECIAL
ELECTION IN PRECINCT NOS.
Considering that the remaining
15A, 6A & 6A1 AND 17A ON
uncounted votes will no longer
GROUND OF FAILURE OF
affect the lead of the winning
ELECTION OR OF A
candidate for the position of mayor,
SUSPENDED ELECTION
the Commission hereby affirms the
BEFORE THE CLOSING OF
proclamation made by the Municipal
THE VOTING AT 3:00
Board of Canvassers of Calanogas,
OCLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON
Lanao del Sur.
OF THE MAY 11, 1998
ELECTION DAY ON GROUND
Hence, the instant petition.
OF THREATS, VIOLENCE AND
The following issues are submitted TERRORISM; AND
for our resolution:
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC ACTED WITH
COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT
JURISDICTION (A) IN ANNULLING THE
DISMISSING THE PETITION CERTIFICATE OF
OF PETITIONER DOCKETED PROCLAMATION OF PRIVATE
AS SPA NO. 98-333 RESPONDENT DATED MAY
(INCLUDING SPC 98-159 15, 1998.
WHICH WAS CONSOLIDATED
It is the COMELEC en banc which has
TO SPA 98-333 BY ORDER OF
the exclusive power to postpone, to
THE COMELEC ON JUNE 10,
declare a failure of election, or to call a
1998) FOR LACK OF MERIT
special election.[8] In relation thereto,
AND (B) IN DECLARING THAT
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
THE ELECTIONS IN
Code[9] provides:
PRECINCTS 6A & 6A1, 15A
AND 17A HAVE CONTINUED
SEC. 6. Failure of Election.If, on account
AN HOUR AFTER THEY WERE
of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes the means such capricious and whimsical
election in any polling place has not been exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
held on the date fixed, or had been lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words
suspended before the hour fixed by law where the power is exercised in an
for the closing of the voting, or after the arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
voting and during the preparation and passion or personal hostility, and it must
the transmission of the election returns be so patent and gross as to amount to
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
election results in a failure to elect, and refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
in any such cases the failure or act at all in contemplation of law.[12] It is
suspension of election would affect the not sufficient that a tribunal, in the
result of the election, the Commission exercise of its power, abused its
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by discretion; such abuse must be grave.[13]
any interested party and after due notice
It is obvious at the outset that
and hearing, call for the holding or
petitioner raises issues foreign to the
continuation of the election not held,
remedy he seeks. He avers that a failure
suspended or which resulted in a failure
of elections must be declared in the
to elect on a date reasonably close to the
precincts in question since the voting
date of the election not held, suspended
therein was interrupted by the sudden
or which resulted in a failure to elect but
and threatening arrival of armed goons
not later than thirty days after the
of a rival candidate. He unequivocally
cessation of the cause of such
states that there was never any
postponement or suspension of the
resumption of voting since the ballot
election or failure to elect.
boxes and other election materials were
taken into custody by the military and
Elucidating on the aforesaid
brought to the municipal hall. In
provision, we held in Hassan v.
contrast, it is private respondents
Commission on Elections[10] that two (2)
contention that, in truth, voting resumed
pre-conditions must exist before a failure
peacefully at about one oclock in the
of election may be declared, thus: (1) no
afternoon on election day or after the
voting has been held in any precinct or
departure of the armed men. It is clear
precincts due to force majeure, violence
to us that whether there was a
or terrorism; and (2) the votes not cast
resumption of voting is essentially a
therein are sufficient to affect the results
question of fact. Such are not proper
of the election. The cause of such failure
subjects of inquiry in a petition
may arise before or after the casting of
for certiorari under Rule 65.[14]
votes or on the day of the election.[11]
In the same vein, neither may
Coming to the merits of the petition,
petitioner ask us to judge which of the
we are not sufficiently persuaded that the
two (2) incident reports issued by
public respondent COMELEC gravely
Captain Manquiquis should be given
abused its discretion in denying BENITOs
more credence. In this connection, it will
petition to declare a failure of election in
not be amiss to point out that the
precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A of
purported inconsistency between the two
Calanogas. Grave abuse of discretion
reports appear to be more imaginary affidavits[16] in turn repudiating those
than real. Petitioner characterizes the relied upon by private respondent in his
final incident report as a product of answer.[17] Just as the COMELEC was
falsification on the ground that its alleged reluctant to treat petitioners claim as
time and date of execution was at OOA gospel truth, so too do we hesitate to
111200H May 98 whereas the accord weight to this rigmarole of sworn
handwritten spot report was prepared at statements. As aptly held by the
OOa 111300H May 98. How then, COMELEC,
petitioner bewails, could such a final
report have been issued ahead of the In his reply, petitioner vehemently
initial report? We disagree with denied the allegation of respondent that
petitioner; we have read the final incident the voting in the three precincts
report and conclude that the time stated continued. He again presented the
therein referred not to the time of affidavits of the members of the different
execution of the said report but to the BEIs saying that they did not execute the
time of the occurrence of the affidavits presented by respondent
incident. We note that this is an Pagayawan and that their signatures
approximation of the time when the therein were forged. On its face,
armed strangers appeared and disrupted however, the signatures appear to have
the theretofore peaceful conduct of the been made by the same persons. This
elections. notwithstanding, WE shall not base our
resolution of this case on the affidavits
Similarly, nor would it be proper for
submitted by the members of the
us to pass upon the authenticity of the
different BEIs for the reason that they are
contradictory affidavits supposedly
contradictory to each other but rather on
executed by the members of the board of
the merits of the pleadings and other
election inspectors of the affected
evidences presented.
precincts. Both parties seek to introduce
into evidence affidavits ostensibly
In dismissing BENITO's petition for
executed by the same persons yet whose
lack of merit, the COMELEC further ruled
recitations are contradictory to each
thus:
other. As regards the incident reports,
evaluation of evidentiary matters is It is noteworthy to mention that of all the
beyond the province of a writ five precincts whose elections were held
of certiorari.[15] In any event, we find in Disimban Elementary School,
that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse petitioner Benito claimed only three
its discretion in refusing to give credit to precincts failed to function therein. In
either partys version. Naturally, fact he reiterated this in his reply though
petitioner and private respondent attest averring that he has no objection to
to the authenticity of the affidavits Macaborods prayer that failure of
favorable to them. To illustrate, election be likewise declared in precinct
petitioner insists that the genuineness of nos. 2A/2A1 and 13A and that special
the affidavits attached to the amended election be also held therein. Records of
petition he filed before the COMELEC is the case per pleadings of the parties
allegedly confirmed by the second set of
show that results of the elections in candidate Macaborod did not object to
nineteen (19) precincts out of the twenty the count of the other two precincts
two (22) precincts were already namely 2A/2A1 and 13A. If votes for
counted. Verification on the project of precincts 2A/2A1 and 13A were counted,
precincts also showed that there were the same must also be done for precincts
actually five precincts whose polling 6A/6A1, 15A, and 17A notwithstanding
places were in Disimban Elementary the fact that only very few voters cast
School. Per report of the Acting Election their votes. The disruption of voting in all
Officer of Calanogas, it was only the these precincts was caused by the same
counting of votes in precincts 6A/6A1, act: firing guns to intimidate all the
15A, and 17A which was actually voters therein to stop them from casting
objected to by the counsels of their votes. If voters in these precincts
petitioner. The strong objections to the really wanted to vote ,they could have
counting of the three precincts prompted done so after the cessation of the
by Atty. Wynne Asdala (COMELEC TASK terroristic acts. In precinct 15A, at 11:45
FORCE) and Col. Atienza (PA) to suspend A.M., only one vote was cast
the counting of votes for the municipality therein. Lack of interest may have been
of Calanogas. the problem herein that the cause
alluded to by petitioner.
The Commission gives more weight to
the report made by Captain Manquiquis After a careful consideration of the
whose final report to the Commission parties submissions, we find that the
says that the voting resumed an hour COMELEC did not gravely abuse its
after the firing occured which disrupted discretion in denying BENITOs petition to
the voting in all the five precincts declare a failure to election and to call a
clustered in Disimban Elementary special election. It is indeed odd that
School. His final report dated 11 May petitioner singles out only precincts 15A,
1998 confirms that no failure of elections 6A/6A1 and 17A as the subjects of his
in the five precincts occured. This is petition when there were two (2) other
buttressed by the fact that counsels of precincts in the same school.[18] It was
petitioner and all other parties and only in his reply with
candidates during the counting did not memorandum [19] did he signify his lack of
question the counting of votes for objection to a declaration of failure of
precincts 2A/2A1 and 13A whose polling election in precincts 2A/2A1 and 13A, as
place were also in the same school. This prayed for by candidate Amoran
fact gives us the impression that indeed Macaborods answer with counter-
voting in all the five precincts resumed petition.[20] Likewise, he never objected
after peace and order was re-established to the inclusion of the two (2) other
in Disimban Elem. School. There was no precincts during the canvassing and
objection raised to the count of votes in counting of votes.
the said two precincts during the
Petitioner attempts to overcome the
counting of votes at the counting
oversight by alleging that he had no
center. So why a selective objection to
opportunity to object thereto because his
the three precincts herein? Even
counsel, Atty. Hussein N. Mambuay, was
not present, allegedly because the latter the law had been so fundamental or so
did not possess the prescribed persistent and continuous that it is
identification for lawyers. In this regard, impossible to distinguish what votes are
we have reviewed the record and we lawful and what are unlawful, or to arrive
concur with private respondent that this at any certain result whatsoever, or that
claim of petitioner appears to be a mere the great body of voters have been
afterthought. Petitioner never raised this prevented by violence, intimidation and
particular issue in his earlier pleadings threats from exercising their franchise
filed with the COMELEC. Be that as it [citations omitted]
may, his counsel should have exercised
more prudence in securing beforehand xxx xxx xxx xxx
his proper identification papers.
There is failure of elections only when the
In a sense, petitioner equates failure
will of the electorate has been muted and
of elections to the low percentage of
cannot be ascertained. If the will of the
votes cast vis--vis the number of
people is determinable, the same must as
registered voters in the subject election
far as possible be respected.
precincts. However,
A final observation: petitioner should
[t]here can be failure of election in a
not ask us to declare a failure of elections
political unit only if the will of the
in the questioned precincts simply
majority has been defiled and cannot
because public respondent COMELEC
be ascertained. But, if it can be
declared a failure in other precincts in
determined, it must be accorded
Lanao del Sur. In the recently decided
respect. After all, there is no
case of Pangandaman v. Commission on
provision in our election laws which
Elections,[23] we unanimously[24] upheld
requires that a majority of registered
the very same Omnibus Order[25] dated
voters must cast their votes. All the
July 14, 1998 relied upon by petitioner,
law requires is that a winning
on these premises:
candidate must be elected by a
plurality of valid votes, regardless of Petitioners argument that respondent
the actual number of ballots COMELEC gravely
cast. Thus, even if less than 25% of abused its discretion by failing to declar
the electorate in the questioned e a total failure of elections
precincts cast their votes, the same in the entire province of Lanao del Sur a
must still be respected. xxxx[21] nd to certify the same to
the President and Congress so that the
As we also explained in Sardea v.
necessarylegislation may be
Commission on Elections,[22]
enacted for the holding of a special elect
ion, likewise fails to persuade.
The power to throw out or annul an
election should be exercised with the
No less than the petitioner himself
utmost care and only under
concedes that there was total failure of
circumstances which demonstrate
elections in twelve (12) municipalities
beyond doubt either that the disregard of
and partial failure in eleven (11). Yet he A petition for declaration of failure of
now insists a total failure of elections election must specifically allege the
should have been declared in the entire essential grounds that would justify the
province of Lanao del Sur. Suffice it to exercise of this extraordinary
state that the propriety of declaring remedy. Otherwise, the Comelec can
whether or not there has been a total dismiss outright the petition for lack
failure of elections in the entire province of merit. No grave abuse of discretion
of Lanao del Sur is a factual issue which can be attributed to the Comelec in such
this Court will not delve into considering a case because the Comelec must
that the COMELEC, through its deputized exercise with utmost circumspection the
officials in the field, is in the best position power to declare a failure of election to
to assess the actual conditions prevailing prevent disenfranchising voters and
in that area. Absent any showing of frustrating the electorates will.
grave abuse of discretion, the findings of
fact of the COMELEC or any
administrative agency exercising The Case
particular expertise in its field of
endeavor, are binding on the
Before us is a petition for review on
Court. There is no cogent reason to
certiorari of the Resolution[1] of the
depart from the general rule in this case.
Commission on Elections en banc dated
October 12, 2001 dismissing petitioner
Hence, in view of all the foregoing,
Bago P. Pasandalans (Pasandalan for
we find no reason to disturb the
brevity) petition to declare a failure of
Resolution of COMELEC under review.
election.
WHEREFORE, the petition
Pasandalan and private respondent
for certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of
Bai Salamona L. Asum (Asum for brevity)
merit.
were candidates for mayor in the
SO ORDERED. Municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao del
Sur during the May 14, 2001 elections.
On May 23, 2001, Pasandalan filed a
petition[2] before public respondent
Commission on Elections (Comelec for
brevity) seeking to nullify the election
results in Barangay Cabasaran (Precinct
BAGO P. PASANDALAN, petitioner, Nos. 9A, 10A, 11A and 12A), Barangay
vs. COMMISSION ON Deromoyod (Precinct Nos. 24A, 25A and
ELECTIONS and BAI 26A), Lamin (Precinct Nos. 29A and 30A),
SALAMONA L. Barangay Wago (Precinct Nos. 46A, 47A
ASUM, respondents. and 48A), Barangay Meniros (Precinct
Nos. 32A, 33A and 34A), Barangay
DECISION Bualan (Precinct Nos. 6A, 7A and 8A) and
Barangay Pantaon (Precinct Nos. 38A
CARPIO, J.:
and 39A), all of Lumbayanague, Lanao Asum was sworn into office and assumed
del Sur. the position of municipal mayor of the
Lumbayanague, Lanao del Sur.
Petitioner alleged that on May 14,
2001, while voting was going on, some On October 12, 2001, the Comelec
Cafgus stationed near Sultan Gunting issued a Resolution dismissing the
Elementary School indiscriminately fired petition for lack of merit.[3]
their firearms causing the voters to panic
Hence, this petition.
and leave the polling center without
casting their votes. Taking advantage of
the confusion, supporters of Asum
The Comelecs Ruling
allegedly took the official ballots, filled
them up with the name of Asum and
placed them inside the ballot boxes. The The Comelec ruled that the power to
incident allegedly marred the election declare a failure of election, being an
results in Precinct Nos. 9A-12A, 24A-26A extraordinary remedy, could be exercised
and 29A-30A. only in three instances: (1) the election is
not held; (2) the election is suspended;
In Precinct Nos. 46A, 47 and 48A, the
or (3) the election results in a failure to
members of the Board of Election
elect. The third instance is understood in
Inspectors (BEI for brevity) allegedly
its literal sense, that is, nobody was
failed to sign their initials at the back of
elected.
several official ballots and to remove the
detachable coupons. The BEI members The Comelec dismissed the petition
allegedly affixed their initials only during because none of the grounds relied upon
the counting of votes. by Pasandalan falls under any of the
three instances justifying a declaration of
In Precinct Nos. 6A-8A, 32A-34A and
failure of election. First, the elections in
38A-39A, Pasandalan claims that Asums
the questioned precincts were held as
supporters, taking advantage of the
scheduled. Second, the gunshots heard
fistfight between Asums nephew and the
during the casting of votes did not
supporters of candidate Norania Salo,
suspend the election as the voting
grabbed the official ballots and filled
continued normally. Third, Asum was
them up with the name of Asum.
elected by a plurality of votes.
Pasandalan contends that a technical
The authenticity and integrity of the
examination of several official ballots
election returns were left undisturbed
from the contested precincts would show
throughout the preparation,
that only a few persons wrote the entries.
transmission, custody and canvass of the
On June 26, 2001, Asum filed an returns. Pasandalan alleges fraud and
Answer denying Pasandalans allegation terrorism, in that there was massive
that the volley of shots fired on May 14, substitution of voters, firing of guns to
2001 disrupted the voting. Private frighten the voters, and failure of the BEI
respondent countered that the gunshots members to sign at the back of some
were heard around 2:35 p.m. and not at official ballots and to remove the
the start of the voting. On June 30, 2001, detachable coupons. The Comelec ruled
that these allegations are better LUMBAYANAGUE, LANAO DEL SUR IN
ventilated in an election contest. THE LAST MAY 14, 2001 REGULAR
ELECTIONS AND MAY 30, 2001 SPECIAL
The Comelec did not give credence
ELECTIONS.[4]
to Pasandalans evidence in support of his
allegations of terrorism and fraud since
the evidence consisted only of affidavits
The Courts Ruling
executed by Pasandalans own poll
watchers. The Comelec considered these
affidavits self-serving and insufficient to We rule that the petition is without
annul the results of the election. Thus, merit. The Comelec correctly dismissed
the Comelec dismissed the petition for the petition for declaration of failure of
lack of merit. election because the irregularities alleged
in the petition should have been raised in
an election protest, not in a petition to
The Issues declare a failure of election.
Under Republic Act No. 7166,
Pasandalan now assails the Comelecs otherwise known as The Synchronized
dismissal of his petition, raising the Elections Law of 1991,[5] the Comelec en
following issues: banc is empowered to declare a failure of
election under Section 6 of the Omnibus
1. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). Section 6
ELECTIONS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN of the Code prescribes the conditions for
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH the exercise of this power, thus:
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
DISMISSING THE PETITION IN SPA NO. SEC. 6. Failure of Election. - If, on
01-305 FOR ALLEGED LACK OF MERIT; account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous
2. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON causes the election in any polling place
ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE has not been held on the date fixed, or
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK had been suspended before the hour
OF JURISDICTION IN NOT ANNULING fixed by law for closing of the voting, or
THE ELECTION OR DECLARING A after the voting and during the
FAILURE OF ELECTION IN THE SIXTEEN preparation and the transmission of the
(16) QUESTIONED PRECINCTS; election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in
3. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON a failure to elect, and in any of such cases
ELECTIONS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN the failure or suspension of election
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION OR WITH would affect the result of the election,
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT the Commission shall, on the basis of a
DECLARING AS ILLEGAL, NULL AND verified petition by any interested party
VOID AB INITIO THE PROCLAMATION and after due notice and hearing, call for
OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS THE the holding or continuation of the
DULY ELECTED MAYOR OF election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later volley of shots from high-powered
than thirty days after the cessation of the firearms allegedly forced the voters to
cause of such postponement or scamper away from the polling place,
suspension of the election or failure to paving the way for Asums supporters to
elect. write the name of Asum on the
ballots. The gunfire also frightened
Based on the foregoing provision, Pasandalans poll watchers. The heavy
three instances justify a declaration of firing allegedly suspended or prevented
failure of election. These are: the holding of elections in the contested
precincts, resulting in failure to elect. The
(a) the election in any polling place has victory of Asum is thus put in serious
not been held on the date fixed on doubt.
account of force majeure, violence,
We do not agree. Pasandalans
terrorism, fraud or other analogous
allegations do not fall under any of the
causes;
instances that would justify the
(b) the election in any polling place has declaration of failure of election. The
been suspended before the hour fixed by election was held in the 16 protested
law for the closing of the voting on precincts as scheduled. At no point was
account of force majeure, violence, the election in any of the precincts
terrorism, fraud or other analogous suspended. Nor was there a failure to
causes; or elect because of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous
(c) after the voting and during the causes during the preparation,
preparation and transmission of the transmission, custody and canvass of the
election returns or in the custody or election returns. The alleged terrorism
canvass thereof, such election results in was not of such scale and prevalence to
a failure to elect on account of force prevent the holding of the election or to
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or cause its suspension. In fact, the casting
other analogous causes.[6] and counting of votes, the preparation,
transmission and canvassing of election
What is common in these three instances returns and the proclamation of the
is the resulting failure to elect.[7] In the winning candidate took place in due
first instance, no election is held while in course.
the second, the election is Courts exercise the power to declare
suspended. In the third instance,
[8]
a failure of election with deliberate
circumstances attending the preparation, caution so as not to disenfranchise the
transmission, custody or canvas of the electorate.[10] The fact alone that actual
election returns cause a failure to voting took place already militates
elect. The term failure to elect means against Pasandalans cause.Also,
nobody emerged as a winner. [9] Pasandalans allegations of terrorism and
Pasandalan asserts that the fraud are not sufficient to warrant a
conditions for the declaration of failure of nullification of the election in the absence
election are present in this case. The of any of the three instances justifying a
declaration of failure of substantiate his allegations of terrorism
election. Terrorism may not be invoked and irregularities. His evidence consisted
to declare a failure of election and to only of affidavits. Mere affidavits are
disenfranchise the greater number of the insufficient,[18] more so in this case since
electorate through the misdeeds of only the affidavits were all executed by
a few,[11] absent any of the three Pasandalans own poll watchers. Factual
instances specified by law. findings of the Comelec are binding on
this Court.[19] Accordingly, the following
To warrant a declaration of failure of
findings of the Comelec in the instant
election on the ground of fraud, the fraud
case must be respected:
must prevent or suspend the holding of
an election, or mar fatally the
xxx There was an allegation in the
preparation, transmission, custody and
amended petition that while voting was
canvass of the election returns.[12] The
taking place in Sultan Gunting
conditions for the declaration of failure of
Elementary School, gunshots were heard
election are stringent. Otherwise,
causing the voters to scamper for safety
elections will never end for losers will
and leave the polling center without
always cry fraud and terrorism.[13]
having cast their votes. However, other
The allegations of massive than his bare allegation and the pre-
substitution of voters, multiple voting, typed affidavits of his watchers,
and other electoral anomalies should be petitioner did not present substantial and
resolved in a proper election protest[14] in convincing evidence to support his
the absence of any of the three instances claim. On the other hand, 1 Lt. Frederick
justifying a declaration of failure of Galang Pa of the 29th Infantry Battalion
election. In an election protest, the assigned in Lumbayanague categorically
election is not set aside, and there is only declared in his affidavit that despite the
a revision or recount of the ballots cast to gunshots which were heard at around
determine the real winner.[15] 2:35 PM when the polls were about to
close, the voting continued normally.
The nullification of elections or
This statement was bolstered by the
declaration of failure of elections is an
narrative report of Urangutan Mamailao,
extraordinary remedy.[16] The party who
Election Officer of Lumbayanague, on the
seeks the nullification of an election has
conduct of the election in said
the burden of proving entitlement to this
municipality. The report was
remedy. It is not enough that a verified
spontaneously prepared when the
petition is filed. The allegations in the
incident happened. Taken in the light of
petition must make out a prima
the presumption of regularity in the
facie case for the declaration of failure of
performance of official functions, these
election, and convincing evidence must
two affidavits carry great weight. Third,
substantiate the allegations.[17]
the authenticity and integrity of the
In the instant case, it is apparent that election returns are left undisturbed
the allegations do not constitute throughout the preparation,
sufficient grounds for the nullification of transmission, custody and canvass
the election. Pasandalan even failed to thereof. There was no allegation, much
less proof that the sanctity of the election School while that of Barangay Lamin was
returns was defiled. Lamin Primary School. How they were
able to witness said incident when they
xxx were miles away from where it happened
is mystifying. Besides, this is not the
A thorough examination of the affidavits proper forum to challenge illegal
reveals that they suffer from both voters. Even at the precinct level,
extrinsic and intrinsic invalidity. The form petitioners watchers are empowered to
and the contents of the affidavits were question any irregularity which they think
pre-typed, and all the affiants had to do may have been committed by any person
was to fill-up the blank spaces for their or to challenge the capacity of any person
names and precinct assignments. This offering to vote. Failing to avail himself of
clearly shows that some other person this remedy, petitioner cannot now pass
prepared the affidavits and it is doubtful the burden to innocent voters by calling
whether the affiants understood the for the annulment of the results of a
contents thereof before they signed validly held election.[20]
them.
Pasandalan bewails the Comelecs
Also worth noting is the fact that the dismissal of his petition without first
contents of the affidavits are identical. It conducting a technical examination of
is highly questionable why different the questioned precincts. Pasandalan
persons have exactly the same claims that had the Comelec made a
observation of different incidents. Even technical examination of the questioned
persons confronted with the same precincts, the Comelec would have
occurrence would have different discovered massive substitution of
observations of the same incident voters, terrorism, violence, threats,
because human perception is essentially coercion, intimidation and other electoral
affected by several factors like the frauds, resulting in a failure of
senses, mental condition, personal election. Pasandalan insists that a
disposition, environment, etc. technical examination in this case would
have been proper as in Typoco, Jr. v.
Moreover, the affidavits contain Commission on Elections,[21] which is also
inconsistent statements and incredible a case of failure of election.
allegations which bolster the conclusion
that they were tailored to suit the needs The Comelec is not mandated to
of the petitioner. For example, the joint- conduct a technical examination before it
affidavit of Badjomura Calauto and dismisses a petition for nullification of
Macaruog Ampuan states that they were election when the petition is, on its face,
in Barangay Cabasaran during the May without merit. In Typoco, petitioner
14 election when they saw the men of Typoco buttressed his petition with
respondent fill-up the ballots in Precinct independent evidence that compelled the
Nos. 29A-30A of Barangay Lamin. The Comelec to conduct a technical
venue of voting for Barangay Cabasaran examination of the questioned
was Sultan Gunting Central Elementary returns. Typoco filed a Motion to Admit
Evidence to prove that a substantial
number of election returns were of elections for being groundless, hence
manufactured. Typoco claimed that the without merit.
returns were prepared by only one
person based on the report of Francisco Clearly, the fact that a verified
S. Cruz, a licensed examiner of petition is filed with the Comelec does not
questioned documents, who examined necessarily mean that a technical
copies of the election returns of Lakas- examination or a hearing on the case
NUCD. In the present case, Pasandalan should be conducted first before the
failed to attach independent and Comelec can act on the petition.There is
objective evidence other than the self- no grave abuse of discretion if the
serving affidavits of his own poll Comelec dismisses the petition even
watchers. without a technical examination or
hearing if the petition fails to show on its
In Mitmug v. Commission on
face the existence of any of the three
Elections,[22] we ruled that the Comelec
instances required by law to declare a
could dismiss outright a petition for
failure of election. The Comelec in this
nullification of election if it is plainly
case correctly dismissed the petition.
groundless and the allegations therein
could be better ventilated in an election Pasandalan believes that
protest. In Banaga, Jr. v. Commission on notwithstanding the fact that actual
Elections,[23] we reiterated this doctrine, voting took place in the questioned
thus - precincts, the election in this case, just
like in Basher v. Commission on
Finally, petitioner claims that public Elections,[24] was illegal, irregular, and
respondent gravely abused its discretion void.[25]Citing Basher, Pasandalan argues
when it dismissed his petition motu that the peculiar set of facts in this case
propio. However, the fact that a verified do not merely show a failure of election
petition has been filed does not mean but the absence of a valid electoral
that a hearing on the case should first be exercise.[26]
held before Comelec can act on it. The
The fact that an election is actually
petition to declare a failure of election
held prevents as a rule a declaration of
and/or to annul election results must
failure of election. It is only when the
show on its face that the conditions
election is attended by patent and
necessary to declare a failure to elect are
massive irregularities and illegalities that
present. In their absence, the petition
this Court will annul the
must be denied outright. Public
election. Basher is an example of such a
respondent had no recourse but to
case.
dismiss the petition. Nor may petitioner
now complain of denial of due process, In Basher, after a series of failed
on this score, for his failure to properly elections in Barangay Maidan,
file an election protest. The Comelec can Municipality of Tugaya, Lanao del Sur
only rule on what was filed before it. It during the 1997 barangay elections, the
committed no grave abuse of discretion election was reset to August 30,
in dismissing his petition to declare 1997. Due to the prevailing tension in the
failure of elections and/or for annulment locality, the voting started only at around
9 p.m. and lasted until the early morning
of the following day. Basher filed a
petition for the nullification of
election. The Comelec ruled against a
failure of election because actual voting
had taken place. However, we
overturned the Comelec ruling because NESTOR B. MAGNO, petitioner, vs.
the election was unauthorized and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
invalid. The electorate was not given and CARLOS C.
sufficient notice that the election would MONTES, respondents.
push through after 9 p.m. of the same
day. Moreover, the voting did not comply DECISION
with the procedure laid down by law and CORONA, J.:
by Comelec rules as to the time and place
of voting. Thus, we held that the election Before this Court is a petition
was illegal, irregular and for certiorari under Rule 65 which seeks
void. Consequently, we annulled the to annul and set aside the resolution
proclamation of the winning candidate dated May 7, 2001 of the Commission on
and ordered a special election. Elections as well as the resolution dated
Basher does not apply to this May 12, 2001 denying petitioners motion
case. Unlike in Basher, the election in this for reconsideration.
case proceeded as scheduled, in This petition originated from a case
accordance with law and Comelec filed by private respondent on March 21,
rules. None of the extreme 2001 for the disqualification of petitioner
circumstances that marred the election Nestor Magno as mayoralty candidate of
in Basher is present in this case. We San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May
have ruled that there is failure of election 14, 2001 elections on the ground that
only if the will of the electorate is muted petitioner was previously convicted by
and cannot be ascertained.[27] If the will the Sandiganbayan of four counts of
of the people is determinable, the same direct bribery penalized under Article 210
must be respected as much as of the Revised Penal Code. It appears
possible.[28] In this case, the will of the that on July 25, 1995, petitioner was
electorate is readily sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
discernible. Pasandalan should have filed penalty of 3 months and 11 days
an election protest to substantiate his of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year 8
allegations of electoral anomalies, not a months and 21 days of prision
petition to declare a failure of election. correccional as maximum, for each of the
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is four counts of direct bribery. Thereafter,
DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution of petitioner applied for probation and was
public respondent Comelec is discharged on March 5, 1998 upon order
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan,
Nueva Ecija.
SO ORDERED.
 On May 7, 2001, the Commission on disqualification will end only on March 5,
Elections (COMELEC) rendered a decision 2003.
granting the petition of private
On May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a
respondent and declaring that petitioner
motion for reconsideration but the same
was disqualified from running for the
was denied by the COMELEC in its
position of mayor in the May 14, 2001
resolution dated May 12, 2001.
elections. In ruling against petitioner, the
COMELEC cited Section 12 of the BP 881 Hence, this petition.
or the Omnibus Election Code which
Petitioner argues that direct bribery
provides as follows:
is not a crime involving moral
turpitude. Likewise, he cites Section 40
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. Any person
of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local
who has been declared by competent
Government Code of 1991, which he
authority insane or incompetent, or has
claims is the law applicable to the case at
been sentenced by final judgment for
bar, not BP 881 or the Omnibus Election
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for
Code as claimed by the COMELEC. Said
any offense for which he has been
provision reads:
sentenced to a penalty of more than
eighteen (18) months, or for a crime
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The
involving moral turpitude, shall be
following persons are disqualified from
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold
running for any elective local position:
any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon, or granted amnesty.
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment
for an offense involving moral turpitude
The disqualifications to be a candidate
or for an offense punishable by one (1)
herein provided shall be deemed
year or more of imprisonment, within two
removed upon the declaration by
(2) years after serving sentence.
competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after
xxxx
the expiration of a period of five years
from his service of sentence, unless
Petitioner insists that he had already
within the same period he again becomes served his sentence as of March 5, 1998
disqualified. when he was discharged from
probation. Such being the case, the two-
The above provision explicitly lifts the
year disqualification period imposed by
disqualification to run for an elective
Section 40 of the Local Government Code
office of a person convicted of a crime
expired on March 5, 2000. Thus,
involving moral turpitude after five (5)
petitioner was qualified to run in the 2001
years from the service of
elections.
sentence. According to the COMELEC,
inasmuch as petitioner was considered to Meanwhile, Sonia Lorenzo was
have completed the service of his proclaimed by the COMELEC as the duly
sentence on March 5, 1998, his five-year elected mayor of San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija. Thus, on June 19, 2001, petitioner
filed a supplemental petition which this In this case, we need not review the
Court merely noted in its resolution dated facts and circumstances relating to the
June 26, 2001. In his supplemental commission of the crime considering that
petition, petitioner assailed the petitioner did not assail his conviction. By
proclamation of Sonia Lorenzo on the applying for probation, petitioner in
ground that the propriety of his effect admitted all the elements of the
disqualification was still under review by crime of direct bribery:
this Court. Petitioner likewise asked this
1. the offender is a public officer;
Court to declare him as the duly elected
municipal mayor instead of Sonia 2. the offender accepts an offer
Lorenzo. or promise or receives a gift or
present by himself or through
On July 18, 2001, the Solicitor-
another;
General filed his manifestation and
agreed with petitioner that COMELEC 3. such offer or promise be
should have applied Section 40 of the accepted or gift or present be
Local Government Code. received by the public officer
with a view to committing
The main issue is whether or not
some crime, or in
petitioner was disqualified to run for
consideration of the execution
mayor in the 2001 elections. In resolving
of an act which does not
this, two sub-issues need to be threshed
constitute a crime but the act
out, namely: (1) whether the crime of
must be unjust, or to refrain
direct bribery involves moral turpitude
from doing something which it
and (2) whether it is the Omnibus
is his official duty to do; and
Election Code or the Local Government
[Italics supplied]
Code that should apply in this situation.
4. the act which the offender
Regarding the first sub-issue, the
agrees to perform or which he
Court has consistently adopted the
executes is connected with
definition in Blacks Law Dictionary of
the performance of his official
moral turpitude as:
duties.[3]
x x x an act of baseness, vileness, or Moral turpitude can be inferred from
depravity in the private duties which a the third element. The fact that the
man owes his fellow men, or to society in offender agrees to accept a promise or
general, contrary to the accepted and gift and deliberately commits an unjust
customary rule of right and duty between act or refrains from performing an official
man and woman or conduct contrary to duty in exchange for some favors,
justice, honesty, modesty, or good denotes a malicious intent on the part of
morals.[1] the offender to renege on the duties
which he owes his fellowmen and society
Not every criminal act, however, in general. Also, the fact that the
involves moral turpitude. It frequently offender takes advantage of his office
depends on the circumstances and position is a betrayal of the trust
surrounding the violation of the law.[2] reposed on him by the public. It is a
conduct clearly contrary to the accepted laws are repealed only by subsequent
rules of right and duty, justice, honesty ones, and not the other way
and good morals. In all respects, direct around. When a subsequent law entirely
bribery is a crime involving moral encompasses the subject matter of the
turpitude. former enactment, the latter is deemed
repealed.
It is the second sub-issue which is
problematical. There appears to be a In David vs. COMELEC[5], we
glaring incompatibility between the five- declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of
year disqualification period provided in laws that specifically applies to local
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code government units. Section 40 thereof
and the two-year disqualification period specially and definitively provides for
in Section 40 of the Local Government disqualifications of candidates for
Code. elective local positions. It is applicable to
them only. On the other hand, Section 12
It should be noted that the Omnibus
of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of
Election Code (BP 881) was approved on
candidates for any public office. It deals
December 3, 1985 while the Local
with the election of all public
Government Code (RA 7160) took effect
officers. Thus, Section 40 of RA 7160,
on January 1, 1992. It is basic in
insofar as it governs the disqualifications
statutory construction that in case of
of candidates for local positions, assumes
irreconcilable conflict between two laws,
the nature of a special law which ought
the later enactment must prevail,
to prevail.
being the more recent expression of
legislative will.[4] Legis posteriores The intent of the legislature to
priores contrarias abrogant. In enacting reduce the disqualification period of
the later law, the legislature is presumed candidates for local positions from five to
to have knowledge of the older law and two years is evident. The cardinal rule in
intended to change it. Furthermore, the the interpretation of all laws is to
repealing clause of Section 534 of RA ascertain and give effect to the intent of
7160 or the Local Government Code the law.[6] The reduction of the
states that: disqualification period from five to two
years is the manifest intent.
(f) All general and special laws, acts, city
Therefore, although his crime of
charters, decrees, executive orders,
direct bribery involved moral turpitude,
proclamations and administrative
petitioner nonetheless could not be
regulations, or part or parts thereof
disqualified from running in the 2001
which are inconsistent with any
elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus
provisions of this Code are hereby
Election Code (BP 881) must yield to
repealed or modified accordingly.
Article 40 of the Local Government Code
(RA 7160). Petitioners disqualification
In accordance therewith, Section 40 of
ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was
RA 7160 is deemed to have repealed
therefore under no such disqualification
Section 12 of BP 881. Furthermore,
anymore when he ran for mayor of San
Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that
Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 DECISION
elections.
CARPIO, J.:
Unfortunately, however, neither this
Court nor this case is the proper forum to
rule on (1) the validity of Sonia Lorenzos The Case
proclamation and (2) the declaration of
petitioner as the rightful
Before us is a Petition
winner. Inasmuch as Sonia Lorenzo had
for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance
already been proclaimed as the winning
of a writ of preliminary injunction and a
candidate, the legal remedy of petitioner
temporary restraining order under Rule
would have been a timely election
64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
protest.
Procedure[1] assailing the Resolution of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is the Commission on Elections (Comelec
hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The for brevity) en banc[2] in SPC No. 01-276
challenged resolutions of the Commission dated October 24, 2001, the dispositive
on Elections dated May 7, 2001 and May portion of which reads:
12, 2001 are hereby reversed and set
aside. The petitioners prayer in his WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
supplemental petition for his instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
proclamation as the winner in the May results of special elections held on 30
14, 2001 mayoralty elections in San May 2001 covering Precincts Nos. 2A,
Isidro, Nueva Ecija, not being within our 2A1/2A2 in Barangay Bangko, Precinct
jurisdiction, is hereby denied. No. 3A in Barangay Cabasaran and
clustered Precinct No. 10A/10A1 in
SO ORDERED.
Barangay Liangan are hereby
ANNULLED.

Accordingly, the proclamation of all

winning candidates insofar as the results
in the four (4) contested precincts affect
the standing of candidates is hereby SET
ASIDE until the choice of the people is
MAYOR JUN RASCAL CAWASA,
finally determined through another
COUNCILORS MAASIRAL
special election to be authorized,
DAMPA, H. ACKIL
conducted and supervised by this
MAMANTUC, MOMOLAWAN
Commission as soon as possible unless
MACALI, ANDAR TALI, ALLAN
restrained.
SANAYON, and AMIN
SANGARAN, petitioners,
Finally, the Law Department is hereby
vs. THE COMMISSION ON
directed to investigate the election
ELECTIONS and ABDULMALIK
irregularities that transpired in the
M.
Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao del
MANAMPARAN, respondents.
Norte involving the Office of the Election
Officer and thereafter, file election deferred the proclamation of all winning
offense case/s should there be finding of candidates due to the failure of the said
probable cause and other appropriate 4 precincts to function. Special elections
cases if warranted under the were set on May 30, 2001 considering
circumstances. that the number of registered voters in
the remaining four precincts would affect
SO ORDERED.[3] the election results. The Comelec
promulgated Resolution No. 4360 on May
21, 2001 authorizing the conduct of
The Facts special elections in the affected areas,
including barangays Bangko, Cabasaran
and Liangan in Nunungan, the pertinent
During the May 14, 2001 elections,
portion of which states:
petitioner Jun Rascal Cawasa (petitioner
Cawasa for brevity) and private
VII. Memorandum of Commissioner
respondent Adbulmalik M.
Mehol K. Sadain dated 19 May 2001.
Manamparan (private respondent
Manamparan for brevity) were among
REGION MUNICIPALITY/PROVINCE
thecandidates for mayor
Region XII Nunu(n)gan, Lanao
in the Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao
del Norte
del Norte (Nunungan for brevity). Out of
Barangays:
the forty (40) precincts in Nunungan,
1. Bangco
only thirty-six (36) functioned, as there
2. Cabasaran
was a failure of election in the remaining
3. Liangan
four (4) precincts. The following were the
precincts, barangays, polling places and
REASONS : disagreement of
number of registered voters where there
venue of election, tension of
was a failure of election:
BEIs, forcible taking of the ballot
boxes and other election
PRECINCT NO. BARANGAY POLLING
paraphernalia.
PLACE REG. VOTERS
Scheduled date: May 30, 2001
2A Bangko Bangko Prim School 200
xxx
2A1/2A2 Bangko -do- 254
In view of the foregoing the Commission
3A Cabasaran Cabasaran Prim. Sch. 155
RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVED, as
follows:
10A/10A1 Liangan Liangan Prim.
Sch. 236
1. To schedule the special
Total 845
elections in the foregoing
areas on May 26 and 30,
After canvassing the election returns
2001 as herein specified;
from the 36 precincts, the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Nunungan
xxx
Let the Executive Director, Deputy M
Executive Directors for Operations and all a
the working Committees implement this r
resolution. g
i
SO ORDERED.[4] n
.
As scheduled, the special elections .
covering the 4 precincts were conducted .
on May 30, 2001. The special elections .
for Precincts Nos. 2A, 2A1/2A2 of
Barangay Bangko were conducted in the .
Municipality of Sultan Naga Dimaporo,
Lanao del Norte. The special elections for 2
Precinct No. 3A of Barangay Cabasara 9
and Precinct Nos. 10A/10A1 of Barangay 7
Liangan were conducted in the
As shown above, during the May 14,
Municipality of Sapad, Lanao del Norte.
2001 regular elections, the lead of
The Municipal Board of Canvassers of petitioner Cawasa was eighty six
Nunungan canvassed the election returns (86). After the May 30, 2001 special
of the 4 precincts on May 31, 2001. After elections, private respondent
the canvassing of the election returns, Manamparan overcame the margin with
the Municipal Board of Canvassers a lead of 297 votes.
proclaimed the winning candidates on
Petitioner Cawasa was proclaimed
the basis of the earlier 36 election returns
mayor of Nunungan and his co-
of the May 14, 2001 regular elections and
petitioners Maasiral Dampa, H. Ackil
the 4 election returns of the 4 precincts
Mamantuc, Momolawan Macali, Andar
subject of the special elections.
Tali, Allan Sanayon and Amin Sangaran
The May 14, 2001 regular elections were also proclaimed as councilors of
and the May 30, 2001 special elections Nunungan.
show the following results with respect to
On June 4, 2001, private respondent
the position of mayor:
Manamparan filed an appeal and petition
Sub-Total of Votes Sub-Total of to annul the proclamation of
votes Grand petitioner Cawasa docketed as SPC No.
Obtained May 14, 2001 Obtained 01-252. The appeal/petition was
May 30, Total dismissed by the Comelec Second
Regular Elections 2001 Special Elections Division on September 26, 2001.
In the meantime, on June 8, 2001,
Private Respondent private respondent Manamparan filed a
Manamparan 1,197 570 1,767 petition for Annulment of Election Results
Petitioner during the May 30, 2001 Special Elections
Cawasa 1,283 187 1,470 in Precincts No. 2A, 2A1/2A2, 3A, and
10A/10A1 of Nunungan, Lanao Del Norte, cannot be ratified by such proclamation
and Annulment of Canvass and and subsequent assumption of office.
Proclamation with Prayer for Issuance of The Comelec declared that there is no
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ forum-shopping considering that SPC 01-
of Preliminary Injunction docketed as 252 pending before the Second Division
SPC Case No. 01-276. Impleaded as of the Comelec is a pre-proclamation
respondents were petitioner Cawasa and controversy,[9] while SPC 01-276 pending
the Municipal Board of Canvassers before the Comelec en banc is a case for
composed of Mario Allan annulment of election results.
Ballesta, Nedalyn
[5] S. Sebial and
[6]
Second. The Comelec found that
Iluminada O. Pegalan. [7]
the special elections were not held in the
As mentioned at the outset, on designated polling places in Nunungan
October 24, 2001, the Comelec en but were transferred to the municipalities
banc promulgated a resolution annulling of Sapad and Sultan Naga Dimaporo
the results of the special elections of the without any authority from the Comelec.
4 precincts (Precinct Nos. 2A, 2A1/2A2, According to the Comelec, the Election
3A, 10A/10A1) held on May 30, 2001 Officer, who happened to be the
conducted in the municipalities of Sultan chairman of the Municipal Board of
Naga Dimaporo and Sapad. The Comele Canvassers, caused the transfer of the
c en banc also annulled the proclamation polling places without asking permission
of all winning candidates insofar as the from the Comelec. The transfer was
results in the 4 contested precincts affect likewise in violation of the due process
the standing of candidates. requirements found in Section 153 of the
Omnibus Election Code. Moreover, it
ruled that the unauthorized transfer of a
The Comelec Ruling polling place is also punishable as an
election offense under Section 261(z)
(17) of the Same Code. We quote the
In granting the petition, the Comelec
pertinent portion of the Comelec ruling
held that the special elections in the 4
thus:
contested precincts were not genuinely
held and resulted in failure to elect on
The transfer of polling places cannot be
account of fraud. The Comelecs ruling is
done without due process. This is the
summarized as follows:
explicit rule of Section 153 of the
First. The Comelec clarified that the Omnibus Election Code, x x x:
Comelec en banc can take cognizance of
the petition for annulment of election xxxxxxxxx
results in accordance with Section 4 of RA
7166[8], otherwise known as the In the instant case, the Election Officer,
Synchronized Elections Law of 1991. It who happened to be the Chairman of the
explained that while the proclamation of respondent Board, also caused the
a candidate has the effect of terminating transfer of the polling places without
pre-proclamation issues, a proclamation asking the permission of this Commission
that is a result of an illegal act is void and and in violation of the due process rule,
thereby, making the afore-quoted Petitioners argue that the
Section 153 inutile. COMELEC en banc Resolution was issued
without jurisdiction and/or with grave
Considering these unwarranted acts of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
the official of this Commission, the jurisdiction for the following reasons:
sanctity of the special elections therefore
"1. The proclamation of the six
is suspect. Nothing in the records
(6) petitioners Maasiral
could show that notice was given to
Dampa, H. Ackil Mamantuc,
the political candidates and to the
Momolawan Macali, Andar
registered voters affected by the
Tali, Allan Sanayon, and Amin
special elections of the said transfer
Sangaran were annulled and
of polling places. Who therefore
set aside in violation of due
voted on the assailed special
process of law. They were not
elections given these
impleaded as respondents in
circumstances? This issue has never
the petition to annul the
beensquarely addressed by the
election. They were not
respondents.
notified of the proceedings. x
x x.
We take judicial notice of the
distance of the venues of voting 2. The transfer of the venue of
which are more or less 25 the special elections at Sultan
kilometers away from Nunungan, Naga Dimaporo and Sapad
far from being accessible to the and the appointment of
voters given the time and material military personnel as
constraints. The panorama of what members of the Board of
is supposed to be a free and honest election Inspectors of the four
exercise of democracy is indeed (4) precincts were agreed
rendered myopic by fraud upon by the private
perpetrated by no other than the respondent and the municipal
COMELEC officials concerned.[10] candidates and their
respective political parties.
Third. The Comelec found that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers, headed 3. The election officer in the
by Mario Allan Ballesta, preposterously exercise of his discretion has
authority to transfer the
feigned ignorance of the fact that during
venue of the special elections
the said special elections, members of
the Philippine Army 26th Infantry in view of the agreement of
Battalion served as election inspectors the political parties and
municipal candidates on the
without authority from the Comelec.
transfer of the venue of the
Hence, the instant petition. special elections. x x x.
4. There is substantial
The Issues compliance with the
provisions of Sec. 153 of the
 Omnibus Election Code. The municipalities is legal; (2) the
political parties and municipal appointment of military personnel as
candidates of the municipality members of the board of election
Nunungan were notified and inspectors is legal; and (3) the
in fact agreed to the transfer petitioners were accorded due process
of venue of the special prior to the promulgation of the assailed
elections. resolution in SPC No. 01-276.
5. The COMELEC en banc
promulgated the October 24,
The Courts Ruling
2001 resolution without
requiring its election officer of
Nunungan, the provincial The petition is bereft of merit.
election supervisor of Lanao
First Issue: Legality of the
del Norte, and Regional
Transfer of Polling Places and
Election Director of Region XII
Appointment of Military
to explain why the special
Personnel as Members of the
elections of the four (4)
Board of Election Inspectors
precincts were transferred to
the municipalities of Sultan There is no dispute that the venue of
Naga Dimaporo and Sapad. the special elections was transferred to
The petitioner Mayor Jun the adjacent municipalities of Sultan
Rascal Cawasa prayed that Naga Dimaporo and Sapad in lieu of the
the case be set for trial and regular polling places located in
hearing in order that the barangays Bangko, Cabasaran and
election officer of Nunungan Liangan. There is likewise no dispute that
be required to testify and military personnel were appointed as
explain the circumstances of members of the Board of Election
the special elections. The Inspectors (BEI for brevity) in the 4
COMELEC en banc did not act precincts. Petitioners and private
on the motion. It promulgated respondent Manamparan agree that the
the resolution of October 24, 4 precincts covered by the special
2001 without investigating the elections with a total of 845 registered
circumstances why the voters will affect the result of the
election officer transferred the elections.
venue of the special elections
Petitioners insist on the validity of the
to the municipalities of Sultan
conduct of the special elections
Naga Dimaporo and
claiming that the political parties and the
Sapad. No hearing was
municipal candidates were notified and in
conducted by the COMELEC
fact agreed on the transfer of venue and
en banc.[11]
the appointment of military personnel as
Simply put, the issues raised boil members of the BEI. They contend that
down to whether or not : (1) the transfer there is substantial compliance with the
of the polling places to the adjacent provisions of Section 153 of the Omnibus
Election Code considering that the place shall be located within the territory
election officer as the representative of of the precinct as centrally as possible
the Comelec reported the matter to the with respect to the residence of the
Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao voters therein and whenever possible,
del Norte and the transfer was not such location shall be along a public
disapproved by the Comelec. Petitioners road. No designation of polling
claim that an election officer has places shall be changed except upon
authority to transfer the polling places written petition of the majority of
even four days before the scheduled the voters of the precinct or
election citing Balindong agreement of all the political parties
vs. Comelec and Alonto
[12] vs. or by resolution of the Commission
Comelec.[13] upon prior notice and hearing.
Petitioners fail to persuade. Sections
A public having the requirements
152, 153 and 154 of the Omnibus
prescribed in the preceding paragraph
Election Code shed light on this matter,
shall be preferred as polling place.[14]
to wit:
The transfer was made not only in
SEC. 152. Polling Place. A polling place
blatant disregard of Comelec Resolution
is the building or place where the board
No. 4360 issued on May 21, 2001
of election inspectors conducts its
specifying the polling places but also
proceedings and where the voters shall
Sections 153 and 154 of the Election
cast their votes.
Code. As clearly provided by the law, the
location of polling places shall be the
SEC. 153. Designation of polling
same as that of the preceding regular
places. The location of polling places
election. However, changes may be
designated in the preceding regular
initiated by written petition of the
election shall continue with such changes
majority of the voters of the precinct or
as the Commission may find necessary,
agreement of all the political parties or by
after notice to registered political parties
resolution of the Comelec after notice
and candidates in the political unit
and hearing. But ultimately, it is the
affected, if any, and hearing: provided,
Comelec which determines whether a
That no location shall be changed within
change is necessary after notice and
forty-five days before a regular election
hearing.
and thirty days before a special election
or a referendum or plebiscite, except in The Comelec has unequivocally
case it is destroyed or it cannot be used. stated that nothing in the records
showed that notice was given to the
SEC. 154. Requirements for polling political candidates and registered voters
places. Each polling place shall be, as far affected by the transfer. Private
as practicable, a ground floor and shall respondent Manamparan has
be of sufficient size to admit and categorically denied petitioners claim
comfortably accommodate forty voters at that all the political parties and municipal
one time outside the guard rail for the candidates agreed to the transfer of
board of election inspectors. The polling venue. The Court discerns no
substantiation of petitioners claim Secs. 152-154 of the Omnibus Election
regarding the agreement to Code, does not warrant a declaration of
transfer. There is then no cogent reason failure of election and the annulment of
for us to disturb the findings of the the proclamation of the winning
Comelec on this matter. Indeed, the candidate, because the number of uncast
factual findings of the Comelec supported votes will not affect the result of the
by substantial evidence shall be final and election. In the case at bar, there is no
non-reviewable.[15] Thus, it has been dispute that the election returns from the
held that findings of fact of the Comelec 45 precincts will affect the results of the
based on its own assessments and duly elections.
supported by evidence, are conclusive
Next, the appointment of military
upon this Court, more so, in the absence
personnel as members of the BEI is
of a substantiated attack on the validity
another grave electoral irregularity that
of the same.[16] Moreover, there is no
attended the special elections held on
question that the transfer of venue was
May 30, 2001. There was absolutely no
made within the prohibited period of
legal basis for the appointment of
thirty days before the special election.
military personnel as members of the
Reliance on Balindong vs. BEI. Verily, the appointments were
Comelec[17] and Alonto vs. Comelec[18] is devoid of any justification other than the
misplaced. Alonto involved an entirely bare assertion, again, that the political
different factual scenario from the instant parties and municipal candidates agreed
case. In said case, the Court upheld the on the said arrangement. The pertinent
validity of the transfer of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code
counting and tallying of the votes after regarding the composition, appointments
the closing of the polls from the precincts and substitution of the members of the
to the PC camps. The Court held that the BEI are quoted as follows:
transfer was dictated by necessity and
authorized by the Comelec directly or by SEC. 164. Composition and
its provincial representative. The appointments of board of election
Court explained that while it is highly inspectors. - At least thirty days before
desirable that the authority for the the date when the voters list is to be
transfer of the counting should be prepared in accordance with this Code, in
directly authorized by the Comelec itself, the case of a regular election or fifteen
the latters denial of the petitioners days before a special election, the
motion for reconsideration where this Commission shall, directly or
legal point was advanced was through its duly authorized
tantamount to a validation of the representatives, constitute a board
authority issued by its provincial of election inspectors for each
representatives. precinct to be composed of a
chairman and a poll clerk who must
On the other hand, the Court
be public school teachers, priority to
in Balindong[19] held that the mere fact
be given to civil service eligibles,
that the transfer of polling place was not
and two members, each
made in accordance with law, particularly
representing the two accredited
political parties. The appointment shall election inspectors shall not be relieved
state the precinct to which they are nor disqualified from acting as such
assigned and the date of the members, except for cause and after due
appointment. hearing.

SEC. 165. Oath of the members of the xxx

board of election inspectors. - The
members of the board of election Section 13 of Republic Act No.
inspectors, whether permanent, 6646[20] modified Section 164 of the
substitute or temporary, shall before Omnibus Election Code. Said section
assuming their office, take and sign an reads:
oath upon forms prepared by the
Commission, before an officer authorized SEC. 13. Board of Election Inspectors.
to administer oaths or, in his absence, The board of election inspectors to be
before any other member of the board of constituted by the Commission under
election inspectors present, or in case no Section 164 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
one is present, they shall take it before shall be composed of a chairman and two
any voter. The oaths shall be sent (2) members, one of whom shall be
immediately to the city or municipal designated as poll clerk, all of whom shall
treasurer. (Sec. 157, 1971 EC) be public school teachers, giving
preference to those with permanent
SEC. 166. Qualification of members appointments. In case there are not
of the board of election enough public school teachers, teachers
inspectors. - No person shall be in private schools, employees in the civil
appointed chairman, member or service, or other citizens of known
substitute member of the board of probity and competence who are
election inspectors unless he is of good registered voters of the city or
moral character and irreproachable municipality may be appointed for
reputation, a registered voter of the city election duty.
or municipality, has never been convicted
of any election offense or of any other Clearly, the BEI shall be composed of
crime punishable by more than six a chairman and two members, all of
months of imprisonment, or if he has whom are public school teachers. If there
pending against him an information for are not enough public school teachers,
any election offense. He must be able to teachers in private schools, employees in
speak and write English or the local the civil service or other citizens of known
dialect. (Sec. 114, 1978 EC) probity and competence may be
appointed. It was highly irregular to
xxx replace the duly constituted members of
the BEI, who were public school
SEC. 170. Relief and substitution of teachers. Nothing in petitioners pleadings
members of the board of election would even suggest that the substitution
inspectors. - Public school teachers was made for cause and after hearing.
who are members of the board of The importance of the constitution of the
BEI to the conduct of free, honest and Code. Said Section 6, in turn, provides as
orderly elections cannot be follows:
overemphasized. The Court has held
that, the members of the board of SEC. 6. Failure of election. If, on account
election inspectors are the front line of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
election officers. They perform such fraud, or other analogous causes the
duties and discharge such responsibilities election in any polling place has not been
that make them, in a real sense, foot held on the date fixed, or had been
soldiers who see to it that elections are suspended before the hour fixed by law
free, honest and orderly. They are for the closing of the voting, or after the
essential to the holding of elections.[21] voting and during the preparation and
the transmission of the election returns
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
Second Issue: Denial of election results in a failure to elect, and
Due Process in any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the
result of the election, the Commission
Petitioners claim that there was a
shall, on the basis of a verified petition by
clear violation of due process of law
any interested party and after due notice
because a hearing was not conducted on
and hearing, call for the holding or
the circumstances of the special election.
continuation of the election not held,
Petitioners further claim that the Comelec
suspended or which resulted in a failure
rendered the assailed resolution without
to elect on a date reasonably close to the
requiring its field officers, specifically, the
date of the election not held, suspended
election officer, provincial election
or which resulted in a failure to elect
supervisor and the regional election
but not later than thirty days after the
director to explain the transfer of the
cessation of the cause of such
polling places. Lastly, petitioners point
postponement or suspension of the
out that none of the eight (8) proclaimed
election or failure to elect.
members of the Sangguniang
Bayan[22] of Nunungan, Lanao del Norte
A prayer to annul election results, as
and the proclaimed Vice Mayor were
in the instant case, and a prayer to
notified and impleaded as respondents in
declare failure of elections based on
the petition to annul the election results
allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence
citing Velayo vs. Commission on
or analogous causes, are actually of the
Elections.[23]
same nature and the Election Code
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 or denominates them similarly.[24] The
The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991 Comelec may exercise the power to
provides that the Comelec sitting en annul election results or declare a failure
banc by a majority vote of its members of election motu proprio[25] or upon a
may decide, among others, the verified petition.[26] The hearing of the
declaration of failure of election and the case shall be summary in nature.[27] A
calling of special elections as provided in formal trial-type hearing is not at all
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election times and in all instances essential to due
process it is enough that the parties are worthy of faith and credit, hence, in
given a fair and reasonable opportunity practical effect no election was held.[30]
to explain their respective sides of the
In Velayo vs. Commission of
controversy and to present evidence on
Elections,[31] the Court held that the non-
which a fair decision can be based.[28] In
inclusion of a proclaimed winner as
fine, a trial is not at all indispensable to
respondent in a pre-proclamation
satisfy the demands of due process.
controversy and his lack of notice of the
The petition was heard by the proceedings in the Comelec which
Comelec en banc on June 27, resulted in the cancellation of his
2001. During the said hearing, the proclamation constitute clear denial of
Comelec directed the parties, as agreed due process. In the Velayo case, the
upon, to submit their respective proclaimed mayor and the members of
memoranda within five (5) days from the Municipal Board of Canvassers were
date and after which, the case shall be not impleaded in the pre-proclamation
submitted for resolution. Petitioners were cases brought before the
duly heard through their pleadings, thus, Comelec. However, in this case,
there is no denial of procedural due petitioner Cawasa and the members of
process to speak of. Moreover, contrary the Municipal Board of Canvassers were
to the claim of petitioners, the Municipal in fact impleaded, notified and even
Board of Canvassers of Nunungan, heard by the Comelec in SPC No. 01-276.
including Election Officer Ballesta, were At this late stage, public interest in the
summoned to the hearing held on June speedy disposition of this case will only
27, 2001 and furnished a copy of the be further derailed by the re-opening of
petition. the case for the benefit of petitioners-
councilors who did not advance any new
The pre-conditions for declaring a
and substantial matters in this petition
failure of election are: (1) that no voting
warranting the declaration that the
has been held in any precinct or precincts
special elections were valid and untainted
because of force majeure,
by fraud.
violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes and (2) that the votes WHEREFORE, finding no grave
not cast therein are sufficient to affect abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
the results of the elections. The excess of jurisdiction on the part of public
concurrence of these two circumstances respondent Commission on Elections, the
justifies the calling of special instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
elections.[29] Here, the Comelec found The resolution of the Commission on
that the special elections were vitiated by Elections en banc in SPC No. 01-276
fraud due to the illegal transfer of the dated October 24, 20001 is hereby
polling places and the appointment of AFFIRMED.
military personnel as members of the
BEI. Inevitably, the Comelec could not
ascertain who voted during the special
elections. The circumstances were such
that the entire electoral process was not
PETRONILA S. Just in case the names BETTY or
RULLODA, petitioner, vs. COM PETRONILA or the surname RULLODA is
MISSION ON written on the ballot, read the same as it
ELECTIONS (COMELEC), is written but add the words NOT
ELECTION COUNTED like BETTY NOT COUNTED or
OFFICER LUDIVICO L. RULLODA NOT COUNTED.[4]
ASUNCION OF SAN JACINTO,
PANGASINAN; BARANGAY Based on the tally of petitioners
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF watchers who were allowed to witness
BRGY. STO. TOMAS, SAN the canvass of votes during the July 15,
JACINTO, PANGASINAN, 2002 elections, petitioner garnered 516
Board of Election Tellers of votes while respondent Remegio Placido
Prec. Nos. 30A/30A1, 31A, received 290 votes.[5]Despite this, the
31A1, and 32A1, and Board of Canvassers proclaimed Placido
REMEGIO as the Barangay Chairman of Sto.
PLACIDO, respondents. Tomas.[6]
After the elections, petitioner learned
DECISION
that the COMELEC, acting on the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: separate requests of Andres Perez
Manalaysay and Petronila Rulloda to be
In the barangay elections of July 15, substituted as candidates for Barangay
2002, Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L. Chairman of Barangay La Fuente, Sta.
Placido were the contending candidates Rosa, Nueva Ecija and Barangay Sto.
for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan,
San Jacinto, Pangasinan. On June 22, respectively, issued Resolution No. 5217
2002, Romeo suffered a heart attack and dated July 13, 2002 which states:
passed away at the Mandaluyong City
Medical Center.[1] PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby
His widow, petitioner Petronila Betty
RESOLVES, to ADOPT the
Rulloda, wrote a letter to the Commission
recommendation of the Law Department
on Elections on June 25, 2002 seeking
as follows:
permission to run as candidate for
Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu 1. To deny due course the
of her late husband.[2]Petitioners request
Certificates of Candidacy of
was supported by the Appeal-Petition ANDRES PEREZ MANALAYSAY
containing several signatures of people and PETRONILA S. RULLODA;
purporting to be members of the and
electorate of Barangay Sto. Tomas.[3]
2. To direct the Election Officer
On July 14, 2002, Election Officer of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and
Ludivico L. Asuncion issued a directive to San Jacinto, Pangasinan to
the Chairman and Members of the delete the name of ANDRES
Barangay Board of Canvassers of Sto. PEREZ MANALAYSAY,
Tomas as follows:
 candidate for Barangay substitution of candidates is not
Chairman in Barangay La allowed. Moreover, petitioner did not file
Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva any certificate of candidacy; hence, there
Ecija; and the name of was only one candidate for Barangay
PETRONILA S. RULLODA, Chairman of Sto. Tomas, namely,
candidate for Barangay respondent Placido.[9]
Captain in Barangay Sto.
Public respondent COMELEC also
Tomas, San Jacinto,
filed its Comment. It contends that its
Pangasinan.
Resolution No. 4801 was issued not
pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions
Let the Law Department implement this
but as an incident of its inherent
resolution.
administrative functions over the conduct
of the barangay elections. Therefore, the
SO ORDERED.[7]
same may not be the subject of review in
The above-quoted Resolution cited a petition for certiorari. Further, the
as authority the COMELECs Resolution COMELEC alleges that it did not commit
No. 4801 dated May 23, 2002, setting grave abuse of discretion in denying due
forth the guidelines on the filing of course to petitioners certificate of
certificates of candidacy in connection candidacy and in proclaiming respondent
with the July 15, 2002 synchronized considering that he was the only
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan candidate for Barangay Chairman of Sto.
elections, more particularly Section 9 Tomas.[10]
thereof which reads: We find merit in the petition.

Sec. 9. Substitution of candidates. There At the outset, there is no dispute that

shall be no substitution of candidates petitioner garnered 516 votes while
for barangay and sangguniang respondent got only 290
kabataan officials.[8] votes. Respondents did not deny this in
their respective Comments.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant In our jurisdiction, an election means
petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the choice or selection of candidates to
Section 9 of Resolution No. 4801 and public office by popular vote through the
Resolution No. 5217, both of the use of the ballot, and the elected officials
COMELEC, insofar as they prohibited which are determined through the will of
petitioner from running as substitute the electorate. An election is the
candidate in lieu of her deceased embodiment of the popular will, the
husband; to nullify the proclamation of expression of the sovereign power of the
respondent; and to proclaim her as the people. The winner is the candidate who
duly elected Barangay Chairman of Sto. has obtained a majority or plurality of
Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan. valid votes cast in the election. Sound
Private respondent Remegio Placido policy dictates that public elective offices
filed his Comment, arguing that since the are filled by those who receive the
barangay election is non-partisan, highest number of votes cast in the
election for that office. For, in all substitute. Such an interpretation, aside
republican forms of government the basic from being non sequitur, ignores the
idea is that no one can be declared purpose of election laws which is to give
elected and no measure can be declared effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of
carried unless he or it receives a majority the voters.[12] It is a solemn duty to
or plurality of the legal votes cast in the uphold the clear and unmistakable
election.[11] mandate of the people. It is well-settled
that in case of doubt, political laws must
Respondents base their argument
be so construed as to give life and spirit
that the substitution of candidates is not
to the popular mandate freely expressed
allowed in barangay elections on Section
through the ballot.[13]
77 of the Omnibus Elections Code, which
states: Contrary to respondents claim, the
absence of a specific provision governing
Section 77. Candidates in case of substitution of candidates in barangay
death, disqualification or withdrawal of elections can not be inferred as a
another. If after the last day of the filing prohibition against said
of certificates of candidacy, an official substitution. Such a restrictive
candidate of a registered or accredited construction cannot be read into the law
political party dies, withdraws or is where the same is not written. Indeed,
disqualified for any cause, only a person there is more reason to allow the
belonging to, and certified by the same substitution of candidates where no
political party may file a certificate of political parties are involved than when
candidacy to replace the candidate who political considerations or party
died, withdrew or was disqualified. The affiliations reign, a fact that must have
substitute candidate nominated by the been subsumed by law.
political party concerned may file his
Private respondent likewise contends
certificate of candidacy for the office
that the votes in petitioners favor can not
affected in accordance with the
be counted because she did not file any
preceding sections not later than mid-day
certificate of candidacy. In other words,
of the election. If the death, withdrawal
he was the only candidate for Barangay
or disqualification should occur between
Chairman. His claim is refuted by the
the day before the election and mid-day
Memorandum of the COMELEC Law
of election day, said certificate may be
Department as well as the assailed
filed with any board of election inspectors
Resolution No. 5217, wherein it
in the political subdivision where he is a
indubitably appears that petitioners
candidate or, in the case of candidates to
letter-request to be allowed to run as
be voted by the entire electorate of the
Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu
country, with the Commission.
of her late husband was treated as a
certificate of candidacy.[14]
Private respondent argues that
inasmuch as the barangay election is To reiterate, it was petitioner who
non-partisan, there can be no obtained the plurality of votes in the
substitution because there is no political contested election. Technicalities and
party from which to designate the procedural niceties in election cases
should not be made to stand in the way Petitioner,
of the true will of the electorate.Laws Present:
governing election contests must be PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
liberally construed to the end that the will PUNO,
of the people in the choice of public QUISUMBING,
officials may not be defeated by mere - versus - YNARES-SANTIAGO,
technical objections.[15] SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
Election contests involve public interest, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
and technicalities and procedural barriers CORONA,
must yield if they constitute an obstacle CARPIO MORALES,
to the determination of the true will of CALLEJO, SR.,
the electorate in the choice of their AZCUNA,
elective officials. The Court frowns upon COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TINGA,
any interpretation of the law that would and NORMA L. MEJES, CHICO-NAZARIO,
hinder in any way not only the free and Respondents. GARCIA, and
intelligent casting of the votes in an V
election but also the correct E
ascertainment of the results. [16]
L
A
WHEREFORE, in view of the S
foregoing, the instant petition is C
GRANTED. The assailed Resolution No. O
5217 of the Commission on Elections, ,
insofar as it denied due course to J
petitioners certificate of candidacy, is .
declared NULL and VOID. The ,
proclamation of respondent Remegio L.
Placido as Barangay Chairman of Sto. J
Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan is SET J
ASIDE, and the Board of Canvassers of .
the said Barangay is ORDERED to
proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Promulgated:
Barangay Chairman thereof.
August 10, 2006
SO ORDERED.
x------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------ x

DECISION

URBANO M. MORENO, G.R. No. TINGA, J.:

168550
 In this Petition[1] dated July 6, suspended. Moreno also argued that
2005, Urbano M. Moreno (Moreno) under Sec. 16 of the Probation Law of
assails the Resolution of
[2] the 1976 (Probation Law), the final discharge
Commission on Elections (Comelec) en of the probation shall operate to restore
banc dated June 1, 2005, affirming the to him all civil rights lost or suspended as
Resolution[3] of the Comelec First a result of his conviction and to fully
Division dated November 15, 2002 which, discharge his liability for any fine
in turn, disqualified him from running for imposed. The order of the trial court
the elective office dated December 18, 2000 allegedly
of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabug terminated his probation and restored to
ao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002 him all the civil rights he lost as a result
Synchronized Barangay and Sanggunian of his conviction, including the right to
g Kabataan Elections. vote and be voted for in the July 15,
2002 elections.
The following are the undisputed
facts: The case was forwarded to the
Office of the Provincial Election
Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a
Supervisor of Samar for preliminary
petition to disqualify Moreno from
hearing. After due proceedings, the
running for Punong Barangay on the
Investigating Officer recommended
ground that the latter was convicted by
that Moreno be disqualified from running
final judgment of the crime of Arbitrary
for Punong Barangay.
Detention and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of Four (4) Months and The Comelec First Division
One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four adopted this recommendation. On
(4) Months by the Regional Trial Court, motion for reconsideration filed with
Branch 28 of Catbalogan, Samar on the Comelec en banc, the Resolution of
August 27, 1998. the First Division was affirmed. According
to the Comelec en banc, Sec. 40(a) of
Moreno filed an answer averring
the Local Government Code provides that
that the petition states no cause of action
those sentenced by final judgment for an
because he was already granted
offense involving moral turpitude or for
probation. Allegedly, following the case
an offense punishable by one (1) year or
of Baclayon v. Mutia,[4] the imposition of
more of imprisonment, within two (2)
the sentence of imprisonment, as well as
years after serving sentence, are
the accessory penalties, was thereby
disqualified from running for any elective
local position.[5] Since Moreno was In its
released from probation on December Comment[6] dated November 18,
20, 2000, disqualification shall 2005 on behalf of the Comelec, the
commence on this date and end two (2) Office of the Solicitor General argues that
years thence. The grant of probation this Court
to Moreno merely suspended the in Dela Torre v. Comelec[7] definitively
execution of his sentence but did not settled a similar controversy by ruling
affect his disqualification from running that conviction for an offense involving
for an elective local office. moral turpitude stands even if the
candidate was granted probation. The
Further, the Comelec en disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the
banc held that the provisions of the Local Local Government Code subsists and
Government Code take precedence over remains totally unaffected
the case of Baclayon v. Mutia cited notwithstanding the grant of probation.
by Moreno and the Probation Law
because it is a much later enactment and Moreno filed a Reply to
a special law setting forth the Comment[8] dated March 27, 2006,
qualifications and disqualifications of reiterating his arguments and pointing
elective local officials. out material differences between his case
and Dela Torre v. Comelec which
In this petition, Moreno argues allegedly warrant a conclusion favorable
that the disqualification under the Local to him. According
Government Code applies only to those to Moreno, Dela Torre v. Comelec involv
who have served their sentence and not es a conviction for violation of the Anti-
to probationers because the latter do not Fencing Law, an offense involving moral
serve the adjudged sentence. The turpitude covered by the first part of Sec.
Probation Law should allegedly be read 40(a) of the Local Government
as an exception to the Local Government Code. Dela Torre, the petitioner in that
Code because it is a special law which case, applied for probation nearly four
applies only to probationers. Further, (4) years after his conviction and only
even assuming that he is disqualified, his after appealing his conviction, such that
subsequent election he could not have been eligible for
as Punong Barangay allegedly probation under the law.
constitutes an implied pardon of his
previous misconduct. In contrast, Moreno alleges that
he applied for and was granted probation
within the period specified therefor. He quoted provision. The question of
never served a day of his sentence as a whether Arbitrary Detention is a crime
result. Hence, the disqualification under involving moral turpitude was never
Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code raised in the petition for disqualification
does not apply to him. because the ground relied upon
by Mejes, and which the Comelec used in
The resolution of the present its assailed resolutions, is his alleged
controversy depends on the application disqualification from running for a local
of the phrase within two (2) years after elective office within two (2) years from
serving sentence found in Sec. 40(a) of his discharge from probation after having
the Local Government Code, which been convicted by final judgment for an
reads: offense punishable by Four (4) Months
and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and
Sec.
Four (4) Months. Besides, a
40. Disqualifications. The
following persons are determination that the crime of Arbitrary
disqualified from running Detention involves moral turpitude is not
for any elective local decisive of this case, the crucial issue
position:
being whether Morenos sentence was in
(a) Those fact served.
sentenced by final
judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude In this
or for an offense sense, Dela Torre v. Comelec is not
punishable by one (1)
squarely applicable. Our pronouncement
year or more of
imprisonment, within therein that the grant of probation does
two (2) years after not affect the disqualification under Sec.
serving sentence; 40(a) of the Local Government Code was
[Emphasis supplied.] based primarily on the finding that the
....
crime of fencing of which petitioner was
convicted involves moral turpitude, a
We should mention at this circumstance which does not obtain in
juncture that there is no need to rule on this case. At any rate, the phrase within
whether Arbitrary Detention, the crime of two (2) years after serving sentence
which Moreno was convicted by final should have been interpreted and
judgment, involves moral turpitude understood to apply both to those who
falling under the first part of the above- have been sentenced by final judgment
for an offense involving moral person in a penal facility for the period
turpitude and to those who have been adjudged by the court.[10] This seemingly
sentenced by final judgment for an clear and unambiguous provision,
offense punishable by one (1) year or however, has spawned a controversy
more of imprisonment. The placing of the worthy of this Courts attention because
comma (,) in the provision means that the Comelec, in the assailed resolutions,
the phrase modifies both parts of Sec. is alleged to have broadened the
40(a) of the Local Government Code. coverage of the law to include even those
who did not serve a day of their sentence
The Courts declaration on the because they were granted probation.
effect of probation on Sec. 40(a) of the
Local Government Code, we should add, Moreno argues, quite
ought to be considered an obiter in view persuasively, that he should not have
of the fact that Dela Torre was not even been disqualified because he did not
entitled to probation because he serve the adjudged sentence having
appealed his conviction to the Regional been granted probation and finally
Trial Court which, however, affirmed his discharged by the trial court.
conviction. It has been held that the
perfection of an appeal is a In Baclayon v. Mutia, the Court
relinquishment of the alternative remedy declared that an order placing defendant
of availing of the Probation Law, the on probation is not a sentence but is
purpose of which is to prevent rather, in effect, a suspension of the
speculation or opportunism on the part of imposition of sentence. We held that the
an accused who, although already grant of probation to petitioner
eligible, did not at once apply for suspended the imposition of the principal
probation, but did so only after failing in penalty of imprisonment, as well as the
his appeal.[9] accessory penalties of suspension from
public office and from the right to follow
Sec. 40(a) of the Local a profession or calling, and that of
Government Code appears innocuous perpetual special disqualification from
enough at first glance. The phrase the right of suffrage. We thus deleted
service of sentence, understood in from the order granting probation the
its general and common sense, means t paragraph which required that petitioner
he confinement of a convicted refrain from continuing with her teaching
profession.
 Applying this doctrine to the misapprehended the real issue in this
instant case, the accessory penalties of case. They focused on the fact
suspension from public office, from the that Morenos judgment of conviction
right to follow a profession or calling, and attained finality upon his application for
that of perpetual special disqualification probation instead of the question of
from the right of suffrage, attendant to whether his sentence had been served.
the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period The Comelec could have correctly
to prision correccional in its minimum resolved this case by simply applying the
period[11] imposed upon Moreno were law to the letter. Sec. 40(a) of the Local
similarly suspended upon the grant of Government Code unequivocally
probation. disqualifies only those who have been
sentenced by final judgment for an
It appears then that during the offense punishable by imprisonment of
period of probation, the probationer is one (1) year or more, within two (2)
not even disqualified from running for a years after serving sentence.
public office because the accessory
This is as good a time as any to
penalty of suspension from public office
clarify that those who have not served
is put on hold for the duration of the
their sentence by reason of the grant of
probation.
probation which, we reiterate, should not
Clearly, the period within which a be equated with service of sentence,
person is under probation cannot be should not likewise be disqualified from
equated with service of the sentence running for a local elective office because
adjudged. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law the two (2)-year period of ineligibility
specifically provides that the grant of under Sec. 40(a) of the Local
probation suspends the execution of the Government Code does not even begin to
sentence. During the period of run.
probation,[12] the probationer does not
The fact that the trial court
serve the penalty imposed upon him by
already issued an order finally
the court but is merely required to
discharging Moreno fortifies his position.
comply with all the conditions prescribed
Sec. 16 of the Probation Law provides
in the probation order.[13]
that [t]he final discharge of the
It is regrettable that probationer shall operate to restore to
the Comelec and the OSG have him all civil rights lost or suspended as a
result of his conviction and to fully to a deserving defendant who thereby
discharge his liability for any fine imposed escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty
as to the offense for which probation was imposed by law for the offense of which
granted. Thus, when Moreno was finally he was convicted.[15] Thus, the Probation
discharged upon the courts finding that Law lays out rather stringent standards
he has fulfilled the terms and conditions regarding who are qualified for
of his probation, his case was deemed probation. For instance, it provides that
terminated and all civil rights lost or the benefits of probation shall not be
suspended as a result of his conviction extended to those sentenced to serve a
were restored to him, including the right maximum term of imprisonment of more
to run for public office. than six (6) years; convicted of any
offense against the security of the State;
Even assuming that there is an those who have previously been
ambiguity in Sec. 40(a) of the Local convicted by final judgment of an offense
Government Code which gives room for punished by imprisonment of not less
judicial interpretation,[14] our conclusion than one (1) month and one (1) day
will remain the same. and/or a fine of not less than P200.00;
those who have been once on probation;
It is unfortunate that the and those who are already serving
deliberations on the Local Government sentence at the time the substantive
Code afford us no clue as to the intended provisions of the Probation Law became
meaning of the phrase service of applicable.[16]
sentence, i.e., whether the legislature
also meant to disqualify those who have It is important to note that the
been granted probation. The Courts disqualification under Sec. 40(a) of the
function, in the face of this seeming Local Government Code covers offenses
dissonance, is to interpret and harmonize punishable by one (1) year or more of
the Probation Law and the Local imprisonment, a penalty which also
Government coversprobationable offenses. In spite of
Code. Interpretare et concordarelegis le this, the provision does not specifically
gibus est optimus interpretandi. disqualify probationers from running for
a local elective office. This omission is
Probation is not a right of an significant because it offers a glimpse
accused but a mere privilege, an act of into the legislative intent to treat
grace and clemency or immunity probationers as a distinct class of
conferred by the state, which is granted
offenders not covered by the In construing Sec. 40(a) of the
disqualification. Local Government Code in a way that
broadens the scope of the disqualification
Further, it should be mentioned to include Moreno,
that the present Local Government Code the Comelec committed an egregious
was enacted in 1991, some seven (7) error which we here correct. We rule that
years after Baclayon v. Mutia was Moreno was not disqualified to run
decided. When the legislature approved for Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabug
the enumerated disqualifications under ao, Daram, Samar in the July 15, 2002
Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Synchronized Barangay and Sanggunian
Code, it is presumed to have knowledge g Kabataan Elections.
of our ruling in Baclayon v. Mutia on the
effect of probation on the disqualification Finally, we note that Moreno was
from holding public office. That it chose the incumbent Punong Barangay at the
not to include probationers within the time of his conviction of the crime of
purview of the provision is a clear Arbitrary Detention. He claims to have
expression of the legislative will not to obtained a fresh mandate from the
disqualify probationers. people
of Barangay Cabugao, Daram, Samar in
On this score, we agree the July 15, 2002 elections. This
with Moreno that the Probation Law situation calls to mind the poignant words
should be construed as an exception to of Mr. Justice now Chief
the Local Government Code. While the Justice Artemio Panganiban in Frivaldo v
Local Government Code is a later law . Comelec[18] where he said that it would
which sets forth the qualifications and be far better to err in favor of popular
disqualifications of local elective officials, sovereignty than to be right in complex
the Probation Law is a special legislation but little understood legalisms.
which applies only to probationers. It is a
canon of statutory construction that a WHEREFORE, the petition is
later statute, general in its terms and not GRANTED. The Resolution of the
expressly repealing a prior special Commission on Elections en banc dated
statute, will ordinarily not affect the June 1, 2005 and the Resolution of its
special provisions of such earlier First Division dated November 15, 2002,
statute.[17] as well as all other actions and orders
issued pursuant thereto, are ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE. The Commission on
Elections is directed to proceed in various local candidates involving the
clustering of precincts, the distribution of
accordance with this Decision. No
election paraphernalia, and the
pronouncement as to costs. appointment of the members of the
various Boards of Election Inspectors. As
SO ORDERED. a consequence, the COMELEC scheduled
and held a special election on May 12,
2004.

On May 19, 2004, petitioner Galo filed

with the COMELEC En Banc a petition4 to
declare a failure of election and to
annul the results of the May 12, 2004
G.R. No. 164225 April 19, special election involving six precincts
2006 located in six Barangays of Lumba-
Bayabao, namely: Precinct Nos. 1A
JUHARY A. GALO, Petitioner, (Barangay Maribu), 34A (Barangay
vs. Sunggod), 29B (Barangay Rumayas),
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 22A (Barangay Lubo Basara), 31A
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF (Barangay Salaman), and 36A (Barangay
CANVASSERS OF LUMBA-BAYABAO, Tamlang). Galo’s petition, docketed as
LANAO DEL SUR, and MINDA SPA No. 04-348, is based on his claim
DAGALANGIT, Respondents. that there were "serious and massive
irregularities committed by the
DECISION supporters of Dagalangit, in conspiracy
with members of the Board of Election
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Inspectors." Specifically, petitioner
alleged that respondent Dagalangit’s
Before us for resolution is the supporters succeeded in placing fake
Petition1 for Certiorari,2 assailing the ballots inside a ballot box in Precinct No.
Resolution dated July 2, 2004 of the
3
1A (Barangay Maribo); that in Precinct
Commission on Elections No. 34A (Barangay Sunggod), the voting
was irregular because the election
(COMELEC) En Banc in SPA No. 04-348. inspectors hid a ballot box allegedly to
protect it from being forcibly taken; that
Juhary A. Galo, petitioner, and Minda P. during the counting of votes, fake ballots
Dagalangit, private respondent, were were found in the ballot boxes in Precinct
among the five candidates for mayor in Nos. 22A (Barangay Lubo Basara), 29B
the Municipality of Lumba-Bayabao, (Barangay Rumayas), 31A (Barangay
Lanao del Sur in the May 10, 2004 Salaman), 34A (Barangay Sunggod), and
national and local elections. 36A (Barangay Tamlang); that the
election inspectors in the said precincts
On May 10, 2004, however, there was a refused to enter in the minutes their valid
failure of election in Lumba-Bayabao due objections; that all the election returns
to serious disagreements among the
accomplished based on the fake ballots Motion/Manifestation"5 stating that he
do not reflect the true will of the was already proclaimed as the winning
electorate; and that the said irregularities candidate on May 20, 2004, thereby
justify the annulment of the election rendering his petition "moot and
held. Petitioner thus prayed that the academic;" and that he "has lost interest
COMELEC issue a temporary restraining in the prosecution of the same." He
order (TRO) directing the Board of prayed that his petition be considered
Canvassers to desist from canvassing the withdrawn.
election returns from the said precincts.
Petitioner further prayed that after due Thereafter, pursuant to the order of the
hearing, the results of the election be COMELEC En Banc, the contending
annulled; and that an immediate parties filed their respective memoranda.
investigation of the anomalies committed
during the election be conducted. On July 2, 2004, the COMELEC En Banc
issued the assailed Resolution (1)
On May 21, 2004, the COMELEC En dismissing the petition for lack of merit;
Banc issued a TRO directing the (2) annulling petitioner’s proclamation on
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Lumba- May 20, 1994 for having been "made
Bayabao to SUSPEND its proceedings, surreptitiously and in contravention of
particularly the proclamation of the the May 21, 2004 Order of the
winning candidates, until further orders. Commission;" and (3) ordering the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Lumba-
In her Answer dated May 24, 2004, Bayabao "to immediately convene,
respondent Dagalangit denied complete the canvass, and proclaim the
petitioner’s allegations of the existence of winning candidates." The COMELEC En
fake ballots in the specified precincts. Banc held that pursuant to the Omnibus
She averred that during the May 12, 2004 Election Code, the alleged use of fake
special election, all the 39 precincts of ballots in the questioned precincts is not
Lumba-Bayabao functioned in an orderly one of the grounds for nullifying the
and peaceful manner; that the ballots election results. In fact, all the 39
have been properly appreciated, counted precincts of Lumba-Bayabao functioned
and entered in the election returns duly during the May 12, 2004 special
accomplished by the Board of Election elections.
Inspectors under the close scrutiny of the
candidates’ watchers; and that the use of On July 4, 2004, the Municipal Board of
fake ballots is not a valid ground for Canvassers of Lumba-Bayabao
nullifying the elections. She then prayed completed its canvass proceedings and
that SPA No. 04-348 be proclaimed respondent Dagalangit as the
dismissed.1avvphil.net winning candidate for mayor of that
municipality.6
During the May 27, 2004 hearing,
petitioner did not appear before the Petitioner now comes to this Court
COMELEC En Banc. Instead, he filed an through the instant Petition
"Urgent Ex-Parte for Certiorari alleging that the COMELEC,
in issuing the challenged Resolution, suspension of the election or failure to
acted with grave abuse of discretion elect. (Underscoring supplied)
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. In Tan v. COMELEC,7 we held that the
above provisions lay down three
Respondents, in their respective instances where a failure of election may
Comments, vehemently opposed the be declared, namely: (1) the election in
petition and prayed that the same be any polling place has not been held on
dismissed for being utterly the date fixed on account of force
unmeritorious. majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes; (2) the election
The petition is bereft of merit. in any polling place has been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the
We cannot sustain petitioner’s contention closing of the voting on account of any of
that the COMELEC En Banc gravely such causes; or (3) after the voting and
abused its discretion in dismissing his during the preparation, transmission,
petition for a declaration of a failure of custody or canvass of the election
elections and for the annulment of the returns, the election results in a failure to
election results. Section 6 of the Omnibus elect on account of any of said
Election Code prescribes the conditions aforementioned causes. In all
for such a declaration, thus: instances, there must have been a
failure to elect. This is obvious in the
Section 6. Failure of Election – If, on first two scenarios, where the election
account of force majeure, violence, was not held and where the election was
terrorism, fraud or other analogous suspended. As to the third scenario,
causes the election in any polling place the circumstances attending the
has not been held on the date fixed, or preparation, transmission, custody
had been suspended before the hour or canvass of the election returns
fixed by law for closing of the voting, or cause a failure to elect. The term
after the voting and during the failure to elect means "nobody emerges
preparation and the transmission of the as a winner."8
returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure The established rule is that the nature of
to elect, and in any of such cases the an action and the jurisdiction of the
failure or suspension of election would tribunal are determined by the law and
affect the result of the election, the the allegations in the petition regardless
Commission shall, on the basis of the of whether or not the petitioner is entitled
verified petition by any interested party to the relief sought.9 Here, it is not
and after due notice and hearing, call for disputed that all the 39 precincts in
the holding or continuation of the Lumba-Bayabao functioned in the May
election not held, suspended or which 12, 2004 special elections. And as
resulted in a failure to elect but not later correctly observed by respondent
than thirty days after the cessation of the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner himself
cause of such postponement or failed to allege in his petition that no
election was conducted; and that the use
of fake ballots is not a ground to declare
a failure of elections.

In Mitmug v. Commission on G.R. NO. 161984 February 21,

Elections,10 we further held that before 2007
the COMELEC can act on a verified
petition seeking to declare a failure of HAJI FAISAL D. ADAP,
election, two conditions must concur: MOHAAMMADALI G. PANGCOGA,
first, no voting has taken place in the ALLAN AMPUAN, CADER CARIM,
precinct or precincts on the date fixed by HADJI YUSOPH BOHARY AMPUAN,
law or, even if there was voting, the DATHAMAN M. ABBAN,* LOMALA
election nevertheless results in a failure SARIP YNARES-SANTIAGO, CADER,
to elect; and, second, the votes cast BONDIONG COMILING, HADJI
would affect the result of the election. In OMAIR SARIP
the case at bar, both conditions are not AMAROHOM,** AMPUAN CASIM,
present. PENDATUN B. ORANGOT,
AMINOLLAH D. AMPUAN and
Petitioner himself admits in his petition PANGCOGA SARIPODEN, Petitioners,
that during the special election, voting vs.
took place in the questioned precincts. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
He also failed to show that the votes cast SARIPODEN M. PANGCOGA,
would affect the results of the election. AKIGAN PRETTY SARIPADA, CADER
MARSOK, SAIDAMEN SANDAB,
Petitioner also questions the COMELEC’s ALIBASAR BAYA ABDULSALAM,
nullification of his proclamation on May ABDUL SANDAB SULTAN,
20, 2004 by the Municipal Board of SALIMATAR SARIP, ABAY
Canvassers. We sustain the COMELEC En MARUHOM, SULTAN SARIP
Banc’s action. As shown by the records, MACAUNDAS, ANTING ACO, COSAIN
petitioner was proclaimed as mayor on AMPUAN, ISMAEL CASIM, ISHAK
the basis of the results of "the elections ORANGOT, ALEM ALEXANDER
held on May 10, 2004."11 As stated TOMARA SHARIEF, HADJI USMAN
earlier, no election was held on that day. ALIBATO, ALANODIN BALINDONG
and AL-SARIP MANAN DATU
In fine, the COMELEC, in issuing the IMAM, Respondents.
assailed Resolution, did not act with
grave abuse of discretion. DECISION

WHEREFORE, the petition AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.
This resolves the Petition
SO ORDERED. for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to
set aside the Resolution1 of public
respondent Commission on Elections, En
Banc (COMELEC En Banc) dated January After trial, the COMELEC En
27, 2004. Banc promulgated the herein assailed
Decision on January 27, 2004, finding
Petitioners were the proclaimed winning that there was, indeed, failure of
candidates for the position of Punong elections in the barangays of
Barangay in their Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur. The
respective barangays in the municipality dispositive portion of the Resolution in
of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur in the July question reads as follows:
15, 2002
Synchronized Barangay and Sanggunian WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
g Kabataan Elections (2002 Elections). Commission en banc RESOLVED as it
Individual respondents were candidates hereby RESOLVES to ANNULand SET
for the position of barangay chairmen in ASIDE the 15 July 2002 proclamation of
said 2002 elections, some of whom the above named Respondents (now
are Punong-Barangays proclaimed in petitioners) Punong Barangay
the barangayelections previous to the respectively in the subject Barangays of
2002 elections. the municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del
Sur.
On August 19, 2002, after learning that a
Certificate of Canvass of Votes and ACCORDINGLY, the Commission en
Proclamation of winning candidates banc hereby ORDERS:
for Punong Barangay and Kagawad ng S
angguniang Barangay, proclaiming a) The herein Respondents (now
petitioners as winning candidates had petitioners) namely: Hadji Faisal
been submitted to the COMELEC, D. Adap, Mohammadali G.
respondents filed a petition for Pangcoga, Allan Ampuan, Cader
declaration of failure of elections and the Carim, Hadji Yusoph Bohary
holding of special elections in the whole Ampuan, Dathman M. Abbas,
municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur Lomala Sarip Cader, Bondiong
and to annul for being void ab initio the Comiling, Hadji Omair Sarip
proclamation of petitioners.2 Marohom, Ampuan Casim,
Pendatun B. Orangot, Aminollah
Respondents alleged that the 2002 D. Ampuan and Pangcoga
Elections have not been conducted in Saripoden TO VACATE the Office
thirteen (13) barangays of Pagayawan of the Punong Barangay of Ngingir
on July 15, 2002 for the reason that the Bubong, Ilian, Padas, Pinalangca,
official ballots, election forms and Diampaca, Linindingan,
paraphernalia, including CEF No. 25, Mapantao, Biala-an, Ayong,
intended for Pagayawan have not been Reboken-Kamalig (Rubokan),
issued or distributed to the Board of Lumbak (Lumbac), Badaraingud
Election Tellers (BET) by Acting and Madang, Pagayawan, Lanao
Treasurer Pangalian Alawi.3 del Sur, TO
CEASE and DESIST from
performing the functions of said Sangguniang Barangay,
office. Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur.

b) The Petitioners-Punong No pronouncement as to costs.4

Barangay (now respondents) who
have been duly elected and Aggrieved by the foregoing Resolution,
proclaimed in the barangay petitioners come to this Court, claiming
elections previous to the 15 July that it was grave abuse of discretion
2002 barangay elections in the amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the
subject barangay of the part of the COMELEC En Banc in (1)
municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao declaring failure of elections
del Sur, to continue as such in barangays not subject of the petition
Punong Barangay in a hold-over filed before it; (2) not examining and
capacity until the holding of a viewing the election paraphernalia inside
Special Barangay Elections in the the ballot boxes of the questioned
Municipality of Pagayawan, Lanao precincts of subject barangays; and (3)
del Sur. ordering herein individual respondents,
who have been duly proclaimed in
c) The Office of the Deputy the barangay elections previous to the
Executive Director for Operation 2002 Elections, to continue
to implement this resolution re the as PunongBarangays in a hold-over
guidelines in the holding of the capacity until the holding of special
Special Barangay and SK Elections elections.5
in the municipality of Pagayawan,
Lanao del Sur. The Court reiterates and emphasizes the
oft-repeated rule stated in Pangandaman
d) The Law Department to v. Comelec,6 to wit:
conduct the appertaining
investigation to determine the x x x the propriety of declaring
administrative and criminal liability whether or not there has been a
of the above named Respondents total failure of elections x x x is a
(now petitioners) and of Election factual issue which this Court will
Officer Taha C. Ali. (Italization not delve into considering that the
ours). COMELEC, through its deputized officials
in the field, is in the best position to
e) The Clerk of the Commission to assess the actual conditions prevailing in
furnish a copy thereof to the that area. Absent any showing of
Office of the President of the grave abuse of discretion, the
Philippines, the Secretary of the findings of fact of the COMELEC or
Department of Interior and Local any administrative agency
Government, the Office of the exercising particular expertise in its
Governor, Lanao del Sur, and to field of endeavor, are binding on the
the Office of the Secretary of the Court. x x x 7 (Emphasis supplied)
local Sangguniang Bayan and
The petition is without merit. There is no Exhibit 1. Certification from the
cogent reason to deviate from the Chief of Police of Pagayawan
findings of the COMELEC En Banc. It did (SPO1 Amerodin T. Baraguer)
not commit any grave abuse of stating, among other things, that
discretion. It acted well within its the elections on July 15, 2002 are
jurisdiction when it issued the Resolution peaceful and orderly. To prove
of January 27, 2004. that no incident of failure of
election was reported to the PNP
First of all, petitioners' allegation that the and Military deputized to
COMELEC En Banc declared failure of safeguard the conduct [of] the
elections in barangays not covered by aforesaid election.
the respondents' petition is highly
inaccurate. It is not even specified in the Exhibit 2. Certification from the
Petition which barangays were not Acting Municipal Treasurer
covered by respondents’ Petition filed Panangalian Alawi stating, among
with the COMELEC. Moreover, the other things, that the election
COMELEC En Banc, in the Resolution paraphernalia were properly
dated January 27, 2004, held that there distributed to the Board of Election
was failure of elections in the thirteen Tellers for the eighteen (18)
(13) barangays subject of respondents’ Barangays on July 15, 2002. To
petition, namely: Ngingir Bubong, Ilian, prove that there were indeed
Padas, Pinalangca, Diampaca, elections in Pagayawan as
Linindingan, Mapantao, Biala-an, Ayong, wrongfully pictured by petitioners.
Reboken-Kamalig (Rubokan), Lumbak
(Lumbac), Badaraingud and Madang, and Exhibit 3. Certification from
nullified the proclamation of petitioners Minonting Macatumpag, DECS
as punong barangays of the subject District Supervisor, Municipality of
thirteen barangays. Pagayawan, stating among other
things, that the members of the
Secondly, it was not necessary for the Board of Tellers of the 18
COMELEC En Banc to examine and view Barangays were recommended
the election paraphernalia inside the and appointed as such. To prove
ballot boxes of the questioned precincts that there were teachers from the
of subject barangays, considering that Department of Education and
there is substantial evidence on record to Culture who conducted the
convince said body that no elections had election on July 15, 2002 in
actually been conducted. accordance with Resolution No.
4846 of this Honorable
To refute the claim of failure of elections Commission.
in subject barangays of Pagayawan,
Lanao del Sur, herein petitioners Exhibit 4. Communication dated
(respondents below) formally offered the July 25, 2002 of the Acting
following documents as evidence, to wit: Municipal Administrator of
Pagayawan Oloden D. Balt
refuting the failure of election The COMELEC En Banc, however, found
thereof. To prove that the report the foregoing evidence insufficient to
of failure of election in Pagayawan overcome respondents' evidence, to wit:
has no factual basis.
Although, the Respondents [herein
Exhibit 5. Communication dated petitioners] have submitted various
July 25, 2002 of Mustapha Sarip, certifications, its contents appear to be
Management Officer of diametrically opposed to what have
Pagayawan, refuting the false actually transpired as indubitably
report on failure of election. To established by the following
prove further that there were documentary evidence which overcome
indeed elections for barangay and [sic] and impeached the evidence thus
Sangguniang Kabataan in presented by Respondents, to wit:
Pagayawan on July 15, 2002.
1. The Acknowledgement Receipt
Exhibit 6. [Enumeration of executed by Acting Treasurer
submarkings omitted]. Pangalian Alawi dated 19 July
Acknowledgement reciept of 2002 effectively destroys the
Official Ballots, election returns integrity and the evidentiary value
and other forms and supplies by of the Certificates of Proclaimation
the Board of Election Tellers (CE of the Respondents which were all
Form No. 14). To prove that the dated 15 July 2002. Thus,
designated Election Tellers have supporting the conclusion that the
received the election alleged Certificates of
paraphernalia alloted for Proclamation were spurious and
Municipality of Pagayawan on July manufactured.
15, 2002, and subsequently,
conducted the election for 2. The transmittal of the results of
barangay and Sangguniang the election in Pagayawan by
Kabataan (SK) in accordance with TAHA C. ALI, who is not the
Resolution No. 4846 of this Election Officer of Pagayawan,
Honorable Commission. Lanao del Sur is in itself
questionable because it should be
Exhibit 7. [Enumeration of Election Officer of the
submarkings omitted]. Joint municipality, Alican
Affidavit of the designated Board Kamampangan, who has the duty
of Tellers for the 18 Barangays in to do so. Taha C. Ali, in his
Pagayawan. To prove the conduct memorandum dated 13 January
of election on July 15, 2002 in 2002 to Commissioner Mehol K.
Pagayawan and refute the Sadain, therein admits that there
distorted report of failure by was no reassignment of station
Election Officer Alican that happened. How could then he
Kapampangan and the served (sic) as Acting EO of
petitioners.8 Pagayawan.
 3. The Consolidated List of evidence.10 Substantial evidence is "that
Candidates for the 15 July 2002 amount of relevant evidence which a
Synchronized Barangay and SK reasonable mind might accept as
Elections of Pagayawan adequate to justify a conclusion."11 In
CONFIRMED that certain non- this case, the Court is convinced that the
candidates were proclaimed finding of fact made by the COMELEC En
illegally, for the simple reason that Banc, that there was no actual casting of
they were not candidates for the votes in subject barangays of
positions. x x x Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, is supported
by substantial evidence, as discussed in
xxxxxxxxx the assailed Resolution dated January 27,
2004.
4. In their ANSWER WITH
MOTION TO DISMISS, Lastly, petitioners' contention that it was
Respondents alleged that EO grave abuse of discretion for the
KAPAMPANGAN assisted Acting COMELEC En Banc to order herein private
Treasurer Pangalian Alawi in respondents to continue
distributing the election forms, as Punong Barangays in a hold-over
documents and other capacity until the holding of special
paraphernalia. elections, is likewise devoid of merit.
In Sambarani v. Comelec,12 the Court
However, in their memorandum, already explained, thus:
Respondents contradict themselves by
alleging that EO Alican Kapampangan x x x Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9164
abandoned his duty to supervise the ("RA 9164") provides:
aforesaid elections and was no where to
be found after the receipt of the election Sec. 5. Hold Over. – All incumbent
paraphernalia allocated to Pagayawan on barangay officials and sangguniang
14 July 2002 by Acting Municipal kabataan officials shall remain in office
Treasurer Pangalian Alawi from the unless sooner removed or suspended for
Office of the Provincial Treasurer at cause until their successors shall have
Marawi City. That EO Kapampangan only been elected and qualified. The
re-appeared after the election on 15 July provisions of the Omnibus Election Code
2002, that was on 19 July 2002, when the relative to failure of elections and special
Board of Election Tellers of the eighteen elections are hereby reiterated in this Act.
(18) barangays have already proclaimed
the winners. RA 9164 is now the law that fixes the
date of barangay and SK elections,
xxxxxxxxx 9 prescribes the term of office of barangay
and SK officials, and provides for the
It should be borne in mind that for this qualifications of candidates and voters
Court to uphold the factual findings of the for the SK elections.
COMELEC, it only needs to be shown that
the same is supported by substantial
As the law now stands, the language of Clearly therefrom, the COMELEC En
Section 5 of RA 9164 is clear. It is the Banc did not commit grave abuse of
duty of this Court to apply the plain discretion in ordering those who have
meaning of the language of Section 5. been elected and proclaimed in
Since there was a failure of elections in the barangay elections prior to the 2002
the 15 July 2002 regular elections and in elections to continue
the 13 August 2002 special elections, as Punong Barangaysin a hold-over
petitioners can legally remain in office as capacity until the holding of
barangay chairmen of their respective special barangay elections.
barangays in a hold-over capacity. They
shall continue to discharge their powers IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
and duties as punong barangay, and petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining
to the office. True, Section 43(c) of the Costs against petitioners.
Local Government Code limits the term of
elective barangay officials to three years. SO ORDERED.
However, Section 5 of RA 9164 explicitly
provides that incumbent barangay
officials may continue in office in a hold
over capacity until their successors are
elected and qualified.
G.R. No. 180363 April 28,
Section 5 of RA 9164 reiterates Section 4 2009
of RA 6679 which provides that "[A]ll
incumbent barangay officials xxx shall EDGAR Y. TEVES, Petitioner,
remain in office unless sooner removed vs.
or suspended for cause xxx until their THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
successors shall have been elected and and HERMINIO G.
qualified." Section 8 of the same RA 6679 TEVES, Respondents.
also states that incumbent elective
barangay officials running for the same DECISION
office "shall continue to hold office until
their successors shall have been elected YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
and qualified."
The issue for resolution is whether the
The application of the hold-over principle crime of which petitioner Edgar Y. Teves
preserves continuity in the transaction of was convicted in Teves v.
official business and prevents a hiatus in Sandiganbayan1 involved moral
government pending the assumption of a turpitude.
successor into office. As held in Topacio
Nueno v. Angeles, cases of extreme The facts of the case are undisputed.
necessity justify the application of the
hold-over principle.13 Petitioner was a candidate for the
position of Representative of the 3rd
legislative district of Negros Oriental
during the May 14, 2007 elections. On WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
March 30, 2007, respondent Herminio G. the Motion for Reconsideration dated 28
Teves filed a petition to May 2007 filed by respondent Edgar Y.
disqualify2petitioner on the ground that Teves challenging the Resolution of this
in Teves v. Sandiganbayan,3 he was Commission (First Division) promulgated
convicted of violating Section 3(h), on 11 May 2007 is hereby DENIED for
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti- having been rendered moot and
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for academic.
possessing pecuniary or financial interest
in a cockpit, which is prohibited under SO ORDERED.6
Section 89(2) of the Local Government
Code (LGC) of 1991, and was sentenced Hence, the instant petition based on the
to pay a fine of P10,000.00. Respondent following grounds:
alleged that petitioner is disqualified from
running for public office because he was I.
convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude which carries the accessory THERE WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
penalty of perpetual disqualification from AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
public office.4 The case was docketed as JURISDICTION, WHEN THE COMELEC EN
SPA No. 07-242 and assigned to the BANC DEMURRED IN RESOLVING THE
COMELEC’s First Division. MAIN ISSUE RAISED IN PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
On May 11, 2007, the COMELEC First WHETHER PETITIONER IS
Division disqualified petitioner from DISQUALIFIED TO RUN FOR PUBLIC
running for the position of member of OFFICE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
House of Representatives and ordered THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
the cancellation of his Certificate of IN G.R. NO. 154182.
Candidacy.5
II.
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT RENDERED
banc which was denied in its assailed MOOT AND ACADEMIC AS THE
October 9, 2007 Resolution for being RESOLUTION THEREOF WILL
moot, thus: DETERMINE PETITIONER’S
QUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR OTHER
It appears, however, that [petitioner] lost PUBLIC POSITIONS IN FUTURE
in the last 14 May 2007 congressional ELECTIONS.
elections for the position of member of
the House of Representatives of the Third III.
district of Negros Oriental thereby
rendering the instant Motion for THERE WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
Reconsideration moot and academic. AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION, WHEN THE COMELEC EN
BANC IN EFFECT AFFIRMED THE
FINDINGS OF THE FIRST DIVISION
WHICH RULED THAT PETITIONER’S eligible to run again in the 2010 elections
CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF because his disqualification shall be
SECTION 3(H) OF R.A. 3019 AND THE deemed removed after the expiration of
IMPOSITION OF FINE IS A CONVICTION a period of five years from service of the
FOR A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL sentence. Assuming that the elections
TURPITUDE. would be held on May 14, 2010, the
records show that it was only on May 24,
A. 2005 when petitioner paid the fine of
P10,000.00 he was sentenced to pay in
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PETITIONER Teves v. Sandignbayan.8 Such being the
WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME reckoning point, thus, the five-year
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE disqualification period will end only on
SHOULD BE RESOLVED TAKING INTO May 25, 2010. Therefore he would still be
CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS OF THE ineligible to run for public office during
SUPREME COURT IN G.R. NO. 154182. the May 14, 2010 elections.

B. Hence, it behooves the Court to resolve

the issue of whether or not petitioner’s
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DECISION violation of Section 3(h), R.A. No. 3019
OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT involves moral turpitude.1avvphi1
SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST
DIVISION OF THE COMELEC, THAT Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code
BASED ON THE "TOTALITY OF FACTS" reads:
DOCTRINE, PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person
MORAL TURPITUDE.7 who has been declared by competent
authority insane or incompetent, or has
The petition is impressed with merit. been sentenced by final judgment for
subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for
The fact that petitioner lost in the any offense for which he has been
congressional race in the May 14, 2007 sentenced to a penalty of more than
elections did not effectively moot the eighteen months, or for a crime involving
issue of whether he was disqualified from moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
running for public office on the ground be a candidate and to hold any office,
that the crime he was convicted of unless he has been given plenary pardon
involved moral turpitude. It is still a or granted amnesty.lawphil.net
justiciable issue which the COMELEC
should have resolved instead of merely The disqualifications to be a candidate
declaring that the disqualification case herein provided shall be deemed
has become moot in view of petitioner’s removed upon the declaration by
defeat. competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after
Further, there is no basis in the the expiration of a period of five years
COMELEC’s findings that petitioner is from his service of sentence, unless
within the same period he again becomes Thus, there are two modes by which a
disqualified. (Emphasis supplied) public officer who has a direct or indirect
financial or pecuniary interest in any
Moral turpitude has been defined as business, contract, or transaction may
everything which is done contrary to violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. The
justice, modesty, or good morals; an act first mode is when the public officer
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the intervenes or takes part in his official
private and social duties which a man capacity in connection with his financial
owes his fellowmen, or to society in or pecuniary interest in any business,
general.9 contract, or transaction. The second
mode is when he is prohibited from
Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 of which having such an interest by the
petitioner was convicted, reads: Constitution or by law.11

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public In Teves v. Sandiganbayan,12 petitioner

officers. — In addition to acts or was convicted under the second mode
omissions of public officers already for having pecuniary or financial interest
penalized by existing law, the following in a cockpit which is prohibited under
shall constitute corrupt practices of any Sec. 89(2) of the Local Government Code
public officer and are hereby declared to of 1991. The Court held therein:
be unlawful:
However, the evidence for the
xxxx prosecution has established that
petitioner Edgar Teves, then mayor of
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the
or pecuniary interest in any business, cockpit in question. In his sworn
contract or transaction in connection with application for registration of cockpit filed
which he intervenes or takes part in his on 26 September 1983 with the
official capacity, or in which he is Philippine Gamefowl Commission, Cubao,
prohibited by the Constitution or by any Quezon City, as well as in his renewal
law from having any interest. application dated 6 January 1989 he
stated that he is the owner and manager
The essential elements of the violation of of the said cockpit. Absent any evidence
said provision are as follows: 1) The that he divested himself of his ownership
accused is a public officer; 2) he has a over the cockpit, his ownership thereof is
direct or indirect financial or pecuniary rightly to be presumed because a thing
interest in any business, contract or once proved to exist continues as long as
transaction; 3) he either: a) intervenes or is usual with things of that nature. His
takes part in his official capacity in affidavit dated 27 September 1990
connection with such interest, or b) is declaring that effective January 1990 he
prohibited from having such interest by "turned over the management of the
the Constitution or by law.10 cockpit to Mrs. Teresita Z. Teves for the
reason that [he] could no longer devote
a full time as manager of the said entity
due to other work pressure" is not The offense proved, therefore, is the
sufficient proof that he divested himself second mode of violation of Section 3(h)
of his ownership over the cockpit. Only of the Anti-Graft Law, which is possession
the management of the cockpit was of a prohibited interest.13
transferred to Teresita Teves effective
January 1990. Being the owner of the However, conviction under the second
cockpit, his interest over it was direct. mode does not automatically mean that
the same involved moral turpitude. A
Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar determination of all surrounding
Teves over the cockpit were transferred circumstances of the violation of the
to his wife, still he would have a direct statute must be considered. Besides,
interest thereon because, as correctly moral turpitude does not include such
held by respondent Sandiganbayan, they acts as are not of themselves immoral
remained married to each other from but whose illegality lies in their being
1983 up to 1992, and as such their positively prohibited, as in the instant
property relation can be presumed to be case.
that of conjugal partnership of gains in
the absence of evidence to the contrary. Thus, in Dela Torre v. Commission on
Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that Elections,14 the Court clarified that:
all property of the marriage is presumed
to belong to the conjugal partnership Not every criminal act, however, involves
unless it be proved that it pertains moral turpitude. It is for this reason that
exclusively to the husband or to the wife. "as to what crime involves moral
And Section 143 of the Civil Code turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to
declares all the property of the conjugal determine." In resolving the foregoing
partnership of gains to be owned in question, the Court is guided by one of
common by the husband and wife. the general rules that crimes mala in se
Hence, his interest in the Valencia involve moral turpitude, while crimes
Cockpit is direct and is, therefore, mala prohibita do not, the rationale of
prohibited under Section 89(2) of the which was set forth in "Zari v. Flores," to
LGC of 1991, which reads: wit:

Section 89. Prohibited Business and "It (moral turpitude) implies something
Pecuniary Interest. – (a) It shall be immoral in itself, regardless of the fact
unlawful for any local government official that it is punishable by law or not. It must
or employee, directly or indirectly, to: not be merely mala prohibita, but the act
itself must be inherently immoral. The
xxxx doing of the act itself, and not its
prohibition by statute fixes the moral
(2) Hold such interests in any cockpit or turpitude. Moral turpitude does not,
other games licensed by a local however, include such acts as are not of
government unit…. [Emphasis supplied]. themselves immoral but whose illegality
lies in their being positively prohibited."
This guideline nonetheless proved short totality of facts evinces [his] moral
of providing a clear-cut solution, for in turpitude. The prohibition was intended
"International Rice Research Institute v. to avoid any conflict of interest or any
NLRC, the Court admitted that it cannot instance wherein the public official would
always be ascertained whether moral favor his own interest at the expense of
turpitude does or does not exist by the public interest. The [petitioner] knew
merely classifying a crime as malum in se of the prohibition but he attempted to
or as malum prohibitum. There are circumvent the same by holding out that
crimes which are mala in se and yet but the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation
rarely involve moral turpitude and there Center is to be owned by a certain Daniel
are crimes which involve moral turpitude Teves. Later on, he would aver that he
and are mala prohibita only. In the final already divested himself of any interest
analysis, whether or not a crime involves of the cockpit in favor of his wife. But the
moral turpitude is ultimately a question Supreme Court saw through the ruse and
of fact and frequently depends on all the declared that what he divested was only
circumstances surrounding the violation the management of the cockpit but not
of the statute. (Emphasis the ownership. And even if the ownership
supplied)1awphi1 is transferred to his wife, the respondent
would nevertheless have an interest
Applying the foregoing guidelines, we thereon because it would still belong to
examined all the circumstances the conjugal partnership of gains, of
surrounding petitioner’s conviction and which the [petitioner] is the other half.
found that the same does not involve
moral turpitude. [Petitioner] therefore maintained
ownership of the cockpit by deceit. He
First, there is neither merit nor factual has the duty to divest himself but he did
basis in COMELEC’s finding that not and instead employed means to hide
petitioner used his official capacity in his interests. He knew that it was
connection with his interest in the cockpit prohibited he nevertheless concealed his
and that he hid the same by transferring interest thereon. The facts that he hid his
the management to his wife, in violation interest denotes his malicious intent to
of the trust reposed on him by the favor self-interest at the expense of the
people. public. Only a man with a malevolent,
decadent, corrupt and selfish motive
The COMELEC, in justifying its conclusion would cling on and conceal his interest,
that petitioner’s conviction involved the acquisition of which is prohibited.
moral turpitude, misunderstood or This plainly shows his moral depravity
misapplied our ruling in Teves v. and proclivity to put primacy on his self
Sandiganbayan. According to the interest over that of his fellowmen. Being
COMELEC: a public official, his act is also a betrayal
of the trust reposed on him by the
In the present case, while the crime for people. Clearly, the totality of his acts is
which [petitioner] was convicted may per contrary to the accepted rules of right
se not involve moral turpitude, still the and duty, honesty and good morals. The
crime, as committed by the [petitioner], present LGC prohibiting possession of
plainly involves moral turpitude.15 such interest.

On the contrary, the Court’s ruling states: As aptly observed in Teves v.

Sandiganbayan:
The Sandiganbayan found that the
charge against Mayor Teves for causing As early as 1983, Edgar Teves was
the issuance of the business permit or already the owner of the Valencia
license to operate the Valencia Cockpit Cockpit. Since then until 31 December
and Recreation Center is "not well- 1991, possession by a local official of
founded." This it based, and rightly so, pecuniary interest in a cockpit was not
on the additional finding that only the yet prohibited. It was before the
Sangguniang Bayan could have issued a effectivity of the LGC of 1991, or on
permit to operate the Valencia Cockpit in January 1990, that he transferred the
the year 1992. Indeed, under Section management of the cockpit to his wife
447(3) of the LGC of 1991, which took Teresita. In accordance therewith it was
effect on 1 January 1992, it is the Teresita who thereafter applied for the
Sangguniang Bayan that has the renewal of the cockpit registration. Thus,
authority to issue a license for the in her sworn applications for renewal of
establishment, operation, and the registration of the cockpit in question
maintenance of cockpits. Unlike in the old dated 28 January 1990 and 18 February
LGC, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, wherein 1991, she stated that she is the
the municipal mayor was the presiding Owner/Licensee and Operator/Manager
officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, under of the said cockpit. In her renewal
the LGC of 1991, the mayor is not so application dated 6 January 1992, she
anymore and is not even a member of referred to herself as the Owner/Licensee
the Sangguniang Bayan. Hence, Mayor of the cockpit. Likewise in the separate
Teves could not have intervened or taken Lists of Duly Licensed Personnel for
part in his official capacity in the issuance Calendar Years 1991 and 1992, which
of a cockpit license during the material she submitted on 22 February 1991 and
time, as alleged in the information, 17 February 1992, respectively, in
because he was not a member of the compliance with the requirement of the
Sangguniang Bayan.16 Philippine Gamefowl Commission for the
renewal of the cockpit registration, she
Thus, petitioner, as then Mayor of signed her name as
Valencia, did not use his influence, Operator/Licensee. (Emphasis
17

authority or power to gain such pecuniary supplied)

or financial interest in the cockpit.
Neither did he intentionally hide his Second, while possession of business and
interest in the subject cockpit by pecuniary interest in a cockpit licensed by
transferring the management thereof to the local government unit is expressly
his wife considering that the said transfer prohibited by the present LGC, however,
occurred before the effectivity of the its illegality does not mean that violation
thereof necessarily involves moral
turpitude or makes such possession of Section 89(2) of the LGC involves moral
interest inherently immoral. Under the turpitude.
old LGC, mere possession by a public
officer of pecuniary interest in a cockpit Suffice it to state that cockfighting, or
was not among the prohibitions. Thus, in sabong in the local parlance, has a long
Teves v. Sandiganbayan, the Court took and storied tradition in our culture and
judicial notice of the fact that: was prevalent even during the Spanish
occupation.19 While it is a form of
x x x under the old LGC, mere possession gambling, the morality thereof or the
of pecuniary interest in a cockpit was not wisdom in legalizing it is not a justiciable
among the prohibitions enumerated in issue. In Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
Section 41 thereof. Such possession Corporation, Inc., it was held that:
became unlawful or prohibited only upon
the advent of the LGC of 1991, which The morality of gambling is not a
took effect on 1 January 1992. Petitioner justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal
Edgar Teves stands charged with an per se. While it is generally considered
offense in connection with his prohibited inimical to the interests of the people,
interest committed on or about 4 there is nothing in the Constitution
February 1992, shortly after the maiden categorically proscribing or penalizing
appearance of the prohibition. gambling or, for that matter, even
Presumably, he was not yet very much mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress
aware of the prohibition. Although to deal with the activity as it sees fit. In
ignorance thereof would not excuse him the exercise of its own discretion, the
from criminal liability, such would justify legislature may prohibit gambling
the imposition of the lighter penalty of a altogether or allow it without limitation or
fine of P10,000 under Section 514 of the it may prohibit some forms of gambling
LGC of 1991.18 (Italics supplied) and allow others for whatever reasons it
may consider sufficient. Thus, it has
The downgrading of the indeterminate prohibited jueteng and monte but
penalty of imprisonment of nine years permits lotteries, cockfighting and horse-
and twenty-one days as minimum to racing. In making such choices, Congress
twelve years as maximum to a lighter has consulted its own wisdom, which this
penalty of a fine of P10,000.00 is a Court has no authority to review, much
recognition that petitioner’s violation was less reverse. Well has it been said that
not intentionally done contrary to justice, courts do no sit to resolve the merits of
modesty, or good morals but due to his conflicting theories. That is the
lack of awareness or ignorance of the prerogative of the political departments.
prohibition. It is settled that questions regarding the
wisdom, morality, or practicability of
Lastly, it may be argued that having an statutes are not addressed to the
interest in a cockpit is detrimental to judiciary but may be resolved only by the
public morality as it tends to bring forth legislative and executive departments, to
idlers and gamblers, hence, violation of which the function belongs in our scheme
of government. That function is
exclusive. Whichever way these branches Panganiban, Benitez, Baninaga &
decide, they are answerable only to their Bautista for private respondent S. de la
own conscience and the constituents who Cruz.
will ultimately judge their acts, and not to
the courts of justice.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

The assailed Resolutions of the GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:p
Commission on Elections dated May 11,
2007 and October 9, 2007 disqualifying The main issue in these consolidated
petitioner Edgar Y. Teves from running petitions centers on who is the rightful
for the position of Representative of the governor of the province of Leyte 1)
3rd District of Negros Oriental, are petitioner Adelina Larrazabal (G.R. No.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new 100739) who obtained the highest
one is entered declaring that the crime number of votes in the local elections of
committed by petitioner (violation of February 1, 1988 and was proclaimed as
Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019) did not involve the duly elected governor but who was
moral turpitude. later declared by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) "... to lack both
SO ORDERED. residence and registration qualifications
for the position of Governor of Leyte as
provided by Art. X, Section 12, Philippine
Constitution in relation to Title II,
Chapter I, Sec. 42, B.P. Blg. 137 and Sec.
89, R.A. No. 179 and is hereby
G.R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991 disqualified as such Governor"; 2)
petitioner Benjamin Abella (G.R. No.
BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, petitioner, 100710), who obtained the second
vs. highest number of votes for the position
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and of governor but was not allowed by the
ADELINA Y. COMELEC to be proclaimed as governor
LARRAZABAL, respondents. after the disqualification of Larrazabal; or
3) Leopoldo E. Petilla, the vice-governor
G.R. No. 100739 September 3, 1991 of the province of. Leyte.

ADELINA Y. This is the fourth time that the

LARRAZABAL, petitioner, controversy relating to the local elections
vs. in February 1, 1988 for governor of the
COMMSSION ON ELECTIONS and province of Leyte is elevated to this
SILVESTRE DE LA CRUZ, respondents. Court. The antecedent facts of these
cases are stated in the earlier
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. for petitioner in consolidated cases of BENJAMIN P.
100739. ABELLA and SILVESTRE T. DE LA CRUZ,
petitioners, v. ADELINA INDAY
Cesar A. Sevilla for petitioner in 100710.
LARRAZABAL, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF was dismissed. [G.R. No. 81313])
CANVASSERS OF LEYTE and On January 31, 1988, the day
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, before the election, she filed her
respondents (G.R. Nos. 87721-30) and own certificate of candidacy in
BENJAMN P. ABELLA and SILVESTRE T. substitution of her husband.
DE LA CRUZ, petitioners v. ADELINA (Ibid., p. 48) The following day, at
LARRAZABAL and COMMISSION ON about 9:30 o'clock in the morning,
ELECTIONS, respondents (G. R. No. Silvestre de la Cruz, a registered
88004) 180 SCRA 509 [1989]), to wit: voter of Tacloban City, filed a
petition with the provincial
The Court has ordered the election supervisor of Leyte to
consolidation of G.R. Nos 87721- disqualify her for alleged false
30 and G.R. No. 88004 involving statements in her certificate of
the same parties and the same candidacy regarding her
election in 1988 for the office of residence. (Id., pp. 113-118) This
provincial governor of Leyte. was immediately transmitted to
Challenged in the petitions for the main office of the Commission
certiorari are the resolutions of the on Elections, which could not
respondent Commission on function, however, because all but
Elections dismissing the pre- one of its members had not yet
proclamation and disqualification been confirmed by the
cases filed by the herein Commission on Appointments. De
petitioners against private la Cruz then came to this Court,
respondent Adelina Larrazabal. which issued a temporary
restraining order on February 4,
Petitioner Benjamin P. Abella was 1988, enjoining the provincial
the official candidate of the Liberal board of canvassers of Leyte 'from
Party for provincial governor of proclaiming Adelina Larrazabal as
Leyte in the local election held on the winning candidate for the
February 1, 1988. The private Office of the Governor in the
respondent is the wife of Emeterio province of Leyte, in the event
V. Larrazabal, the original that she obtains the winning
candidate of the Lakas ng Bansa- margin of votes in the canvass of
PDP-Laban who was disqualified election returns of said province.'
by the Commission on Elections on (Id., p. 179) On March 1, 1988,
January 18, 1988, for lack of the Commission on Elections
residence. (G.R. No. 88004, Rollo, having been fully constituted, we
pp. 102-104) (He filed a petition remanded the petition thereto for
for certiorari to challenge this appropriate action, including
resolution. He, however, filed an maintenance or lifting of the
urgent ex-parte motion to Court's temporary restraining
withdraw petition which was order of February 4, 1988. (Id. pp.
granted in a resolution dated 182-184)
January 21, 1988 and the case
In the meantime, petitioner Election Code. ' (G.R. Nos. 88004,
Abella, after raising various verbal Rollo, pp. 26-40)
objections (later duly reduced to
writing) during the canvass of the The motion for reconsideration of
election returns, seasonably the resolution on the pre-
elevated them to the Commission proclamation cases was denied by
on Elections in ten separate the COMELEC en banc on April 13,
appeals docketed as SPC Nos. 88- 1989, with no dissenting vote.
627 to 88627-I. Pending (G.R. Nos. 87721-30, Rollo, pp.
resolution of these cases, Abella 51-56) These cases are the
intervened on March 7, 1988 in subject of G.R. Nos. 87721-30,
the disqualification case, docketed where we issued on April 18,
as SPC No. 88-546, and the 1989, another temporary
following day filed a complaint, restraining order to the provincial
with the Law Department of the board of canvassers of Leyte to
COMELEC charging the private CEASE and DESIST from resuming
respondent with falsification and the canvass of the contested
misrepresentation of her returns and/or from proclaiming
residence in her certificate of private respondent Adelina
candidacy. On March 22, 1988, Larrazabal Governor of Leyte.
the public respondent
consolidated the pre-proclamation The motion for reconsideration of
and disqualification cases with the the resolution on the qualification
Second Division. case was also denied by the
COMELEC en banc on May 4,
On February 3, 1989, this Division 1989, but with three
unanimously upheld virtually all commissioners dissenting. (G.R.
the challenged rulings of the No. 88004, Rollo, pp 47-61;
provincial board of canvassers, penned by Commissioner Abueg,
mostly on the ground that the Jr., with Commissioners Africa
objection raised were merely Rama, and Yorac, dissenting) The
formal and did not affect the dismissal of this case is the subject
validity of the returns or the of G.R. No. 88004. (at pp. 511-
ballots, and ordered the 513)
proclamation of the winner after
completion of the canvass. (G.R. Disposing of the consolidated petitions,
Nos. 87721-30, Rollo, pp. 18-50) this Court rendered judgment as follows:
On that same date, the
disqualification case was also 1. In G.R.Nos. 87721-30, the
dismissed by a 2-1 decision, and decision dated February 3, 1989,
the matter was referred to the the resolution dated April 13,
Law Department for 'preliminary 1989, are affirmed and the
investigation for possible violation petition is DISMISSED.
of Section 74 of the Omnibus
 2. In G.R. No. 88004, the decision Hence, these petitions.
dated February 3,1989, and the
resolution dated May 4, 1989, are We treat the various Comments as
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Answers and decide the petitions on their
Respondent Commission on merits.
Elections is ORDERED to directly
hear and decide SPC Case No. 88- Acting on a most urgent petition (motion)
546 under Section 78 of the for the issuance of a restraining order
Omnibus Election Code, with filed by petitioner Larrazabal, this Court
authority to maintain or lift our issued a temporary restraining order on
temporary restraining order of August 1, 1991.
April 18, 1989, according to its
own assessment of the evidence xxx xxx xxx
against the private respondent.
... [E]ffective immediately and
The parties are enjoined to resolve continuing until further orders
this case with all possible speed, from this Court, ordering the
to the end that the Governor of respondent on on Elections to
Leyte may be ascertained and CEASE and DESIST from
installed without further delay. (p. enforcing, implementing and
520) executing the decision and
resolution, respectively dated
In view of these rulings, the COMELEC, February 14, 1991 and July 18,
upon motion of Larrazabal, lifted its 1991.
temporary restraining order against her
proclamation paving Larrazabal's It appearing that despite the filing
proclamation and her assumption to the of this petition before this Court
Office of Governor of Leyte while the and during its pendency, the
hearings in the disqualification case (SPC incumbent Vice-Governor of Leyte
No. 88-546) continued. Hon. Leopoldo E. Petilla, took his
oath as Provincial Governor of
On February 14, 1991, the second Leyte and assumed the
division in a 2-1 vote rendered a decision governorship as contained in his
disqualifying Larrazabal as governor. telegraphic message, pursuant to
COMELEC resolution SPC No. 88-
On July 18, 1991, the Commission en 546, promulgated on July 18,
banc issued a resolution which denied 1991, the Court further Resolved
Larrazabal's motion to declare decision to ORDER Hon. Leopoldo E. Petilla
void and/or motion for reconsideration to MAINTAIN the status quo ante
and affirmed the second division's then prevailing and/or existing
decision. In the same resolution, the before the filing of this petition
Commission disallowed Abella's and to DESIST from assuming the
proclamation as governor of Leyte. office of the Governor and from
discharging the duties and
 functions thereof. (Rollo-100739, residence having been squarely
p. 204) raised before it, it should not have
been shunted aside to the Law
In G.R. No. 100739, petitioner Larrazabal Department for a roundabout
professes that the COMELEC completely investigation of the private
disregarded our pronouncement in G.R. respondent's qualification through
No. 88004 in that instead of acting on the filing of a criminal prosecution,
SPC Case No. 88-546 under section 78 of if found to be warranted, with
the Election Code, the COMELEC resultant disqualification of the
proceeded with a disqualification case accused in case of conviction. The
not contemplated in G.R. No. 88004. COMELEC should have opted for a
more direct and speedy process
The argument is not meritorious. available under the law,
considering the vital public
The questioned decision and resolution interest involved and the necessity
of the COMELEC conform with this of resolving the question of the
Court's decision in G.R. No. 88004. earliest possible time for the
benefit of the inhabitants of Leyte.
Initially, herein respondent Silvestre T.
de la Cruz (Benjamin P. Abella, petitioner In the view of the Court, the
in G.R. No. 100710 was allowed to pertinent provision is Section 78 in
intervene in the case) filed a petition with relation to Section 6 of R.A. No.
the COMELEC to disqualify petitioner 6646.
Larrazabal from running as governor of
Leyte on the ground that she Sec. 78. Petition to deny due
misrepresented her residence in her course to or cancel a certificate of
certificate of candidacy as Kananga, candidacy. — A verified petition
Leyte. It was alleged that she was in fact seeking to deny due course or to
a resident of Ormoc City like her husband cancel a certificate of candidacy
who was earlier disqualified from running may be filed by any person
for the same office. The COMELEC exclusively on the ground that any
dismissed the petition and referred the material representation contained
case to its Law Department for proper therein as required under Section
action on the ground that the petition 74 hereof is false. The petition
was a violation of Section 74 of the may be filed at any time not later
Election Code and, pursuant to it rules, than twenty-five days from the
should be prosecuted as an election time of the filing of the certificate
offense under Section 262 of the Code. of candidacy and shall be decided,
after due notice and hearing, not
This Court reversed and set aside the later than fifteen days before the
COMELEC's ruling, to wit: election.

The Court holds that the dismissal Section 6 of R.A. 6646 states as follows:
was improper. The issue of
 Effect of Disqualification Case. — the residence provided by law to qualify
Any candidate who has been her to run for the position of governor in
declared by final judgment to be Leyte.
disqualified shall not be voted for,
and the votes cast for him shall In line with the Court's directive, the
not be counted. If for any reason COMELEC conducted hearings in SPC
a candidate is not declared by final Case No. 88-546 to resolve the
judgment before an election to be qualification of Larrazabal on the basis of
disqualified and he is voted in such two (2) legal issues raised by Silvestre T.
election, the Court or Commission de la Cruz namely, Larrazabal's lack of
shall continue with the trial and legal residence in the province of Leyte
hearing of the action, inquiry, or and her not being a registered voter in
protest and, upon motion of the the province, as required by Title II,
complainant or any intervenor, Chapter I, Section 42, B.P. Blg. 337, in
may during the pendency thereof relation to Article X, Section 12 of the
order the suspension of the Constitution, to wit:
proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt Sec. 42. Qualification. — (1) An
is strong. ... elective local official must be a
citizen of the Philippines, at least
xxx xxx xxx twenty-three years of age on
election day, a qualified voter
The above-stressed circumstances registered as such in the
should explain the necessity for barangay, municipality, city or
continuing the investigation of the province where he proposes to be
private respondent's challenged elected, a resident therein for at
disqualification even after the least one year at the time of the
election notwithstanding that such filing of his certificate of
matter is usually resolved before candidacy, and able to read and
the election. Independently of write English, Pilipino, or any
these circumstances, such other local language or dialect.
proceedings are allowed by
Section 6 of RA. 6646 if for any xxx xxx xxx
reason a candidate is not declared
by final judgment before an Sec. 12. Cities that are highly
election to be disqualified ... urbanized, as determined by law,
and component cities whose
In fine, the Court directed the COMELEC charters prohibit their voters from
to determine the residence qualification voting for provincial elective
of petitioner Larrazabal in SPC Case No. officials, shall be independent of
88-546. Concomitant with this directive the province. The voters of
would be the disqualification of petitioner component cities within a
Larrazabal in the event that substantial province, whose charters contain
evidence is adduced that she really lacks no such prohibition, shall not be
 deprived of their right to vote for of INTENTION, the animus revertendi
elective provincial officials. rather than anything else."

The position of petitioners De la Cruz and In this regard she states that ... "her
Abena was that respondent Larrazabal is subsequent physical transfer of residence
neither a resident nor a registered voter to Ormoc City thereafter, did not
of Kananga, Leyte as she claimed but a necessarily erased (sic) or removed her
resident and registered voter of Ormoc Kananga residence, for as long as she
City, a component city of the province of had the ANIMUS REVERTENDIevidenced
Leyte but independent of the province by her continuous and regular acts of
pursuant to Section 12, Article X of the returning there in the course of the years,
Constitution thereby disqualifying her for although she had physically resided at
the position of governor of Leyte. They Ormoc City." (Petition, Rollo, p. 40)
presented testimonial as well as
documentary evidence to prove their As can be gleaned from the questioned
stance. decision, the COMELEC based its finding
that the petitioner lacks the required
On the other hand, respondent residence on the evidence of record to
Larrazabal maintained that she was a the effect that despite protestations to
resident and a registered voter of the contrary made by the petitioner, she
Kananga, Leyte. She, too presented has established her residence at Ormoc
testimonial as well as documentary City from 1975 to the present and not at
evidence to prove her stand. Kananga, Leyte. Her attempt to
purportedly change her residence one
The COMELEC ruled against the year before the election by registering at
respondent, now petitioner Larrazabal. Kananga, Leyte to qualify her to ran for
the position of governor of the province
In its questioned decision and resolution, of Leyte clearly shows that she considers
the COMELEC found that petitioner herself already a resident of Ormoc City.
Larrazabal was neither a resident of In the absence of any evidence to prove
Kananga, Leyte nor a registered voter otherwise, the reliance on the provisions
thereat. With these findings, the of the Family Code was proper and in
COMELEC disqualified the petitioner as consonance with human experience. The
governor of the province of Leyte. petitioner did not present evidence to
show that she and her husband maintain
The petitioner, however, avers that the separate residences, she at Kananga,
COMELEC decision is erroneous when it Leyte and her husband at Ormoc City.
relied on the provisions of the Family The second division of the COMELEC in
Code to rule that the petitioner lacks the its decision dated February 14, 1991
required residence to qualify her to run states:
for the position of governor of Leyte. She
opines that under "the Election Law, the xxx xxx xxx
matter of determination of the
RESIDENCE is more on the principle
But there is the more fundamental Kananga, very often as they have
issue of residence. The only properties in Lonoy and a house in
indications of a change of Mahawan.
residence so far as respondent is
concerned are: the address The references to residence in the
indicated in the application for documents of cancellation and
cancellation filed by respondent registration are already assessed
indicating her postal address as for their evidentiary value in
Kananga, Leyte, the annotation in relation to the documents
her Voter's affidavit for Precinct themselves above. The question
No. 15 that her registration was must therefore be addressed in
cancelled due to lack of residence; relation to the testimony of
the testimony of Anastacia Anastacia Dasigan Mangbanag
Dasigan Mangbanag that she and Adolfo V. Larrazabal. The gist
entered into a contract of lease of the testimonies is that they
with option to buy with the leased properties in Mahawan,
spouses Emeterio and Inday Leyte and that they are seen in the
Larrazabal over two parcels of house on the land leased. But the
land the witness owned in contract of lease with option to
Mahawan, Kananga, Leyte; that purchase itself indicates as to
she sees the spouses in the leased where the legal residence of the
house in Kananga, that she was Jarrazabal is. The pertinent
informed by Inday Larrazabal that portion states:
the spouses had decided to buy
their property because she SPS EMETERIO V. LARRAZABAL
wanted to beautify the house for AND ADELINA Y. LARRAZABAL,
their residence. She attached as both of legal age, Filipino,
annex the written contract signed and residents of Ormoc City,
by her and the spouses; and the Philippines, hereinafter referred to
testimony of Adolfo Larrazabal as the LESSEES.
Exh. "10" cousin of the spouses
that 'at a family meeting ... the The acknowledgment also
political plan of the Larrazabal clan indicates that Emeterio V.
was discussed, among which were Larrazabal presented his
(sic) the problem of Terry's Residence Certificate No.
residence in Ormoc City' and that 155774914 issued in Ormoc City.
it was decided in said meeting ...
that Inday Larrazabal, wife of The testimony of Adolfo
Terry, will transfer her Ormoc Larrazabal reenforces this
Registration as a voter to conclusion. It admits, as of the
Kananga, Leyte (so) she will be second or third week of
able to vote for Terry and also November, that the residence of
help me in my candidacy; that Emeterio Larrazabal was Ormoc
they have been staying in City and that Inday Larrazabal was
going to transfer her registration Husband and wife as a matter of
so she may be able to vote for principle live together in one legal
him. residence which is their usual
place of abode. (COMELEC
For the purpose of running for decision, pp. 21-23; Rollo –
public office, the residence 100710, pp. 67-69; Emphsis
requirement should be read as supplied)
legal residence or domicile, not
any place where a party may have As regards the principle of ANIMUS
properties and may visit from time REVERTENDI we ruled in the case
to time. of Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294
[1954]):
The Civil Code is clear that '[F]or
the exercise of civil rights and the xxx xxx xxx
fulfillment of civil obligations, the
domicile of natural persons is the ... [M]ere absence from one's
place of their habitual residence. residence or origin-domicile-to
pursue studies, engage in
Arts. 68 and 69 of the Family business, or practice his
Code, E.O. No. 209 also provide as avocation, is not sufficient to
follows: constitute abandonment or loss of
such residence.' ... The
Art. 68. The husband and determination of a persons legal
wife are obliged to live residence or domicile largely
together, observe mutual depends upon intention which
love, respect and fidelity, may be inferred from his acts,
and render mutual help and activities and utterances. The
support. party who claims that a person
has abandoned or left his
Art. 69. The husband and residence or origin must show and
wife shall fix the family prove pre-ponderantly such
domicile. In case of abandonment or loss.
disagreement, the court
shall decide. The court may xxx xxx xxx
exempt one spouse from
living with the other if the ... A citizen may leave the place of
latter should live abroad or his birth to look for 'greener
there are other valid and pastures' as the saying goes, to
compelling reasons for the improve his life, and that, of
exemption. However, such course, includes study in other
exemption shall not apply if places, practice of his avocation,
the same is not compatible or engaging in business. When an
with the solidarity of the election is to be held, the citizen
family. who left his birthplace to improve
 his lot may desire to return to his on the following antecedents: 1) She
native town to cast his ballot but cancelled her registration in Ormoc City
for professional or business on November 25, 1987, and 2) she then
reasons, or for any other reason, transferred her registration to Kananga,
he may not absent himself from Leyte on November 25, 1987 by
the place of his professional or registering thereat and 3) she later voted
business activities; so there he on election day (February 1, 1988) in
registers as voter as he has the Kananga, Leyte.
qualifications to be one and is not
willing to give up or lose the Despite the insistence of the petitioner,
opportunity to choose the officials the evidence shows that her supposed
who are to run the government cancellation of registration in Ormoc City
especially in national elections. and transfer of registration in Kananga,
Despite such registration, the Leyte, is not supported by the records. As
animus revertendi to his home, to the COMELEC stated:
his domicile or residence of origin,
has not forsaken him. ... (at pp. The train of events, which led to
297-300) respondent's g of her certificate of
candidacy on the basis of her
In the instant case, there is no evidence registration started on November
to prove that the petitioner temporarily 25, 1987, when she allegedly filed
left her residence in Kananga, Leyte in all application for cancellation of
1975 to pursue any calling, profession or registration Exh. "2-B".
business. What is clear is that she Subsequent to this request, her
established her residence in Ormoc City voter's affidavit in Precinct 15,
with her husband and considers herself a Ormoc City with Serial No.
resident therein. The intention of animus 0918394 J was annotated with the
revertendi not to abandon her residence words 'cancelled upon application
in Kananga, Leyte therefor, is nor of the voter due to transfer of
present. The fact that she occasionally residence.' Thereafter, she
visits Kananga, Leyte through the years registered in Precinct No. 17,
does not signify an intention to continue Mahawan, Kananga, Leyte on
her residence therein. It is common November 28,1987 which
among us Filipinos to often visit places registration was contained in
where we formerly resided specially so Voter's Affidavit with Serial No.
when we have left friends and relatives 0190840-J The cancellation of
therein although for intents and purposes registration was submitted to the
we have already transferred our Board of Election Inspectors on
residence to other places. January 9, 1988 (Revision Day) on
the submission of the sworn
Anent the issue of whether or not the application at 4:30 p.m. allegedly
petitioner is a registered voter of by a clerk from the Election
Kananga, Leyte, the petitioner insists Registrar's Office with only the poll
that she is such a registered voter based clerk and the third member
because the Chairman of the (6) The poll clerk and the third
Board of Election Inspectors member prepared another
allegedly left earlier and did not minutes stating that the election
come back. Exh. "3-B". clerk had delivered the application
for cancellation at 4:30 P.M.
We find the version pressed by without any reference to the
respondent unworthy of belief. minutes they had previously
The story is marked by so many signed;
bizarre cirumtances not consistent
with the ordinary course of events (7) Emeterio Larrazabal, who was
or the natural behavior of persons. supposed to have registered in
Among these are: Precinct 17, Mahawan, Kananga,
was supposed to have filled up an
(1) The application for application for cancellation of his
cancellation of registration by registration in Precinct No. 15,
respondent Adelina Y. Larrazabal Ormoc City at Precinct 17
happened to be misplaced by a concurrent with his registration.
clerk in the Election Registrar's His application for cancellation
Office for Ormoc City so it was not was never submitted in evidence.
sent to the Board of Election
Inspectors in a sealed envelope; (8) The serial number of the
voter's affidavits of the spouses
(2) The 'inadverterment' (sic) Larrazabal in Precinct No. 17 are
misplacement was discovered only far removed from the serial
on January 9,1988; numbers of the other new
registrants in November 28, 1987
(3) The voter's affidavit was in the same precinct.
delivered by itself without any
endorsement or covering letter The most telling evidence is the
from the Election Registrar or list of voters (Form 2-A), Exh. "G",
anybody else; that the Chairman and the poll
clerk had written in Part II of the
(4) The election clerk delivered same, closed by the signatures of
the application for cancellation both officials showing that there
only towards the last hour of the were only nine (9) additional
revision day, allegedly at 4:30 registered voters in Precinct 17,
P.M., January 9, 1988; Mahawan, Kananga, Leyte,
namely, Bantasan, Merly; Conie;
(5) All the members of the Board Limosnero Anita; Limosnero W;
of Election Inspectors had already Pame Virginia; Savenario, Analiza;
signed the Minutes indicating that Verallo, Ofelia; Basan, Juanita;
no revision of the voter's list was and Acgang Bonifacio. This is
made as of 5:00 PM consistent with the list of new
voters after the November 28,
1987 for Precinct No. 17, It might also be stressed that one
Mahawan, Kananga, Leyte set of voter's list Exh. "G" had the
submitted by the Election of signature of both the Chairman,
Kananga to the National Central poll clerk and third member of the
File of the Commission per board, while the one which
certification of the Chief, National appeared later which included the
Central File Division on January names of the Larrazabal had the
25, 1988 dated January 25, 1988, signature only of the Chairman.
Exh. 'C'. The affidavits submitted Exh. "I".
by the Election Registrar to the
Commission could only have come From the certification of the
from the Board of Election National Central Files, it appears
Inspectors of Precinct No. 17, that the Serial Nos. of the newly
after the November 28, 1987 registered voters were as follows:
registration, for the Election 0189821-J 018922-J 0189823-J
Registrar could not have had the 0189824-J 0189825-J 0189826-J
affidavits of these new registrants 0189827-J 0189828-J 0189839-J
apart from those supplied by the The alleged registration of
Precinct itself. Why were not the Emeterio V. Larrazabal and
affidavits of the Larrazabals Adelina Y. Larrazabal are
included? Was this part of the inexplicably effected through
incredibly bizarre series of voter's affidavits with Serial Nos.
inadvertence and neglect that 0190893J and 01 90840-J. These
spanned Ormoc City and serial numbers are traced per
Kananga? This also explains the record of the Commission to
certification dated January 29, Precinct No. 6, municipality of
1988, of the Election Registrar of Kananga, Leyte. Per official
Kananga that as of that date Mrs. Project of precincts on file with the
Adelina Larrazabal was not a Commission, Precinct No. 6 is a
registered voter in any of the' poblacion precinct located in
precincts in Kananga. Exh. "L". It Kananga, Municipal High School
was only on February 15, 1988, or Building. How these documents
two weeks after the election day came to be used in Precinct No. 17
that the same Registrar certified in Barangay Mahawan and only by
for the first time that there were the Larrazabals has never been
two voters lists, the first without explained.
the names of the Larrazabals and
the second, which appeared only It also takes a lot of straining to
after February 1, submitted by the believe the story about the effort
Chairman of the Board for Precinct to cancel registration on
17 which contained the spouses November 25, 1987, which
Larrazabals' names. application surfaced before the
Board of Election inspectors for
Precinct No. 15, Ormoc City only
on January 9, 1988, Revision Day. voters, one Montero and one
As pointed out by Petitioner, it is Salvame were excluded by virtue
absurd that it would only be on of such order. As of January 29,
Revision Day, normally set aside 1988, when the certified true copy
for the purpose of receiving of the Voter's List for Precinct 15
inclusion and exclusion orders was furnished the petitioner, no
from the courts, that the additional entry was reflected on
application for cancellation would the list which would show what
be coincidentally found and transpired on January 9, 1988, as
delivered to the Board of Election alleged by the Election Registrar
Inspectors for Precinct 15. for Ormoc City and the poll clerk
Furthermore, the entire and third member of the board of
membership of the Board of inspectors that a cancellation was
Inspectors for said precinct, effected. It taxes credulity
signed a Minutes, Exh. "3-A" therefore, to lend belief to Exh. "2-
which indicates that no order of C", when was issued by the City
inclusion or exclusion was Registrar for Ormoc only on
received from any court and that February 1, 1990, which for the
the board proceeded with the first time showed handwritten
numbering of a total 229 voters annotations of cancellation of the
for the precinct. The Minutes also registration of Adelina Larrazabal
indicates that the Board adjourned and Vilma Manzano by witnesses
at 5:00 p.m. Exh. "3-B" which was Gratol and Patonog. If this
supposedly prepared after Exh. evidence did not exist at the time
"3-A" signed only by the poll clerk of the entry which purports to
and third member indicates that at have been on January 9, 1988,
4:30 P.M. an unidentified clerk this evidence could have been
from the Election Registrar's used to confront within Carolina
Office arrived with the application Quezon when she testified and
for cancellation of Vilma Manzano identified Exh. "N" on April 14,
and Adelina Larrazabal. 1988. In fact if these entries
indicating (sic) were made, they
It also appears that on November would have been evident in Exh.
28, 1987, the Board of Election 'W. The failure to confront Quezon
Inspectors for Precinct 15, Ormoc with the entries and the late
City prepared the list of voters for submission of Exh. "2-C" can only
said precinct, Exh. 'N' where the lead to two conclusions: these
name of Adelina Y. Larrazabal entries did not exist as of January
appears as voter No. 96 and 29, 1988 when the certification of
Emeterio V. Larrazabal is listed as the list of voters was made and
Voter No. 98. At the back of the that they were annotated in the
list there is a certification that voter's list after that date. This is
there was no voter which was consistent with Exh. "P" which was
included by court order and that to issued on February 11, 1988.
 The relative weight of the parties' component cities whose charters
evidence supports petitioner's prohibit their voters from voting
thesis that respondent was not a for provincial elective officials,
registered voter in Precinct No. 17, shall be independent of the
Brgy. Mahawan, Kananga, Leyte, province. The voters of
and, that she and her husband component cities within a
Emeterio Larrazabal continued to province, whose charters contain
be registered voters in Precinct no such prohibition, shall not be
No. 15, Ormoc City. (Rollo, pp. 62- deprived of their right to vote for
67; COMELEC decision, pp. 22-27) elective provincial officials.

The Court is bound by these factual Section 89 of Republic Act No. 179
findings as they are supported by creating the City of Ormoc provides:
substantial evidence:
Election of provincial governor and
In Aratuc v. Commission on members of the Provincial Board
Elections (88 SCRA 251), speaking of the members of the Provincial
of the need to preserve the Board of the Province of Leyte —
'independence and all the needed The qualified voters of Ormoc City
concomitant powers' of the shall not be qualified and entitled
Commission on Elections, Justice to vote in the election of the
Antonio P. Barredo declared that it provincial governor and the
is but proper that the Court should members of the provincial board
accord the greatest measures of of the Province of Leyte.
presumption of regularity to its
course of action ... to the end it Relating therefore, section 89 of R.A. 179
may achieve its designed place in to section 12, Article X of the Constitution
the democratic fabric of our one comes up with the following
government ... (Abella v. conclusion: that Ormoc City when
Larrazabal, supra) organized was not yet a highly-urbanned
city but is, nevertheless, considered
Failing in her contention that she is a independent of the province of Leyte to
resident and registered voter of Kananga, which it is geographically attached
Leyte, the petitioner poses an alternative because its charter prohibits its voters
position that her being a registered voter from voting for the provincial elective
in Ormoc City was no impediment to her officials. The question now is whether or
candidacy for the position of governor of not the prohibition against the 'city's
the province of Leyte. registered voters' electing the provincial
officials necessarily mean, a prohibition
Section 12, Article X of the Constitution of the registered voters to be elected as
provides: provincial officials.

Cities that are highly urbanized, as The petitioner citing section 4, Article X
determined by law, and of the Constitution, to wit:
 Sec. 4. The President of the province carries with it the prohibition or
Philippines shall exercise general mandate directed to their registered
supervision over local voters not to vote and be voted for the
governments. Provinces with provincial elective offices. The resolution
respect to component cities and in G.R. No. 80716 entitled Peralta v. The
municipalities and cities and Commission on Elections, et al. dated
municipalities with respect to December 10, 1987 applies to this case.
component barangays, shall While the cited case involves Olongapo
ensure that the acts of their City which is classified as a highly
component units are within the urbanized city, the same principle is
scope of their prescribed powers applicable.
and functions.
Moreover, Section 89 of Republic Act
submits that "while a Component City 179, independent of the constitutional
whose charter prohibits its voters from provision, prohibits registered voters of
participating in the elections for Ormoc City from voting and being voted
provincial office, is indeed independent of for elective offices in the province of
the province, such independence cannot Leyte. We agree with the COMELEC en
be equated with a highly urbanized city; banc that "the phrase 'shall not be
rather it is limited to the administrative qualified and entitled to vote in the
supervision aspect, and nowhere should election of the provincial governor and
it lead to the conclusion that said voters the members of the provincial board of
are likewise prohibited from running for the Province of Leyte' connotes two
the provincial offices." (Petition, p. 29) prohibitions — one, from running for and
the second, from voting for any provincial
The argument is untenable. elective official." (Resolution En Banc, p.
6)
Section 12, Article X of the Constitution is
explicit in that aside from highly- The petitioner takes exception to this
urbanized cities, component cities whose interpretation. She opines that such
charters prohibit their voters from voting interpretation is "wrong English" since
for provincial elective officials are nowhere in the provision is there any
independent of the province. In the same reference to a prohibition against running
provision, it provides for for provincial elective office. She states
other component cities within a that if the prohibition to run was indeed
province whose charters do not provide a intended, the provision should have been
similar prohibition. Necessarily, phrased "Shall not be qualified TO RUN
component cities like Ormoc City whose in the election FOR provincial governor."
charters prohibit their voters from voting A comma should have been used after
for provincial elective officials are treated the word qualified and after the word
like highly urbanized cities which are "vote" to clearly indicate that the phrase
outside the supervisory power of the "in the election of the provincial
province to which they are geographically governor" is modified separately and
attached. This independence from the distinctly by the words "not qualified" and
the words "not entitled to vote." the antecedent words, is illogical
(Petition, p. 19) and erroneous. The complete and
applicable rule is ad proximum
The Court finds the petitioner's antedecens flat relationisi
interpretation fallacious. impediatursentencia (See Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 57 citing
In the case of Mapa v. Arroyo (175 SCRA Brown v. Brown, Delta 3 Terry
76 [1989]) this Court interpreted Section 157, 29 A. 2d 149, 153) Relative
20 of Presidential Decree No. 957 in words refer to the nearest
relation to the conjunction and, to wit: antecedent, unless it be prevented
by the context. In the present
Time of Completion. — Every case, the employment of the word
owner or developer shall construct 'and' between 'facilities,
and provide the facilities, improvements, infrastructures'
improvements, infrastructures and 'other forms of development,'
and other forms of development, far from supporting petitioner's
including water supply and theory, enervates it instead since
lighting facilities, which are it is basic in legal hermeneutics
offered and indicated in the that and is not meant to separate
approved subdivision or words but is a conjunction used to
condominium plans. ... denote a joinder or union. (at pp.
81-83)
The Court ruled:
Applying these principles to the instant
We further reject petitioner's case, the conjunction and between the
strained and tenuous application phrase shall not be
of the called doctrine of last qualified and entitled to vote refer to two
antecedent in the interpretation of prohibitions as ruled by the COMELEC in
Section 20 and, correlatively, of relation to the demonstrative phrase "in
Section 21. He would thereby the election of the provincial governor
have the enumeration of 'facilities, and the members of the provincial board
improvements, infrastructures of the Province of Leyte."
and other forms of development'
interpreted to mean that the Finally, the petitioner contends that the
demonstrative Phrase 'which are February 14, 1991 decision of the
offered and indicated in the COMELEC's second division is null and
approved subdivision plans, etc,' void on the ground that on that date, the
refer only to 'other forms of term of Commissioner Andres Flores, one
development' and not to 'facilities, of the signatories of the majority opinion
improvements and (vote was 2-1) had already expired on
infrastructures.' While this February 2, 1991. (Commissioner Flores
subserves his purpose, such was nominated by the President on
bifurcation whereby the supposed January 30, 1988 and was confirmed by
adjectives phrase is set apart from the Commission on Appointments on
February 15, 1988. His term of office was The incumbent Members of the
fixed by the President for three years Civil Service Commission, the
from February 15, 1988 to February 15, Commission on Elections, and the
1991.) Commission on Audit shall
continue in office for one year
The petitioner postulates that the after the ratification of this
President has no power to fix the terms Constitution, unless they are
of office of the Commissioners of the sooner removed for cause or
COMELEC because the Constitution become incapacitated to
impliedly fixes such terms of office. With discharge The duties of their office
regards to Commissioner Flores, the or appointed to a new term
petitioner professes that Flores' term of thereunder. In no case shall any
three (3) years expired on February 2, Member serve longer than seven
1991 based in section 1(2), Article IX, C, years including service before the
of the Constitution, to wit: ratification of this Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx There is no need to pass upon this

constitutional issue raised by the
(2) The Chairman and the petitioner. The Court ruled in the case
Commissioners shall be appointed of Alger Electric, Inc. v. Court of
by the President with the consent Appeals (135 SCRA 37 [1985]):
of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven xxx xxx xxx
years without reappointment. Of
those first appointed, three ... This Court does not decide
Members shall hold office for questions of a constitutional
seven years, two Members for five nature unless absolutely
years, and the last Members for necessary to a decision of the
three years, without case. If there exists some other
reappointment. Any appointment ground based on statute or
to any vacancy shall be only for general law or other grounds of
the unexpired term of the construction, we decide the case
predecessor. In no case shall any on a non-constitutional
Member be appointed or determination. (See Burton v.
designated in a temporary or United States, 196 U.S. 283; Siler
acting capacity. In relation to the v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 213
Transitory Provision of the 1987 U.S. 175; Berea College v.
Constitution (Article XVIII) Kentucky 211 U.S. 45.) (at p. 45)
particularly Section 15 thereof, to
wit: Even if we concede that Commissioner
Flores' term expired on February 2, 1991,
xxx xxx xxx we fail to see how this could validate the
holding of an elective office by one who
is clearly disqualified from running for
that position and the continued exercise petitioner, at the very least, the
of government powers by one without petitioner is a de facto officer
legal authority to do so. The powers of entitled to compensation.
this Court are broad enough to enjoin the
violation of constitutional and statutory There is no denying that the
provisions by public officers especially petitioner assumed the Office of
where, as in this case, we merely affirm the Vice-Governor under color of a
the decision of the COMELEC en known appointment. As revealed
banc promulgated at a time when by the records, the petitioner was
Commissioner Flores was no longer a appointed by no less than the alter
member. ego of the President, the
Secretary of Local Government,
Moreover, under the peculiar after which he took his oath of
circumstances of this case, the decision office before Senator Alberto
of the second division of COMELEC would Romulo in the Office of
still be valid under the de facto doctrine. Department of Local Government
Regional Director Res Salvatierra.
Commissioner Flores was appointed for a Concededly, the appointment has
three-year term from February 15, 1988 the color of validity.
to February 15, 1991. In these three
years he exercised his duties and Petitioner Benjamin P. Abella in G.R. No.
functions as Commissioner. Granting in 100710 obtained the second highest
the absence of a statute expressly stating number of votes, next to Larrazabal in
when the terms of the COMELEC the local elections of February 1, 1988 in
Chairman and members commence and the province of Leyte. The COMELEC en
expire, that his term expired on February banc, after affirming the February 14,
2, 1991 to enable a faithful compliance 1991 decision of its second division
with the constitutional provision that the disqualifying arrazabal as governor
terms of office in the COMELEC are on a disallowed Abella from assuming position
staggered basis commencing and ending of governor in accordance with section 6,
at fixed intervals, his continuance in Republic Act No. 6646 and the rulings in
office until February 15, 1991 has a color the cases of Frivaldo v. Commission on
of validity. Therefore, all his official acts Elections (174 SCRA 245 [1989])
from February 3, 1991 to February 15, and Labo, Jr. v. Commission on
1991, are considered valid. The Court Elections (176 SCRA 1 [1989]).
ruled in the case of Leyte Acting Vice-
Governor Aurelio D. Menzon v. Leyte Abella claims that the Frivaldo and Labo
Acting Governor Leopoldo E. Perilla, et al. cases were misapplied by the COMELEC.
G.R. No. 90762, May 20, 1991: According to him these cases are
fundamentally different from SPC No. 88-
And finally, even granting that the 546 in that the Frivaldo and Labo cases
President, acting through the were petitions for a quowarranto filed
Secretary of Local Government, under section 253 of the Omnibus Code,
possesses no power to appoint the contesting the eligibility of the
respondents after they had been lost in the election. He was repudiated by
proclaimed duly elected to the Office the electorate. In the Frivaldo and Labo
from which they were sought to be cases, this is precisely the reason why the
unseated while SPC No. 88-546 which candidates who obtained the second
was filed before proclamation under highest number of votes were not
section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code allowed to assume the positions vacated
sought to deny due course to Larrazabal's by Frivaldo the governorship of
certificate of candidacy for material Sorsogon, and Labo, the position of
misrepresentations and was seasonably mayor in Baguio City. The nature of the
filed on election day. He, therefore, avers proceedings therefore, is not that
that since under section 6 of Republic Act compelling. What matters is that in the
6646 it is provided therein that: event a candidate for an elected position
who is voted for and who obtains the
Any candidate who has been declared by highest number of votes is disqualified
final judgment to be disqualified shall not for not possessing the eligibility
be voted for, and the votes case for him requirements at the time of the election
shall not be counted. as provided by law, the candidate who
obtains the second highest number of
the votes cast in favor of Larrazabal who votes for the same position can not
obtained the highest number of votes are assume the vacated position. It should be
not considered counted making her a stressed that in G.R. No. 88004, the
non-candidate, he, who obtained the Court set aside the dismissal of SPC No.
second highest number of votes should 88-546, and directed the COMELEC to
be installed as regular Governor of Leyte conduct hearings to determine whether
in accordance with the Court's ruling in or not Larrazabal was qualified to be a
G.R. No. 88004. candidate for the position of governor in
the province of Leyte. This is the import
The petitioner's arguments are not of the decision in G.R. No. 88004. Thus,
persuasive. the Court ruled in the case of Labo, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections:
While it is true that SPC No. 88-546 was
originally a petition to deny due course to Finally, there is the question of
the certificate of candidacy of Larrazabal whether or not the private
and was filed before Larrazabal could be respondent, who filed the quo
proclaimed the fact remains that the local warranto petition, can replace the
elections of February 1, 1988 in the petitioner as mayor. He cannot.
province of Leyte proceeded with The simple reason is that as he
Larrazabal considered as a bona-fide obtained only the second highest
candidate. The voters of the province number of votes in the election, he
voted for her in the sincere belief that she was obviously not the choice of
was a qualified candidate for the position the people of Baguio City.
of governor. Her votes were counted and
she obtained the highest number of The latest ruling of the Court on
votes. The net effect is that the petitioner this issue is Santos v. Commission
on Elections, (137 SCRA 740) (Fernando, C.J. and Concepcion,
decided in 1985. In that case, the Jr., J.) There the Court held:
candidate who placed second was
proclaimed elected after the votes ... it would be extremely
for his winning rival, who was repugnant to the basic
disqualified as a turncoat and concept of the
considered a non-candidate, were constitutionally guaranteed
all disregard as stray. In effect, right to suffrage if a
the second placer won by default. candidate who has not
That decision was supported by acquired the majority or
eight members of the Court then, plurality of votes is
(Cuevas, J., ponente, with proclaimed a winner and
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, imposed as the
Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay representative of a
and Aquino, JJ., concurring.) with constituency, the majority
three dissenting (Teehankee, of which have positively
Acting C.J., Abad Santos and declared through their
Melencio-Herrera, JJ.) and ballots that they do not
another two reserving their vote. choose him.
(Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.) One
was on official leave. (Fernando, Sound policy dictates that
C.J.) public elective offices are
filled by those who have
Re-examining that decision, the received the highest
Court finds, and so holds, that it number of votes cast in the
should be reversed in favor of the election for that office, and
earlier case of Geronimo v. it is a fundamental idea in
Ramos, (136 SCRA 435) which all republican forms of
represents the more logical and government that no one
democratic rule. That case, which can be declared elected
reiterated the doctrine first and no measure can be
announced in 1912 in Topacio v. declared carried unless he
Paredes, (23 Phil. 238) was or it receives a majority or
supported by ten members of the plurality of the legal votes
Court, (Gutierrez, Jr., ponente, cast in the election. (20
with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p.
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, 676.)
Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and
Alampay, JJ., concurring) without The fact that the candidate
any dissent, although one who obtained the highest
reserved his vote, (Makasiar, J.) number of votes is later
another took no part, (Aquino, J.) declared to be disqualified
and two others were on leave. or not eligible for the office
to which he was elected
 does not necessarily entitle
the candidate who
obtained the second
highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of ROMEO LONZANIDA, petitioner,
the elective office. The vs. THE HONORABLE
votes cast for a dead, COMMISSION ON ELECTION
disqualified, or non-eligible and EUFEMIO
person may not be valid the MULI, repondents.
vote the winner into office
or maintain him there. DECISION
However the absence of a
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
statute which clearly
asserts a contrary politics
This petition for certiorari under Rule
and legislative policy on the 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside
matter, if the votes were the resolutions issued by the COMELEC
cast in the sincere belief
First Division dated May 21, 1998 and by
that the candidate was the COMELEC En Banc dated August 11,
alive, qualified, or eligible, 1998 in SPA 98-190 entitled, In the
they should not be treated
matter of the Petition to Disqualify
as stray, void or
Mayoralty Candidate Romeo Lonzanida of
meaningless. (at pp. 20-21) San Antonio, Zambales. Eufemio Muli,
petitioner, vs. Romeo Lonzanida,
In sum, the Court does not find
respondent. The assailed resolutions
any reason to reverse and set
declared herein petitioner Romeo
aside the questioned decision and
Lonzanida disqualified to run for Mayor in
resolution of the COMELEC. The
the municipality of San Antonio,
COMELEC has not acted without
Zambales in the May 1998 elections and
or in excess of jurisdiction or in
that all votes cast in his favor shall not be
grave abuse of discretion.
counted and if he has been proclaimed
winner the said proclamation is declared
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions
null and void.
are DISMISSED. The questioned
decision of the second division of Petitioner Romeo Lonzanida was duly
the Commission on Elections elected and served two consecutive
dated February 14, 1991 and the terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio,
questioned Resolution en banc of Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995
the Commission dated July 18, elections. In the May 1995 elections
1991 are hereby AFFIRMED. The Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio,
temporary restraining order issued Zambales and was again proclaimed
on August 1, 1991 is LIFTED. winner. He assumed office and
Costs against the petitioners. discharged the duties thereof. His
proclamation in 1995 was however
SO ORDERED. contested by his then opponent Juan
Alvez who filed an election protest before petition for disqualification upon a finding
the Regional Trial Court of Zambales, that Lonzanida had served three
which in a decision dated January 9, 1997 consecutive terms as mayor of San
declared a failure of elections. The court Antonio, Zambales and he is therefore
ruled: disqualified to run for the same post for
the fourth time. The COMELEC found
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this court that Lonzanidas assumption of office by
hereby renders judgment declaring the virtue of his proclamation in May 1995,
results of the election for the office of the although he was later unseated before
mayor in San Antonio, Zambales last May the expiration of the term, should be
8, 1995 as null and void on the ground counted as service for one full term in
that there was a failure of election. computing the three term limit under the
Constitution and the Local Government
Accordingly, the office of the mayor of Code. The finding of the COMELEC First
the Municipality of San Antonio, Division was affirmed by the COMELEC
Zambales is hereby declared vacant. En Banc in a resolution dated August 11,
1998.
Both parties appealed to the
COMELEC. On November 13, 1997 the Petitioner Lonzanida challenges the
COMELEC resolved the election protest validity of the COMELEC resolutions
filed by Alvez and after a revision and re- finding him disqualified to run for mayor
appreciation of the contested ballots of San Antonio Zambales in the 1998
declared Alvez the duly elected mayor of elections. He maintains that he was duly
San Antonio, Zambales by plurality of elected mayor for only two consecutive
votes cast in his favor totaling 1,720 terms and that his assumption of office in
votes as against 1,488 votes for 1995 cannot be counted as service of a
Lonzanida. On February 27, 1998 the term for the purpose of applying the
COMELEC issued a writ of execution three term limit for local government
ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post, officials, because he was not the duly
which obeyed, and Alvez assumed office elected mayor of San Antonio in the May
for the remainder of the term. 1995 elections as evidenced by the
COMELEC decision dated November 13,
In the May 11, 1998 elections 1997 in EAC no. 6-97 entitled Juan Alvez,
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of Protestant-Appellee vs. Romeo
candidacy for mayor of San Antonio. On Lonzanida, Protestee-Appellant, wherein
April 21, 1998 his opponent Eufemio Muli the COMELEC declared Juan Alvez as the
timely filed a petition to disqualify duly elected mayor of San Antonio,
Lonzanida from running for mayor of San Zambales. Petitioner also argues that the
Antonio in the 1998 elections on the COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction
ground that he had served three over the petition for disqualification after
consecutive terms in the same post. On he was proclaimed winner in the 1998
May 13, 1998, petitioner Lonzanida was mayoral elections; as the proper remedy
proclaimed winner. On May 21, 1998 the is a petition for quo warrantowith the
First Division of the COMELEC issued the appropriate regional trial court under
questioned resolution granting the
Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules of than three consecutive terms in the same
Procedure. position speaks of service of a term and
so the rule should be examined in this
Private respondent Eufemio Muli filed
light. The public respondent contends
comment to the petition asking this court
that petitioner Lonzanida discharged the
to sustain the questioned resolutions of
rights and duties of mayor from 1995 to
the COMELEC and to uphold its
1998 which should be counted as service
jurisdiction over the petition for
of one full term, albeit he was later
disqualification. The private respondent
unseated, because he served as mayor
states that the petition for disqualification
for the greater part of the term. The
was filed on April 21, 1998 or before the
issue of whether or not Lonzanida served
May 1998 mayoral elections. Under
as a de jure or de facto mayor for the
section 6, RA 6646 and Rule 25 of the
1995-1998 term is inconsequential in the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure petitions
application of the three term limit
for disqualification filed with the
because the prohibition speaks of service
COMELEC before the elections and/or
of a term which was intended by the
proclamation of the party sought to be
framers of the Constitution to foil any
disqualified may still be herd and decided
attempt to monopolize political power. It
by the COMELEC after the election and
is likewise argued by the respondent that
proclamation of the said party without
a petition for quo warranto with the
distinction as to the alleged ground for
regional trial court is proper when the
disqualification, whether for acts
petition for disqualification is filed after
constituting an election offense or for
the elections and so the instant petition
ineligibility. Accordingly, it is argued that
for disqualification which was filed before
the resolutions of the COMELEC on the
the elections may be resolved by the
merits of the petition for disqualification
COMELEC thereafter regardless of the
were issued within the commissions
imputed basis of disqualification.
jurisdiction. As regards the merits of the
case, the private respondent maintains The petitioner filed Reply to the
that the petitioners assumption of office comment. It is maintained that the
in 1995 should be considered as service petitioner could not have served a valid
of one full term because he discharged term from 1995 to 1998 although he
the duties of mayor for almost three assumed office as mayor for that period
years until March 1, 1998 or barely a few because he was no t lawfully elected to
months before the next mayoral the said office.Moreover, the petitioner
elections. was unseated before the expiration of the
term and so his service for the period
The Solicitor-General filed comment
cannot be considered as one full term. As
to the petition for the respondent
regards the issue of jurisdiction, the
COMELEC praying for the dismissal of the
petitioner reiterated in his Reply that the
petition. The Solicitor-General stressed
COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction to
that section 8, Art. X of the Constitution
hear the election protest after the
and section 43 (b), Chapter I of the Local
petitioners proclamation.
Government Code which bar a local
government official from serving more The petition has merit.
 Section 8, Art. X of the Constitution position after serving three consecutive
provides: terms. The said disqualification was
primarily intended to forestall the
Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local accumulation of massive political power
officials, except barangay officials, which by an elective local government official in
shall be determined by law shall be three a given locality in order to perpetuate his
years and no such officials shall serve for tenure in office. The delegates also
more than three consecutive considered the need to broaden the
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the choices of the electorate of the
office for any length of time shall not be candidates who will run for office, and to
considered as an interruption in the infuse new blood in the political arena by
continuity of his service for the full term disqualifying officials from running for the
for which he was elected. same office after a term of nine
years. The mayor was compared by
Section 43 of the Local Government some delegates to the President of the
Code (R.A. No. 7160) restates the same Republic as he is a powerful chief
rule: executive of his political territory and is
most likely to form a political
Sec. 43. Term of Office. dynasty.[1] The drafters however,
recognized and took note of the fact that
(b) No local elective official shall serve for some local government officials run for
more than three consecutive terms in the office before they reach forty years of
same position. Voluntary renunciation of age; thus to perpetually bar them from
the office for any length of time shall not running for the same office after serving
be considered as an interruption in the nine consecutive years may deprive the
continuity of service for the full term for people of qualified candidates to choose
which the elective official concerned was from. As finally voted upon, it was agreed
elected. that an elective local government official
should be barred from running for the
The issue before us is whether same post after three consecutive
petitioner Lonzanidas assumption of terms. After a hiatus of at least one term,
office as mayor of San Antonio Zambales he may again run for the same office.[2]
from May 1995 to March 1998 may be
considered as service of one full term for The scope of the constitutional
the purpose of applying the three-term provision barring elective officials with
limit for elective local government the exception of barangay officials from
officials. serving more than three consecutive
terms was discussed at length in the case
The records of the 1986 of Benjamin Borja, Jr., vs. COMELEC and
Constitutional Commission show that the Jose Capco, Jr.[3] where the issue raised
three-term limit which is now embodied was whether a vice-mayor who succeeds
in section 8, Art. X of the Constitution to the office of the mayor by operation of
was initially proposed to be an absolute law upon the death of the incumbent
bar to any elective local government mayor and served the remainder of the
official from running for the same term should be considered to have
served a term in that office for the rest be? Will it be one election
purpose of computing the three term which is three years or one term
limit. This court pointed out that from the which is six years?
discussions of the Constitutional
MR. DAVIDE. If the Gentlemen will
Convention it is evident that the
remember, Commissioner Rodrigo
delegates proceeded from the premise
expressed the view that during
that the officials assumption of office is
the election following the
by reason of election. This Court
expiration of the first 12 years,
stated:[4]
whether such election will be on
the third year or on the sixth year
Two ideas emerge from a consideration
thereafter, his particular member
of the proceedings of the Constitutional
of the Senate can run. So it is not
Commission. The first is the notion of
really a period of hibernation for
service of term, derived from the concern
six years. That was the
about the accumulation of power as a
Committees stand.
result of a prolonged stay in office. The
second is the idea of election, derived xxxx xxxx xxxx
from the concern that the right of the
people to choose those whom they wish Second, not only historical examination
to govern them be preserved. but textual analysis as well supports the
ruling of the COMELEC that Art X, section
It is likewise noteworthy that, in 8 contemplates service by local officials
discussing term limits, the drafters of the for three consecutive terms as a result of
Constitution did so on the assumption election. The first sentence speaks of the
that the officials concerned were serving term of office of elective local officials
by reason of election. This is clear from and bars such officials from serving for
the following exchange in the more than three consecutive terms. The
Constitutional Commission concerning second sentence, in explaining when an
term limits, now embodied in Art. VI elective official may be deemed to have
sections 4 and 7 of the Constitution, for served his full term of office, states that
members of Congress: voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered
MR. GASCON. I would like to ask a as an interruption in the continuity of his
question with regard to the issue service for the full term for which he was
after the second term. We will elected. The term served must therefore
allow the Senator to rest for a be one for which the the official
period of time before he concerned was elected. The purpose of
can run again? the provision is to prevent a
circumvention of the limitation on the
MR. DAVIDE. That is correct.
number of terms an elective official may
MR. GASCON. And the question that serve.
we left behind before-if the
Gentlemen will remember- This Court held that two conditions for
was: How long will that period of the application of the disqualification
must concur: 1) that the official office. After a re-appreciation and
concerned has been elected for three revision of the contested ballots the
consecutive terms in the same local COMELEC itself declared by final
government post and 2) that he has fully judgment that petitioner Lonzanida lost
served three consecutive terms. It in the May 1995 mayoral elections and
stated: his previous proclamation as winner was
declared null and void. His assumption of
To recapitulate, the term limit for elective office as mayor cannot be deemed to
local officials must be taken to refer to have been by reason of a valid election
the right to be elected as well as the right but by reason of a void proclamation. It
to serve in the same elective has been repeatedly held by this court
position. Consequently, it is not enough that a proclamation subsequently
that an individual has served three declared void is no proclamation at
consecutive terms in an elective local all[5] and while a proclaimed candidate
office, he must also have been elected to may assume office on the strength of the
the same position for the same number proclamation of the Board of Canvassers
of times before the disqualification can he is only a presumptive winner who
apply. assumes office subject to the final
outcome of the election
It is not disputed that the petitioner protest.[6] Petitioner Lonzanida did not
was previously elected and served two serve a term as mayor of San Antonio,
consecutive terms as mayor of San Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998
Antonio Zambales prior to the May 1995 because he was not duly elected to the
mayoral elections. In the May 1995 post; he merely assumed office as
elections he again ran for mayor of San presumptive winner, which presumption
Antonio, Zambales and was proclaimed was later overturned by the COMELEC
winner. He assumed office and when it decided with finality that
discharged the rights and duties of mayor Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral
until March 1998 when he was ordered to elections.
vacate the post by reason of the
Second, the petitioner cannot be
COMELEC decision dated November 13,
deemed to have served the May 1995 to
1997 on the election protest against the
1998 term because he was ordered to
petitioner which declared his opponent
vacate his post before the expiration of
Juan Alvez, the duly elected mayor of San
the term. The respondents contention
Antonio. Alvez served the remaining
that the petitioner should be deemed to
portion of the 1995-1998 mayoral term.
have served one full term from May
The two requisites for the application 1995-1998 because he served the
of the three term rule are absent. First, greater portion of that term has no legal
the petitioner cannot be considered as basis to support it; it disregards the
having been duly elected to the post in second requisite for the application of the
the May 1995 elections, and second, the disqualification, i.e., that he has fully
petitioner did not fully serve the 1995- served three consecutive terms.The
1998 mayoral term by reason of second sentence of the constitutional
involuntary relinquishment of provision under scrutiny states, Voluntary
renunciation of office for any length of incumbency in an office to which he was
time shall not be considered as an not lawfully elected. We note that such
interruption in the continuity of service delay cannot be imputed to the
for the full term for which he was elected. petitioner. There is no specific allegation
The clear intent of the framers of the nor proof that the delay was due to any
constitution to bar any attempt to political maneuvering on his part to
circumvent the three-term limit by a prolong his stay in office. Moreover,
voluntary renunciation of office and at protestant Alvez, was not without legal
the same time respect the peoples choice recourse to move for the early resolution
and grant their elected official full service of the election protest while it was
of a term is evident in this pending before the regional trial court or
provision. Voluntary renunciation of a to file a motion for the execution of the
term does not cancel the renounced term regional trial courts decision declaring
in the computation of the three term the position of mayor vacant and
limit; conversely, involuntary severance ordering the vice-mayor to assume office
from office for any length of time short of while the appeal was pending with the
the full term porvided by law amounts to COMELEC. Such delay which is not here
an interruption of continuity of shown to have been intentionally sought
service. The petitioner vacated his post a by the petitioner to prolong his stay in
few months before the next mayoral office cannot serve as basis to bar his
elections, not by voluntary renunciation right to be elected and to serve his
but in compliance with the legal process chosen local government post in the
of writ of execution issued by the succeeding mayoral election.
COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary
The petitioners contention that the
severance from office is an interruption
COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction
of continuity of service and thus, the
over the petition for disqualification after
petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-
he was proclaimed winner is without
1998 mayoral term.
merit. The instant petition for
In sum, the petitioner was not the disqualification was filed on April 21,
duly elected mayor and that he 1998 or before the May 1998 elections
did not hold office for the full term; and was resolved on May 21, 1998 or
hence, his assumption of office from May after the petitioners proclamation. It was
1995 to March 1998 cannot be counted held in the case of Sunga vs. COMELEC
as a term for purposes of computing the and Trinidad[7] that the proclamation nor
three term limit.The Resolution of the the assumption of office of a candidate
COMELEC finding him disqualified on this against whom a petition for
ground to run in the May 1998 mayoral disqualification is pending before the
elections should therefore be set aside. COMELEC does not divest the COMELEC
of jurisdiction to continue hearing the
The respondents harp on the delay in
case and to resolve it on the merits.
resolving the election protest between
petitioner and his then opponent Alvez Section 6 of RA 6646 specifically
which took roughly about three years and mandates that:
resultantly extended the petitioners
Sec. 6. Effects of disqualification Case.- COMELEC is left with no discretion but to
any candidate who has been declared by proceed with the disqualification case
final judgment to be disqualified shall not even after the election. Thus, in
be voted for, and the votes cast for him providing for the outright dismissal of the
shall not be counted. If for any reason a disqualification case which remains
candidate is not declared by final unresolved after the election, Silvestre
judgment before an election to be vs. Duavit in effect disallows what R. A.
disqualified and he is voted for and No. 6646 imperatively requires. This
receives the winning number of votes in amounts to a quasi-judicial legislation by
such election, the court or commission the COMELEC which cannot be
shall continue with the trial and hearing countenanced and is invalid for having
of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon been issued beyond the scope of its
motion of the complainant or any authority. Interpretative rulings of quasi-
intervenor, may during the pendency judicial bodies or administrative agencies
thereof order the suspension of the must always be in perfect harmony with
proclamation of such candidate statutes and should be for the sole
whenever the evidence of his guilt is purpose of carrying their general
strong. provisions into effect. By such
interpretative or administrative rulings, of
This court held that the clear course, the scope of the law itself cannot
legislative intent is that the COMELEC be limited. Indeed, a quasi-judicial body
should continue the trial and hearing of or an administrative agency for that
the disqualification case to its conclusion matter cannot amend an act of
i.e., until judgment is rendered. The Congress.Hence, in case of a discrepancy
outright dismissal of the petition for between the basic law and an
disqualification filed before the election interpretative or administrative ruling,
but which remained unresolved after the the basic law prevails.
proclamation of the candidate sought to
be disqualified will unduly reward the Besides, the deleterious effect of
said candidate and may encourage him the Silvestre ruling is not difficult to
to employ delaying tactics to impede the forsee. A candidate guilty of election
resolution of the petition until after he offenses would be undeservedly
has been proclaimed. rewarded, instead of punished, by the
dismissal of thedisqualification case
The court stated:
against him simply because the
investigating body was unable, for any
Clearly, the legislative intent is that the
reason caused upon it, to determine
COMELEC should continue the trial and
before the election if the offenses were
hearing of the disqualification case to its
indeed committed by the candidate
conclusion, i.e., until judgment is
sought to be disqualified. All that the
rendered thereon. The word shall
erring aspirant would need to do is to
signified that this requirement of the law
employ delaying tactics so that the
is mandatory, operating to impose a
disqualification case based on the
positive duty which must be
commission of election offenses would
enforced. Theimplication is that the
not be decided before the election. This condoned and may no longer be the
scenario is productive of more fraud subject of a separate investigation.
which certainly is not the main intent and
purpose of the law. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is
granted. The assailed resolutions of the
The fact that Trinidad was already COMELEC declaring petitioner Lonzanida
proclaimed and had assumed the position disqualified to run for mayor in the 1998
of mayor did not divest the COMELEC of mayoral elections are hereby set aside.
authority and jurisdiction to continue the
SO ORDERED.
hearing and eventually decide the
disqualification case. In Aguam v.
COMELEC this Court held-

Time and again this Court has given its

imprimatur on the principle that
COMELEC is with authority to annul any
canvass and proclamation which was [G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000]
illegally made. The fact that a candidate
proclaimed has assumed office, we have
said, is no bar to the exercise of such
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY,
power. It of course may not be availed of
ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG
where there has been a valid
MGA MAGSASAKA,
proclamation. Since private respondents
MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT
petition before the COMELEC is precisely
MANGINGISDA, ADHIKAIN AT
directed at the annulment of the canvass
KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG
and proclamation, we perceive that
TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY
inquiry into this issue is within the area
AT KAUNLARAN, and LUZON
allocated by the Constitution and law to
FARMERS PARTY, petitioners,
COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a
vs. COMMISSION ON
proclamation to be precluded from
ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA,
challenging the validity thereof after that
SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP
proclamation and the assumption of
AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA,
office thereunder, baneful effects may
PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA,
easily supervene.
MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL,
PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN,
It must be emphasized that the purpose
KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN,
of a disqualification proceeding is to
AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW,
prevent the candidate from running or, if
WOMEN-POWER, INC.,
elected. From serving, or to prosecute
FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS
him for violation of the election
CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP,
laws. Obviously, the fact that a candidate
ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS,
has been proclaimed elected does not
COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN,
signify that his disqualification is deemed
ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL
COOP, PDP-LABAN,
 KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA
AABANTE KA PILIPINAS -- All PILIPINAS, respondents.
Being Party-List
Parties/Organizations -- and
Hon. MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR.
[G.R. No. 136795. October 6, 2000]
in His Capacity as Speaker of
the House of
Representatives, respondents
. ALAGAD (PARTIDO NG
MARALITANG-LUNGSOD),
NATIONAL CONFEDERATION
OF SMALL COCONUT
[G.R. No. 136786. October 6, 2000]
FARMERS' ORGANIZATIONS
(NCSFCO), and LUZON
FARMERS' PARTY
AKBAYAN! (CITIZENS' ACTION (BUTIL), petitioners,
PARTY), ADHIKAIN AT vs. COMMISSION ON
KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG ELECTIONS, SENIOR
TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON,
AT KAUNLARAN (AKO), and PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP,
ASSOCIATION OF AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA,
PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-
COOPERATIVES KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL,
(APEC), petitioners, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG
vs. COMMISSION ON LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER
ELECTIONS (COMELEC), INC., FEJODAP, CUP,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU,
represented by Speaker PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU,
Manuel B. Villar, PAG-ASA, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN,
SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA,
AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
PRP, AMIN, MAHARLIKA, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT,
OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA- and AABANTE KA
KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, PILIPINAS, respondents.
BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG
LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER DECISION
INC., FEJODAP, CUP,
PANGANIBAN, J.:*
VETERANS CARE, FOUR "L",
AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP,
ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN,
Prologue
ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA,
AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, To determine the winners in a
Philippine-style party-list election, the
Constitution and Republic Act (RA) No. In fine, the constitutional
7941 mandate at least four inviolable introduction of the party-list system - a
parameters. These are: normal feature of parliamentary
democracies - into our presidential form
First, the twenty percent
of government, modified by unique
allocation - the combined number
Filipino statutory parameters, presents
of all party-list congressmen shall not
new paradigms and novel questions,
exceed twenty percent of the total
which demand innovative legal solutions
membership of the House of
convertible into mathematical
Representatives, including those elected
formulations which are, in turn, anchored
under the party list.
on time-tested jurisprudence.
Second, the two percent
threshold - only those parties garnering
a minimum of two percent of the total The Case
valid votes cast for the party-list system
are qualified to have a seat in the House
Before the Court are three
of Representatives;
consolidated Petitions for Certiorari (with
Third, the three-seat limit - each applications for the issuance of a
qualified party, regardless of the number temporary restraining order or writ of
of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of
a maximum of three seats; that is, one the Rules of Court, assailing (1) the
qualifying and two additional seats. October 15, 1998 Resolution[1] of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec),
Fourth, proportional
Second Division, in Election Matter 98-
representation - the additional seats
065;[2] and (2) the January 7, 1999
which a qualified party is entitled to shall
Resolution[3] of the Comelec en banc,
be computed in proportion to their total
affirming the said disposition. The
number of votes.
assailed Resolutions ordered the
Because the Comelec violated these proclamation of thirty-eight (38)
legal parameters, the assailed additional party-list representatives "to
Resolutions must be struck down for complete the full complement of 52 seats
having been issued in grave abuse of in the House of Representatives as
discretion. The poll body is mandated to provided under Section 5, Article VI of
enforce and administer election-related the 1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941.
laws. It has no power to contravene or
amend them. Neither does it have
authority to decide the wisdom, propriety The Facts and the Antecedents
or rationality of the acts of Congress.
Its bounden duty is to craft rules, Our 1987 Constitution introduced a
regulations, methods and formulas to novel feature into our presidential system
implement election laws -- not to reject, of government -- the party-list method of
ignore, defeat, obstruct or circumvent representation. Under this system, any
them. national, regional or sectoral party or
organization registered with the Complying with its constitutional
Commission on Elections may participate duty to provide by law the selection or
in the election of party-list election of party-list representatives,
representatives who, upon their election Congress enacted RA 7941 on March 3,
and proclamation, shall sit in the House 1995. Under this statutes policy
of Representatives as regular declaration, the State shall
members.[4] In effect, a voter is given "promote proportional representation in
two (2) votes for the House -- one for a the election of representatives to the
district congressman and another for a House of Representatives through a
party-list representative.[5] party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or
Specifically, this system of
organizations or coalitions thereof, which
representation is mandated by Section 5,
will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
Article VI of the Constitution, which
marginalized and underrepresented
provides:
sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well-defined political
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives
constituencies but who could contribute
shall be composed of not more than two
to the formulation and enactment of
hundred and fifty members, unless
appropriate legislation that will benefit
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
the nation as a whole, to become
elected from legislative districts
members of the House of
apportioned among the provinces, cities,
Representatives. Towards this end, the
and the Metropolitan Manila area in
State shall develop and guarantee a full,
accordance with the number of their
free and open party system in order to
respective inhabitants, and on the basis
attain the broadest possible
of a uniform and progressive ratio, and
representation of party, sectoral or group
those who, as provided by law, shall be
interests in the House of Representatives
elected by a party-list system of
by enhancing their chances to compete
registered national, regional, and
for and win seats in the legislature, and
sectoral parties or organizations.
shall provide the simplest scheme
possible. (italics ours.)
(2) The party-list representatives shall
constitute twenty per centum of the total The requirements for entitlement to
number of representatives including a party-list seat in the House are
those under the party-list. For three prescribed by this law (RA 7941) in this
consecutive terms after the ratification of wise:
this Constitution, one half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives Sec. 11. Number of Party-List
shall be filled, as provided by law, by Representatives. -- The party-list
selection or election from the labor, representatives shall constitute
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural twenty per centum (20%) of the total
communities, women, youth, and such number of the members of the House of
other sectors as may be provided by law, Representatives including those under
except the religious sector. the party-list.
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, elections. A total of one hundred twenty-
the first five (5) major political parties on three (123) parties, organizations and
the basis of party representation in the coalitions participated. On June 26,
House of Representatives at the start of 1998, the Comelec en banc proclaimed
the Tenth Congress of the Philippines thirteen (13) party-list representatives
shall not be entitled to participate in the from twelve (12) parties and
party-list system. organizations, which had obtained at
least two percent of the total number of
In determining the allocation of seats for votes cast for the party-list system.Two
the second vote, the following procedure of the proclaimed representatives
shall be observed: belonged to Petitioner APEC, which
obtained 5.5 percent of the votes. The
(a) The parties, organizations, and proclaimed winners and the votes cast in
coalitions shall be ranked from the their favor were as follows:[6]
highest to the lowest based on the
Party/Organization/ Number
number of votes they garnered during
of Percentage of Nominees
the elections.
Coalition Votes Obtained Total Votes
(b) The parties, organizations, and 1. APEC 503,487 5.5% Rene M. Silos
coalitions receiving at least two percent Melvyn D. Eballe
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party- 2. ABA 321,646 3.51% Leonardo Q.
list system shall be entitled to one seat Montemayor
each; Provided, That those garnering 3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41% Diogenes S.
more than two percent (2%) of the votes Osabel
shall be entitled to additional seats in 4. VETERANS 304,802 3.33% Eduardo
proportion to their total number of votes; P. Pilapil
Provided, finally, That each party, FEDERATION
organization, or coalition shall be entitled 5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79% Joy A.G.
to not more than three (3) seats. Young
6. AKO 239,042 2.61% Ariel A. Zartiga
Pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7941, 7. NCSCFO 238,303 2.60% Gorgonio P.
the Comelec en banc promulgated Unde
Resolution No. 2847, prescribing the 8. ABANSE!
rules and regulations governing the PINAY 235,548 2.57% Patricia M.
election of party-list representatives Sarenas
through the party-list system. 9. AKBAYAN 232,376 2.54% Loreta Ann
P. Rosales
10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36% Benjamin A.
Election of the Fourteen Party-List Cruz
Representatives 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13% Renato
B. Magtubo
12. COOP-
On May 11, 1998, the first election NATCCO 189,802 2.07% Cresente C.
for party-list representation was held Paez
simultaneously with the national
 After passing upon the results of the PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, OCW-UNIFIL,
special elections held on July 4, 18, and KAMPIL, MAHARLIKA, AFW, Women
25, 1998, the Comelec en banc further Power, Inc., Ang Lakas OCW, FEJODAP,
determined that COCOFED (Philippine CUP, Veterans Care, Bantay Bayan, 4L,
Coconut Planters Federation, Inc.) was AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, ALU and BIGAS.
entitled to one party-list seat for having
On October 15, 1998, the Comelec
garnered 186,388 votes, which were
Second Division promulgated the present
equivalent to 2.04 percent of the total
assailed Resolution granting PAG-ASA's
votes cast for the party-list system. Thus,
Petition. It also ordered the proclamation
its first nominee, Emerito S. Calderon,
of herein 38 respondents who, in addition
was proclaimed on September 8, 1998 as
to the 14 already sitting, would thus total
the 14th party-list representative.[7]
52 party-list representatives. It held that
On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA (Peoples "at all times, the total number of
Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good congressional[9] seats must be filled up
Government Towards Alleviation of by eighty (80%) percent district
Poverty and Social Advancement) filed representatives and twenty (20%)
with the Comelec a "Petition to Proclaim percent party-list representatives." In
[the] Full Number of Party-List allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the
Representatives provided by the two percent-vote requirement prescribed
Constitution." It alleged that the filling up under Section 11 (b) of RA
of the twenty percent membership of 7941. Instead, it identified three
party-list representatives in the House of "elements of the party-list system,"
Representatives, as provided under the which should supposedly determine "how
Constitution, was mandatory. It further the 52 seats should be filled
claimed that the literal application of the up." First, "the system was conceived to
two percent vote requirement and the enable the marginalized sectors of the
three-seat limit under RA 7941 would Philippine society to be represented in
defeat this constitutional provision, for the House of Representatives." Second,
only 25 nominees would be declared "the system should represent the
winners, short of the 52 party-list broadest sectors of the Philippine
representatives who should actually sit in society." Third, "it should encourage
the House. [the] multi-party system. (Boldface in
the original.) Considering these
Thereafter, nine other party-list
elements, but ignoring the two percent
organizations[8] filed their respective
threshold requirement of RA
Motions for Intervention, seeking the
7941, it concluded that "the party-
same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on
list groups ranked Nos. 1 to 51 x x
substantially the same
x should have at least one
grounds. Likewise, PAG-ASAs Petition
representative. It thus disposed as
was joined by other party-list
follows:
organizations in a Manifestation they filed
on August 28, 1998. These organizations
"WHEREFORE, by virtue of the powers
were COCOFED, Senior Citizens, AKAP,
vested in it by the Constitution, the
AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN,
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881),
Republic Act No. 7941 and other election 22. AWATU
laws, the Commission (Second Division)
23. PMP
hereby resolves to GRANT the instant
petition and motions for intervention, to 24. ATUCP
include those similarly situated.
25. NCWP
ACCORDINGLY, the nominees from the 26. ALU
party-list hereinbelow enumerated based
27. BIGAS
on the list of names submitted by their
respective parties, organizations and 28. COPRA
coalitions are PROCLAIMED as party-list
29. GREEN
representatives, to wit:
30. ANAKBAYAN
1. SENIOR CITIZENS
31. ARBA
2. AKAP
32. MINFA
3. AKSYON
33. AYOS
4. PINATUBO
34. ALL COOP
5. NUPA
35. PDP-LABAN
6. PRP
36. KATIPUNAN
7. AMIN
37. ONEWAY PRINT
8. PAG-ASA
38. AABANTE KA PILIPINAS
9. MAHARLIKA
to complete the full complement of 52
10. OCW-UNIFIL
seats in the House of Representatives as
11. FCL provided in Section 5, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941.
12. AMMA-KATIPUNAN
13. KAMPIL The foregoing disposition sums up a
glaring bit of inconsistency and flip-
14. BANTAY BAYAN
flopping. In its Resolution No. 2847
15. AFW dated June 25, 1996, the Comelec en
banc had unanimously promulgated a set
16. ANG LAKAS OCW
of Rules and Regulations Governing the
17. WOMENPOWER, INC. Election of x x x Party-List
Representatives Through the Party-List
18. FEJODAP
System. Under these Rules and
19. CUP Regulations, one additional seat shall be
given for every two percent of the vote,
20. VETERANS CARE
a formula the Comelec illustrated in its
21. 4L Annex A. It apparently relied on this
method when it proclaimed the 14 qualified parties that had each garnered
incumbent party-list solons (two for APEC at least two percent of the total votes, or
and one each for the 12 other qualified (2) to the Group of 38 - herein private
parties). However, for inexplicable respondents - even if they had not
reasons, it abandoned said unanimous passed the two percent threshold?
Resolution and proclaimed, based on its
The poll body held that to allocate
three elements, the Group of 38 private
the remaining seats only to those who
respondents.[10]
had hurdled the two percent vote
The twelve (12) parties and requirement "will mean the concentration
organizations, which had earlier been of representation of party, sectoral or
proclaimed winners on the basis of group interests in the House of
having obtained at least two percent of Representatives to thirteen organizations
the votes cast for the party-list system, representing two political parties, three
objected to the proclamation of the 38 coalitions and four sectors: urban poor,
parties and filed separate Motions for veterans, women and peasantry x x
Reconsideration. They contended that x. Such strict application of the 2%
(1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only 'threshold' does not serve the essence
parties, organizations or coalitions and object of the Constitution and the
garnering at least two percent of the legislature -- to develop and guarantee a
votes for the party-list system were full, free and open party system in order
entitled to seats in the House of to attain the broadest possible
Representatives; and (2) additional representation of party, sectoral or group
seats, not exceeding two for each, should interests in the House of Representatives
be allocated to those which had garnered x x x. Additionally, it "will also prevent
the two percent threshold in proportion this Commission from complying with the
to the number of votes cast for the constitutional and statutory decrees for
winning parties, as provided by said party-list representatives to compose
Section 11. 20% of the House of Representatives.
Thus, in its Resolution dated January
7, 1999, the Comelec en banc, by a razor-
Ruling of the Comelec En Banc
thin majority -- with three commissioners
concurring[11] and two
Noting that all the parties -- movants members [12] dissenting -- affirmed the
and oppositors alike - had agreed that Resolution of its Second Division. It,
the twenty percent membership of party- however, held in abeyance the
list representatives in the House "should proclamation of the 51st party (AABANTE
be filled up, the Comelec en banc KA PILIPINAS), "pending the resolution
resolved only the issue concerning the of petitions for correction of manifest
apportionment or allocation of the errors.
remaining seats. In other words, the
Without expressly declaring as
issue was: Should the remaining 38
unconstitutional or void the two percent
unfilled seats allocated to party-list
vote requirement imposed by RA 7941,
solons be given (1) to the thirteen
the Commission blithely rejected and
circumvented its application, holding that petitioners in GR No. 136795; Attys.
there were more important Ricardo Blancaflor and Pete Quirino
considerations than this statutory Quadra, for all the private respondents;
threshold. Atty. Porfirio V. Sison for Intervenor
NACUSIP; and Atty. Jose P. Balbuena for
Consequently, several petitions
Respondent Comelec. Upon invitation of
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
the Court, retired Comelec Commissioner
with prayers for the issuance of
Regalado E. Maambong acted as amicus
temporary restraining orders or writs of
curiae. Solicitor General Ricardo P.
preliminary injunction, were filed before
Galvez appeared, not for any party but
this Court by the parties and
also as a friend of the Court.
organizations that had obtained at least
two per cent of the total votes cast for Thereafter, the parties and the amici
the party-list system.[13] In the suits, curiae were required to submit their
made respondents together with the respective Memoranda in amplification of
Comelec were the 38 parties, their verbal arguments.[14]
organizations and coalitions that had
been declared by the poll body as
likewise entitled to party-list seats in the The Issues
House of Representatives. Collectively,
petitioners sought the proclamation of
The Court believes, and so holds,
additional representatives from each of
that the main question of how to
their parties and organizations, all of
determine the winners of the subject
which had obtained at least two percent
party-list election can be fully settled by
of the total votes cast for the party-list
addressing the following issues:
system.
On January 12, 1999, this Court 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for
issued a Status Quo Order directing the party-list representatives mentioned in
Comelec to CEASE and DESIST from Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
constituting itself as a National Board of Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a
Canvassers on 13 January 1999 or on any ceiling? In other words, should the
other date and proclaiming as winners twenty percent allocation for party-list
the nominees of the parties, solons be filled up completely and all the
organizations and coalitions enumerated time?
in the dispositive portions of its 15
October 1998 Resolution or its 7 January 2. Are the two percent threshold
1999 Resolution, until further orders from requirement and the three-seat limit
this Court. provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941
constitutional?
On July 1, 1999, oral arguments were
heard from the parties. Atty. Jeremias U. 3. If the answer to Issue 2 is in the
Montemayor appeared for petitioners in affirmative, how should the additional
GR No. 136781; Atty. Gregorio A. seats of a qualified party be determined?
Andolana, for petitioners in GR No.
136786; Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta for
The Courts Ruling peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law,
The Petitions are partly
except the religious sector.
meritorious. The Court agrees with
petitioners that the assailed Resolutions
should be nullified, but disagrees that
Determination of the Total Number
they should all be granted additional
of Party-List Lawmakers
seats.

Clearly, the Constitution makes the

First Issue: Whether the Twenty number of district representatives the
Percent Constitutional Allocation Is determinant in arriving at the number of
Mandatory seats allocated for party-list lawmakers,
who shall comprise "twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives
The pertinent provision[15] of the
including those under the party-list." We
Constitution on the composition of the
thus translate this legal provision into a
House of Representatives reads as
mathematical formula, as follows:
follows:
No. of district representatives
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives ---------------------------------- x .20 = No.
shall be composed of not more than two of party-list
hundred and fifty members, unless .80 representatives
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
This formulation[16] means that any
elected from legislative districts
increase in the number of district
apportioned among the provinces, cities,
representatives, as may be provided by
and the Metropolitan Manila area in
law, will necessarily result in a
accordance with the number of their
corresponding increase in the number of
respective inhabitants, and on the basis
party-list seats. To illustrate, considering
of a uniform and progressive ratio, and
that there were 208 district
those who, as provided by law, shall be
representatives to be elected during the
elected by a party-list system of
1998 national elections, the number of
registered national, regional, and
party-list seats would be 52, computed as
sectoral parties or organizations.
follows:
(2) The party-list representatives shall 208
constitute twenty per centum of the total -------- x .20 = 52
number of representatives including .80
those under the party-list. For three
The foregoing computation of seat
consecutive terms after the ratification of
allocation is easy enough to
this Constitution, one half of the seats
comprehend. The problematic question,
allocated to party-list representatives
however, is this: Does the Constitution
shall be filled, as provided by law, by
require all such allocated seats to be filled
selection or election from the labor,
up all the time and under all percent allocation for party-list
circumstances? Our short answer is No. lawmakers is mandatory, and that the
two percent vote requirement in RA 7941
is unconstitutional, because its strict
Twenty Percent Allocation a Mere application would make it mathematically
Ceiling impossible to fill up the House party-list
complement.
The Constitution simply states that We rule that a simple reading of
"[t]he party-list representatives shall Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,
constitute twenty per centum of the total easily conveys the equally simple
number of representatives including message that Congress was vested with
those under the party-list. the broad power to define and prescribe
the mechanics of the party-list system of
According to petitioners, this
representation. The Constitution
percentage is a ceiling; the mechanics by
explicitly sets down only the percentage
which it is to be filled up has been left to
of the total membership in the House of
Congress. In the exercise of its
Representatives reserved for party-list
prerogative, the legislature enacted RA
representatives.
7941, by which it prescribed that a party,
organization or coalition participating in In the exercise of its constitutional
the party-list election must obtain at least prerogative, Congress enacted RA
two percent of the total votes cast for the 7941. As said earlier, Congress declared
system in order to qualify for a seat in the therein a policy to promote "proportional
House of Representatives. representation" in the election of party-
list representatives in order to enable
Petitioners further argue that the
Filipinos belonging to the marginalized
constitutional provision must be
and underrepresented sectors to
construed together with this legislative
contribute legislation that would benefit
requirement. If there is no sufficient
them. It however deemed it necessary to
number of participating parties,
require parties, organizations and
organizations or coalitions which could
coalitions participating in the system to
hurdle the two percent vote threshold
obtain at least two percent of the total
and thereby fill up the twenty percent
votes cast for the party-list system in
party-list allocation in the House, then
order to be entitled to a party-list
naturally such allocation cannot be filled
seat. Those garnering more than this
up completely. The Comelec cannot be
percentage could have "additional seats
faulted for the "incompleteness," for
in proportion to their total number of
ultimately the voters themselves are the
votes. Furthermore, no winning party,
ones who, in the exercise of their right of
organization or coalition can have more
suffrage, determine who and how many
than three seats in the House of
should represent them.
Representatives. Thus the relevant
On the other hand, Public portion of Section 11(b) of the law
Respondent Comelec, together with the provides:
respondent parties, avers that the twenty
(b) The parties, organizations, and obeyed at all times. This is the essence
coalitions receiving at least two percent of the rule of law.
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-
list system shall be entitled to one seat
each; Provided, That those garnering Second Issue: The Statutory
more than two percent (2%) of the votes Requirement and Limitation
shall be entitled to additional seats in
proportion to their total number of votes;
Provided, finally, That each party, The Two Percent Threshold
organization, or coalition shall be entitled
to not more than three (3) seats.
In imposing a two percent threshold,
Congress wanted to ensure that only
Considering the foregoing statutory
those parties, organizations and
requirements, it will be shown presently
coalitions having a sufficient number of
that Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
constituents deserving of representation
Constitution is not mandatory. It merely
are actually represented in
provides a ceiling for party-list seats in
Congress. This intent can be gleaned
Congress.
from the deliberations on the proposed
On the contention that a strict bill. We quote below a pertinent portion
application of the two percent threshold of the Senate discussion:
may result in a mathematical
impossibility, suffice it to say that the SENATOR GONZALES: For purposes of
prerogative to determine whether to continuity, I would want to follow up a
adjust or change this percentage point that was raised by, I think, Senator
requirement rests in Congress.[17] Our Osmea when he said that a political party
task now, as should have been the must have obtained at least a minimum
Comelecs, is not to find fault in the percentage to be provided in this law in
wisdom of the law through highly unlikely order to qualify for a seat under the
scenarios of clinical extremes, but to craft party-list system.
an innovative mathematical formula that
can, as far as practicable, implement it They do that in many other countries. A
within the context of the actual election party must obtain at least 2 percent of
process. the votes cast, 5 percent or 10 percent of
the votes cast. Otherwise, as I have said,
Indeed, the function of the Supreme
this will actually proliferate political party
Court, as well as of all judicial and quasi-
groups and those who have not really
judicial agencies, is to apply the law as
been given by the people sufficient basis
we find it, not to reinvent or second-
for them to represent their constituents
guess it. Unless declared
and, in turn, they will be able to get to
unconstitutional, ineffective, insufficient
the Parliament through the backdoor
or otherwise void by the proper tribunal,
under the name of the party-list system,
a statute remains a valid command of
Mr. President."[18]
sovereignty that must be respected and
 A similar intent is clear from the the reserve seat system. We believe that
statements of the bill sponsor in the it is our job to open up the system and
House of Representatives, as the that we should not have within that
following shows: system a reserve seat. We think that
people should organize, should work
MR. ESPINOSA. There is a mathematical hard, and should earn their seats within
formula which this computation is based that system.[20]
at, arriving at a five percent ratio which
would distribute equitably the number of The two percent threshold is
seats among the different sectors. There consistent not only with the intent of the
is a mathematical formula which is, I framers of the Constitution and the law,
think, patterned after that of the party list but with the very essence of
of the other parliaments or congresses, "representation." Under a republican or
more particularly the Bundestag of representative state, all government
Germany.[19] authority emanates from the people, but
is exercised by representatives chosen by
Moreover, even the framers of our them.[21] But to have meaningful
Constitution had in mind a minimum-vote representation, the elected persons must
requirement, the specification of which have the mandate of a sufficient number
they left to Congress to properly of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that
determine. Constitutional Commissioner features the party-list system, the result
Christian S. Monsod explained: might be the proliferation of small groups
which are incapable of contributing
MR. MONSOD. x x x We are amenable to significant legislation, and which might
modifications in the minimum percentage even pose a threat to the stability of
of votes. Our proposal is that anybody Congress.Thus, even legislative districts
who has two-and-a-half percent of the are apportioned according to "the
votes gets a seat. There are about 20 number of their respective inhabitants,
million who cast their votes in the last and on the basis of a uniform and
elections. Two-and-a-half percent would progressive ratio"[22] to ensure
mean 500,000 votes. Anybody who has a meaningful local representation.
constituency of 500,000 votes
All in all, we hold that the statutory
nationwide deserves a seat in the
provision on this two percent
Assembly. If we bring that down to two
requirement is precise and
percent, we are talking about 400,000
crystalline. When the law is clear, the
votes. The average vote per family is
function of courts is simple application,
three. So, here we are talking about
not interpretation or circumvention.[23]
134,000 families. We believe that there
are many sectors who will be able to get
seats in the Assembly because many of
The Three-Seat-Per-Party Limit
them have memberships of over
10,000. In effect, that is the operational
implication of our proposal. What we are An important consideration in
trying to avoid is this selection of sectors, adopting the party-list system is to
promote and encourage a multiparty Third Issue: Method of Allocating
system of representation. Again, we Additional Seats
quote Commissioner Monsod:
Having determined that the twenty
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just
percent seat allocation is merely a ceiling,
want to say that we suggested or
and having upheld the constitutionality of
proposed the party list system because
the two percent vote threshold and the
we wanted to open up the political
three-seat limit imposed under RA 7941,
system to a pluralistic society through a
we now proceed to the method of
multiparty system. But we also wanted to
determining how many party-list seats
avoid the problems of mechanics and
the qualified parties, organizations and
operation in the implementation of a
coalitions are entitled to. The very first
concept that has very serious
step - there is no dispute on this - is to
shortcomings of classification and of
rank all the participating parties,
double or triple votes. We are for
organizations and coalitions (hereafter
opening up the system, and we would
collectively referred to as "parties")
like very much for the sectors to be
according to the votes they each
there.That is why one of the ways to do
obtained. The percentage of their
that is to put a ceiling on the number of
respective votes as against the total
representatives from any single party
number of votes cast for the party-list
that can sit within the 50 allocated under
system is then determined. All those that
the party list system. This way, we will
garnered at least two percent of the total
open it up and enable sectoral groups, or
votes cast have an assured or
maybe regional groups, to earn their
guaranteed seat in the House of
seats among the fifty. x x x.[24]
Representatives. Thereafter, "those
garnering more than two percent of the
Consistent with the Constitutional
votes shall be entitled to additional seats
Commission's pronouncements,
in proportion to their total number of
Congress set the seat-limit to three (3)
votes." The problem is how to distribute
for each qualified party, organization or
additional seats "proportionally," bearing
coalition. "Qualified" means having
in mind the three-seat limit further
hurdled the two percent vote
imposed by the law.
threshold. Such three-seat limit ensures
the entry of various interest-
representations into the legislature; thus,
One Additional Seat Per Two
no single group, no matter how large its
Percent Increment
membership, would dominate the party-
list seats, if not the entire House.
One proposed formula is to allocate
We shall not belabor this point,
one additional seat for every additional
because the validity of the three-seat
proportion of the votes obtained
limit is not seriously challenged in these
equivalent to the two percent vote
consolidated cases.
requirement for the first
seat.[25] Translated in figures, a party
that wins at least six percent of the total garnered by all the qualified parties. The
votes cast will be entitled to three seats; integer portion of the resulting product
another party that gets four percent will will be the number of additional seats
be entitled to two seats; and one that that the party concerned is entitled
gets two percent will be entitled to one to. Thus:
seat only. This proposal has the
No. of remaining seats
advantage of simplicity and ease of
to be allocated No. of additional
comprehension. Problems arise,
--------------------------- x No. of votes
however, when the parties get very lop-
of = seats of party
sided votes -- for example, when Party A
Total no. of votes of party
receives 20 percent of the total votes
concerned concerned
cast; Party B, 10 percent; and Party C, 6
qualified parties (Integer.decimal)
percent. Under the method just
described, Party A would be entitled to 10 The next step is to distribute the
seats; Party B, to 5 seats and Party C, to extra seats left among the qualified
3 seats. Considering the three-seat limit parties in the descending order of the
imposed by law, all the parties will each decimal portions of the resulting
uniformly have three seats only. We products. Based on the 1998 election
would then have the spectacle of a party results, the distribution of party-list seats
garnering two or more times the number under the Niemeyer method would be as
of votes obtained by another, yet getting follows:
the same number of seats as the other
Party Number
one with the much lesser votes. In effect,
of Guaranteed Additional Extra Total
proportional representation will be
Votes Seats Seats Seats
contravened and the law rendered
1. APEC 503,487 1 5.73 1 7
nugatory by this suggested
2. ABA 321,646 1 3.66 1 5
solution. Hence, the Court discarded it.
3. ALAGAD 312,500 1 3.55 4
4. VETERANS 304,802 1 3.47 4
FEDERATION
The Niemeyer Formula
5. PROMDI 255,184 1 2.90 1 4
6. AKO 239,042 1 2.72 1 4
Another suggestion that the Court 7. NCSCFO 238,303 1 2.71 1 4
considered was the Niemeyer formula, 8. ABANSE! PINAY 235,548 1 2.68 1 4
which was developed by a German 9. AKBAYAN 232,376 1 2.64 1 4
mathematician and adopted by Germany 10. BUTIL 215,643 1 2.45 3
as its method of distributing party-list 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 1 2.21 3
seats in the Bundestag. Under this 12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 1 2.16 3
formula, the number of additional seats 13. COCOFED 186,388 1 2.12 3
to which a qualified party would be Total 3,429,338 13 32 7 52
entitled is determined by multiplying the
However, since Section 11 of RA
remaining number of seats to be
7941 sets a limit of three (3) seats for
allocated by the total number of votes
each party, those obtaining more than
obtained by that party and dividing the
the limit will have to give up their excess
product by the total number of votes
seats. Under our present set of facts, the It is now obvious that the Philippine
thirteen qualified parties will each be style party-list system is a unique
entitled to three seats, resulting in an paradigm which demands an equally
overall total of 39. Note that like the unique formula. In crafting a legally
previous proposal, the Niemeyer formula defensible and logical solution to
would violate the principle of determine the number of additional seats
"proportional representation," a basic that a qualified party is entitled to, we
tenet of our party-list system. need to review the parameters of the
Filipino party-list system.
The Niemeyer formula, while no
doubt suitable for Germany, finds no As earlier mentioned in the Prologue,
application in the Philippine setting, they are as follows:
because of our three-seat limit and the
First, the twenty percent
non-mandatory character of the twenty
allocation - the combined number
percent allocation. True, both our
of all party-list congressmen shall not
Congress and the Bundestag have
exceed twenty percent of the total
threshold requirements -- two percent for
membership of the House of
us and five for them. There are marked
Representatives, including those elected
differences between the two models,
under the party list.
however. As ably pointed out by private
respondents,[26] one half of the German Second, the two percent
Parliament is filled up by party-list threshold - only those parties garnering
members. More important, there are no a minimum of two percent of the total
seat limitations, because German law valid votes cast for the party-list system
discourages the proliferation of small are qualified to have a seat in the House
parties. In contrast, RA 7941, as already of Representatives;
mentioned, imposes a three-seat limit to
Third, the three-seat limit - each
encourage the promotion of the
qualified party, regardless of the number
multiparty system. This major statutory
of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to
difference makes the Niemeyer formula
a maximum of three seats; that is, one
completely inapplicable to the
qualifying and two additional seats.
Philippines.
Fourth, proportional
Just as one cannot grow Washington
representation - the additional seats
apples in the Philippines or Guimaras
which a qualified party is entitled to shall
mangoes in the Arctic because of
be computed in proportion to their total
fundamental environmental differences,
number of votes.
neither can the Niemeyer formula be
transplanted in toto here because of The problem, as already stated, is to
essential variances between the two find a way to translate proportional
party-list models. representation into a mathematical
formula that will not contravene,
circumvent or amend the above-
The Legal and Logical Formula for mentioned parameters.
the Philippines
 After careful deliberation, we now be given less than that to which the first
explain such formula, step by step. one is entitled.
Step One. There is no dispute among The other qualified parties will
the petitioners, the public and the private always be allotted less additional seats
respondents, as well as the members of than the first party for two reasons: (1)
this Court, that the initial step is to rank the ratio between said parties and the
all the participating parties, organizations first party will always be less than 1:1,
and coalitions from the highest to the and (2) the formula does not admit of
lowest based on the number of votes mathematical rounding off, because
they each received. Then the ratio for there is no such thing as a fraction of a
each party is computed by dividing its seat. Verily, an arbitrary rounding off
votes by the total votes cast for all the could result in a violation of the twenty
parties participating in the system. All percent allocation. An academic
parties with at least two percent of the mathematical demonstration of such
total votes are guaranteed one seat incipient violation is not necessary
each. Only these parties shall be because the present set of facts, given
considered in the computation the number of qualified parties and the
of additional seats. The party receiving voting percentages obtained, will
the highest number of votes shall definitely not end up in such
thenceforth be referred to as the first constitutional contravention.
party.
The Court has previously ruled
Step Two. The next step is to in Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales[27] that a
determine the number of seats the first fractional membership cannot be
party is entitled to, in order to be able to converted into a whole membership of
compute that for the other parties. Since one when it would, in effect, deprive
the distribution is based on proportional another party's fractional membership. It
representation, the number of seats to be would be a violation of the constitutional
allotted to the other parties cannot mandate of proportional
possibly exceed that to which the first representation. We said further that "no
party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining party can claim more than what it is
the most number of votes. entitled to x x x.
For example, the first party received In any case, the decision on whether
1,000,000 votes and is determined to be to round off the fractions is better left to
entitled to two additional seats. Another the legislature. Since Congress did not
qualified party which received 500,000 provide for it in the present law, neither
votes cannot be entitled to the same will this Court. The Supreme Court does
number of seats, since it garnered only not make the law; it merely applies it to
fifty percent of the votes won by the first a given set of facts.
party. Depending on the proportion of its
votes relative to that of the first party
whose number of seats has already been Formula for Determining Additional
predetermined, the second party should Seats for the First Party
 Now, how do we determine the the parties are entitled may exceed the
number of seats the first party is entitled maximum number of party-list seats
to? The only basis given by the law is that reserved in the House of
a party receiving at least two percent of Representatives.
the total votes shall be entitled to one
Applying the above formula, APEC,
seat. Proportionally, if the first party
which received 5.5% of the total votes
were to receive twice the number of
cast, is entitled to one additional seat or
votes of the second party, it should be
a total of two seats.
entitled to twice the latter's number of
seats and so on. The formula, therefore, Note that the above formula will be
for computing the number of seats to applicable only in determining the
which the first party is entitled is as number of additional seats the first
follows: party is entitled to. It cannot be used to
determine the number of additional seats
Number of votes
of the other qualified parties. As
of first party Proportion of votes of
explained earlier, the use of the same
-------------------- = first party relative to
formula for all would contravene the
Total votes for total votes for party-list
proportional representation
system
parameter. For example, a second party
party-list system
obtains six percent of the total number of
If the proportion of votes received by votes cast. According to the above
the first party without rounding it off is formula, the said party would be entitled
equal to at least six percent of the total to two additional seats or a total of three
valid votes cast for all the party list seats overall. However, if the first party
groups, then the first party shall be received a significantly higher amount of
entitled to two additional seats or a total votes -- say, twenty percent -- to grant it
of three seats overall. If the proportion of the same number of seats as the second
votes without a rounding off is equal to party would violate the statutory
or greater than four percent, but less mandate of proportional representation,
than six percent, then the first party shall since a party getting only six percent of
have one additional or a total of two the votes will have an equal number of
seats. And if the proportion is less than representatives as the one obtaining
four percent, then the first party shall not twenty percent. The proper solution,
be entitled to any additional seat. therefore, is to grant the first party a total
of three seats; and the party receiving six
We adopted this six percent bench
percent, additional seats in proportion to
mark, because the first party is not
those of the first party.
always entitled to the maximum number
of additional seats. Likewise, it would
prevent the allotment of more than the
Formula for Additional Seats of
total number of available seats, such as
Other Qualified Parties
in an extreme case wherein 18 or more
parties tie for the highest rank and are
thus entitled to three seats each. In such Step Three The next step is to solve
scenario, the number of seats to which all for the number of additional seats that
the other qualified parties are entitled to, party (ABA) 503,487 rounding off is not
based on proportional to be applied
representation. The formula is
Applying the above formula, we find
encompassed by the following complex
the outcome of the 1998 party-list
fraction:
election to be as follows:
No. of votes of
Organization Votes %age of Initial
concerned party
No. Additional Total
------------------
Garnered Total Votes of Seats Seats
Total no. of votes
1. APEC 503,487 5.50% 1 1 2
Additional seats for party-list system No.
2. ABA 321,646 3.51% 1 321,646 /
of additional
503,487 * 1 = 0.64 1
for concerned = ----------------------
3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41% 1 312,500 /
- x seats allocated to
503,487 * 1 = 0.62 1
party No. of votes of the first party
4. VETERANS 304,802 3.33% 1 304,802
first party
/ 503,487 * 1 = 0.61 1
------------------
FEDERATION
Total no. of votes
5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79% 1 255,184 /
for party list system
503,487 * 1 = 0.51 1
In simplified form, it is written as 6. AKO 239,042 2.61% 1 239,042 /
follows: 503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
7. NCSFO 238,303 2.60% 1 238,303 /
No. of votes of
503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
Additional seats concerned party No. of
8. ABANSE! 235,548 2.57% 1 321,646 /
additional
503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
for concerned = ------------------ x seats
PINAY
allocated to
9. AKBAYAN! 232,376 2.54% 1 232,376
party No. of votes of the first party
/ 503,487 * 1 = 0.46 1
first party
10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36% 1 215,643 /
Thus, in the case of ABA, the 503,487 * 1 = 0.43 1
additional number of seats it would be 11.
entitled to is computed as follows: SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13% 1 194,617 /
503,487 * 1 = 0.39 1
No. of votes of
12. COOP- 189,802 2.07% 1 189,802 /
Additional seats ABA No. of additional
503,487 * 1 = 0.38 1
for concerned = -------------------- x seats
NATCCO
allocated to
13. COCOFED 186,388 2.04% 1 186,388
party (ABA) No. of votes of the first party
/ 503,487 * 1 = 0.37 1
first party (APEC)
Incidentally, if the first party is not
Substituting actual values would
entitled to any additional seat, then the
result in the following equation:
ratio of the number of votes for the other
Additional seats 321,646 party to that for the first one is multiplied
for concerned = ----------- x 1 = .64 or 0 by zero. The end result would be zero
additional seat, since
additional seat for each of the other also be modified to reflect the changes
qualified parties as well. willed by the lawmakers.
The above formula does not give an
exact mathematical representation of the
Epilogue
number of additional seats to be awarded
since, in order to be entitled to one
additional seat, an exact whole number is In sum, we hold that the Comelec
necessary. In fact, most of the actual gravely abused its discretion in ruling
mathematical proportions are not whole that the thirty-eight (38) herein
numbers and are not rounded off for the respondent parties, organizations and
reasons explained earlier. To repeat, coalitions are each entitled to a party-list
rounding off may result in the awarding seat, because it glaringly violated two
of a number of seats in excess of that requirements of RA 7941: the two
provided by the law. Furthermore, percent threshold and proportional
obtaining absolute proportional representation.
representation is restricted by the three-
In disregarding, rejecting and
seat-per-party limit to a maximum of
circumventing these statutory provisions,
two additional slots. An increase in the
the Comelec effectively arrogated unto
maximum number of additional
itself what the Constitution expressly and
representatives a party may be entitled
wholly vested in the legislature: the
to would result in a more accurate
power and the discretion to define the
proportional representation. But the law
mechanics for the enforcement of the
itself has set the limit: only two additional
system. The wisdom and the propriety of
seats. Hence, we need to work within
these impositions, absent any clear
such extant parameter.
transgression of the Constitution or grave
The net result of the foregoing abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
formula for determining additional seats excess of jurisdiction, are beyond judicial
happily coincides with the present review.[28]
number of incumbents; namely, two for
Indeed, the Comelec and the other
the first party (APEC) and one each for
parties in these cases - both petitioners
the twelve other qualified parties.Hence,
and respondents - have failed to
we affirm the legality of the
demonstrate that our
incumbencies of their nominees, albeit
lawmakers gravely abused their
through the use of a different formula
discretion in prescribing such
and methodology.
requirements. By graveabuse of discreti
In his Dissent, Justice Mendoza on is meant such capricious or whimsical
criticizes our methodology for being too exercise of judgment equivalent to lack
strict. We say, however, that our formula or excess of jurisdiction.[29]
merely translated the Philippine legal
The Comelec, which is tasked merely
parameters into a mathematical
to enforce and administer election-
equation, no more no less. If Congress in
related laws,[30] cannot simply disregard
its wisdom decides to modify RA 7941 to
an act of Congress exercised within the
make it less strict, then the formula will
bounds of its authority. As a mere representatives should serve as a
implementing body, it cannot judge the challenge to our sectoral parties and
wisdom, propriety or rationality of such organizations. It should stir them to be
act. Its recourse is to draft an more active and vigilant in their
amendment to the law and lobby for its campaign for representation in the
approval and enactment by the State's lawmaking body. It should also
legislature. serve as a clarion call for innovation and
creativity in adopting this novel system of
Furthermore, a reading of the entire
popular democracy.
Constitution reveals no violation of any of
its provisions by the strict enforcement of With adequate information
RA 7941. It is basic that to strike down a dissemination to the public and more
law or any of its provisions as active sectoral parties, we are confident
unconstitutional, there must be a clear our people will be more responsive to
and unequivocal showing that what the future party-list elections. Armed with
Constitution prohibits, the statute patience, perseverance and perspicacity,
permits.[31] our marginalized sectors, in time, will
fulfill the Filipino dream of full
Neither can we grant petitioners
representation in Congress under the
prayer that they each be given additional
aegis of the party-list system, Philippine
seats (for a total of three each), because
style.
granting such plea would plainly and
simply violate the proportional WHEREFORE, the Petitions are
representation mandated by Section 11 hereby partially GRANTED. The assailed
(b) of RA 7941. Resolutions of the Comelec are SET
ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The
The low turnout of the party-list
proclamations of the fourteen (14) sitting
votes during the 1998 elections should
party-list representatives - two for APEC
not be interpreted as a total failure of the
and one each for the remaining twelve
law in fulfilling the object of this new
(12) qualified parties -
system of representation. It should not
are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
be deemed a conclusive indication that
costs.
the requirements imposed by RA 7941
wholly defeated the implementation of SO ORDERED.
the system. Be it remembered that the
party-list system, though already popular
in parliamentary democracies, is still
quite new in our presidential system. We
should allow it some time to take root in
the consciousness of our people and in G.R. No. 147589 June 26,
the heart of our tripartite form of 2001
republicanism. Indeed, the Comelec and
the defeated litigants should not despair. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR
PARTY (under the acronym OFW),
Quite the contrary, the dismal result represented herein by its secretary-
of the first election for party-list general, MOHAMMAD OMAR
FAJARDO, petitioner, AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA;
vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and
PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE BAGONG BAYANI
TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ORGANIZATION, respondents.
ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL PANGANIBAN, J.:
AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT
FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, The party-list system is a social justice
ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; tool designed not only to give more law
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE to the great masses of our people who
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS have less in life, but also to enable them
& HEALTH ADVANCEMENT to become veritable lawmakers
FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG themselves, empowered to participate
OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS directly in the enactment of laws
(OCW); BAGONG BAYANI designed to benefit them. It intends to
ORGANIZATION and others under make the marginalized and the
"Organizations/Coalitions" of underrepresented not merely passive
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785; recipients of the State's benevolence, but
PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; active participants in the mainstream of
LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST representative democracy. Thus,
PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG allowing all individuals and groups,
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; including those which now dominate
AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP- district elections, to have the same
LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY; opportunity to participate in party-list
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY elections would desecrate this lofty
HAYAANG YUMABONG; and others objective and mongrelize the social
under "Political Parties" of Omnibus justice mechanism into an atrocious
Resolution No. 3785. respondents. veneer for traditional politics.

x------------------------------------------------ The Case

---------x
Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65
G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001 of the Rules of Court, challenging
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 1 issued by
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
vs. on March 26, 2001. This Resolution
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; approved the participation of 154
NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S organizations and parties, including
COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG those herein impleaded, in the 2001
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); party-list elections. Petitioners seek the
PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO disqualification of private respondents,
(PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; arguing mainly that the party-list system
LIBERAL PARTY; MAMAMAYANG was intended to benefit the marginalized
and underrepresented; not the other registered parties filed their
mainstream political parties, the non- Manifestations beyond the deadline.
marginalized or overrepresented.
The Comelec gave due course or
The Factual Antecedents approved the Manifestations (or
accreditations) of 154 parties and
With the onset of the 2001 elections, the organizations, but denied those of
Comelec received several Petitions for several others in its assailed March 26,
registration filed by sectoral parties, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785,
organizations and political parties. which we quote:
According to the Comelec, "[v]erifications
were made as to the status and capacity "We carefully deliberated the foregoing
of these parties and organizations and matters, having in mind that this system
hearings were scheduled day and night of proportional representation scheme
until the last party w[as] heard. With the will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and
number of these petitions and the enhance the inability of small, new or
observance of the legal and procedural sectoral parties or organization to directly
requirements, review of these petitions participate in this electoral window.
as well as deliberations takes a longer
process in order to arrive at a decision "It will be noted that as defined, the
and as a result the two (2) divisions 'party-list system' is a 'mechanism of
promulgated a separate Omnibus proportional representation' in the
Resolution and individual resolution on election of representatives to the House
political parties. These numerous of Representatives from national,
petitions and processes observed in the regional, and sectoral parties or
disposition of these petition[s] hinder the organizations or coalitions thereof
early release of the Omnibus Resolutions registered with the Commission on
of the Divisions which were promulgated Elections.
only on 10 February 2001." 2
"However, in the course of our review of
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 the matters at bar, we must recognize
deadline prescribed under Comelec the fact that there is a need to keep the
Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, number of sectoral parties, organizations
2000, the registered parties and and coalitions, down to a manageable
organizations filed their respective level, keeping only those who
Manifestations, stating their intention to substantially comply with the rules and
participate in the party-list elections. regulations and more importantly the
Other sectoral and political parties and sufficiency of the Manifestations or
organizations whose registrations were evidence on the Motions for
denied also filed Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." 3
Reconsideration, together with
Manifestations of their intent to On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens
participate in the party-list elections. Still Action Party filed before the Comelec a
Petition praying that "the names of
[some of herein respondents] be deleted Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution
from the 'Certified List of Political dated May 9, 2001, 13 the Court ordered
Parties/Sectoral the consolidation of the two Petitions
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions before it; directed respondents named in
Participating in the Party List System for the second Petition to file their respective
the May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said Comments on or before noon of May 15,
certified list be accordingly amended." It 2001; and called the parties to an Oral
also asked, as an alternative, that the Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that
votes cast for the said respondents not the Comelec may proceed with the
be counted or canvassed, and that the counting and canvassing of votes cast for
latter's nominees not be proclaimed. 4 On the party-list elections, but barred the
April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan proclamation of any winner therein, until
Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for further orders of the Court.
Cancellation of Registration and
Nomination against some of herein Thereafter, Comments 14 on the second
respondents. 5 Petition were received by the Court and,
on May 17, 2001, the Oral Argument was
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required conducted as scheduled. In an Order
the respondents in the two given in open court, the parties were
disqualification cases to file Comments directed to submit their respective
within three days from notice. It also set Memoranda simultaneously within a non-
the date for hearing on April 26, extendible period of five days. 15
2001, 6 but subsequently reset it to May
3, 2001.7 During the hearing, however, Issues:
Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion merely
directed the parties to submit their During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the
respective memoranda. 8 Court directed the parties to address the
following issues:
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of
the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW "1. Whether or not recourse under
Labor Party filed a Petition 9 before this Rule 65 is proper under the
Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, premises. More specifically, is
docketed as GR No. 147589, assailed there no other plain, speedy or
Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. adequate remedy in the ordinary
In its Resolution dated April 17, course of law?
2001, 10 the Court directed respondents
to comment on the Petition within a non- "2. Whether or not political parties
extendible period of five days from may participate in the party-list
notice. 11 elections.

On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna "3. Whether or not the party-list
also filed before this Court a system is exclusive to
Petition, 12 docketed as GR No. 147613, 'marginalized and
also challenging Comelec Omnibus
 underrepresented' sectors and Rules of Court, such challenge may be
organizations. brought before this Court in a verified
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
"4. Whether or not the Comelec
committed grave abuse of Moreover, the assailed Omnibus
discretion in promulgating Resolution was promulgated by
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785." 16 Respondent Commission en banc; hence,
no motion for reconsideration was
The Court's Ruling possible, it being a prohibited pleading
under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the
The Petitions are partly meritorious. Comelec Rules of Procedure. 21
These cases should be remanded to the
Comelec which will determine, after The Court also notes that Petitioner
summary evidentiary hearings, whether Bayan Muna had filed before the Comelec
the 154 parties and organizations a Petition for Cancellation of Registration
enumerated in the assailed Omnibus and Nomination against some of herein
Resolution satisfy the requirements of respondents. 22 The Comelec, however,
the Constitution and RA 7941, as did not act on that Petition. In view of the
specified in this Decision. pendency of the elections, Petitioner
Bayan Muna sought succor from this
First Issue: Court, for there was no other adequate
recourse at the time. Subsequent events
Recourse Under Rule 65 have proven the urgency of petitioner's
action; to this date, the Comelec has not
Respondents contend that the recourse yet formally resolved the Petition before
of both petitioners under Rule 65 is it. But a resolution may just be a
improper because there are other plain, formality because the Comelec, through
speedy and adequate remedies in the the Office of the Solicitor General, has
ordinary course of law. 17 The Office of made its position on the matter quite
the Solicitor General argues that clear.
petitioners should have filed before the
Comelec a petition either for In any event, this case presents an
disqualification or for cancellation of exception to the rule that certiorari shall
registration, pursuant to Sections 19, 20, lie only in the absence of any other plain,
21 and 22 of Comelec Resolution No. speedy and adequate remedy. 23 It has
3307-A 18 dated November 9, 2000.19 been held that certiorari is available,
notwithstanding the presence of other
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners remedies, "where the issue raised is one
attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus purely of law, where public interest is
Resolution 3785 for having been issued involved, and in case of
with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as urgency." Indeed, the instant case is
24

it allowed respondents to participate in indubitably imbued with public interest

the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, and with extreme urgency, for it
under both the Constitution 20 and the
potentially involves the composition of 20 respondents cannot be disqualified from
percent of the House of Representatives. the party-list elections, merely on the
ground that they are political parties.
Moreover, this case raises transcendental Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution
constitutional issues on the party-list provides that members of the House of
system, which this Court must urgently Representatives may "be elected through
resolve, consistent with its duty to a party-list system of registered national,
"formulate guiding and controlling regional, and sectoral parties or
constitutional principles, precepts, organizations."
doctrines, or rules." 25

Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8,

Finally, procedural requirements "may be Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political
glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of parties may be registered under the
justice, when the issue involves the party-list system.
principle of social justice x x x when the
decision sought to be set aside is a "Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of
nullity, or when the need for relief is a political party, organization, or
extremely urgent and certiorari is the coalition shall be valid, except for
only adequate and speedy remedy those registered under the party-
available." 26 list system as provided in this
Constitution.
Second Issue:
"Sec. 8. Political parties, or
Participation of Political Parties organizations or coalitions
registered under the party-list
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW system, shall not be represented
Labor Party contends that "the inclusion in the voters' registration boards,
of political parties in the party-list system boards of election inspectors,
is the most objectionable portion of the boards of canvassers, or other
questioned Resolution." 27 For its part, similar bodies. However, they shall
Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the be entitled to appoint poll
participation of "major political watchers in accordance with
parties." On the other hand, the Office
28
law." 30
of the Solicitor General, like the
impleaded political parties, submits that During the deliberations in the
the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow Constitutional Commission, Comm.
political parties to participate in the Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the
party-list elections. It argues that the participants in the party-list system may
party-list system is, in fact, open to all "be a regional party, a sectoral party, a
"registered national, regional and national party, UNIDO, 31Magsasaka, or a
sectoral parties or organizations." 29 regional party in Mindanao." 32 This was
also clear from the following exchange
We now rule on this issue. Under the between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas
Constitution and RA 7941, private Ople: 33
"MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang nominates and supports certain of its
party list ay pwedeng paghati-hatian ng leaders and members as candidates for
UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at public office."
Nacionalista?
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas leaves no doubt as to the participation of
ang party list system sa lahat ng mga political parties in the party-list system.
partido." We quote the pertinent provision below:

Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated "x x x

that the purpose of the party-list
provision was to open up the system, in "For purposes of the May 1998 elections,
order to give a chance to parties that the first five (5) major political parties on
consistently place third or fourth in the basis of party representation in the
congressional district elections to win a House of Representatives at the start of
seat in Congress. 34 He explained: "The the Tenth Congress of the Philippines
purpose of this is to open the system. In shall not be entitled to participate in the
the past elections, we found out that party-list system.
there were certain groups or parties that,
if we count their votes nationwide, have x x x"
about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But
they were always third or fourth place in Indubitably, therefore, political parties –
each of the districts. So, they have no even the major ones -- may participate in
voice in the Assembly. But this way, they the party-list elections.
would have five or six representatives in
the Assembly even if they would not win Third Issue:
individually in legislative districts. So, that
is essentially the mechanics, the purpose Marginalized and Underrepresented
and objectives of the party-list system."
That political parties may participate in
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also the party-list elections does not mean,
provides for "a party-list system of however, that any political party -- or any
registered national, regional and sectoral organization or group for that matter --
parties or organizations or coalitions may do so. The requisite character of
thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states these parties or organizations must be
that a "party" is "either a political party consistent with the purpose of the party-
or a sectoral party or a coalition of list system, as laid down in the
parties." More to the point, the law Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5,
defines "political party" as "an organized Article VI of the Constitution, provides as
group of citizens advocating an ideology follows:
or platform, principles and policies for the
general conduct of government and "(1) The House of Representatives
which, as the most immediate means of shall be composed of not more
securing their adoption, regularly than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed
 by law, who shall be elected from The foregoing provision on the party-list
legislative districts apportioned system is not self-executory. It is, in fact,
among the provinces, cities, and interspersed with phrases like "in
the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with law" or "as may be
accordance with the number of provided by law"; it was thus up to
their respective inhabitants, and Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty
on the basis of a uniform and objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA
progressive ratio, and those who, 7941 was enacted. It laid out the
as provided by law, shall be statutory policy in this wise:
elected through a party-list
system of registered national, "SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The
regional, and sectoral parties or State shall promote proportional
organizations. representation in the election of
representatives to the House of
(2) The party-list representatives Representatives through a party-list
shall constitute twenty per centum system of registered national, regional
of the total number of and sectoral parties or organizations or
representatives including those coalitions thereof, which will enable
under the party list. For three Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
consecutive terms after the and underrepresented sectors,
ratification of this Constitution, organizations and parties, and who lack
one-half of the seats allocated to well-defined political constituencies but
party-list representatives shall be who could contribute to the formulation
filled, as provided by law, by and enactment of appropriate legislation
selection or election from the that will benefit the nation as a whole, to
labor, peasant, urban poor, become members of the House of
indigenous cultural communities, Representatives. Towards this end, the
women, youth, and such other State shall develop and guarantee a full,
sectors as may be provided by free and open party system in order to
law, except the religious sector." attain the broadest possible
(Emphasis supplied.) representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives
Notwithstanding the sparse language of by enhancing their chances to compete
the provision, a distinguished member of for and win seats in the legislature, and
the Constitutional Commission declared shall provide the simplest scheme
that the purpose of the party-list possible."
provision was to give "genuine power to
our people" in Congress. Hence, when The Marginalized and Underrepresented
the provision was discussed, he to Become Lawmakers Themselves
exultantly announced: "On this first day
of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, The foregoing provision mandates a state
usher in a new chapter to our national policy of promoting proportional
history, by giving genuine power to our representation by means of the Filipino-
people in the legislature." 35 style party-list system, which will
"enable" the election to the House of the persons nominated by the party-list
Representatives of Filipino citizens, candidate-organization must be "Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
underrepresented sectors, and parties."
organizations and parties; and
Finally, "lack of well-defined
2. who lack well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of
constituencies; but a traditionally identifiable electoral group,
like voters of a congressional district or
3. who could contribute to the territorial unit of government. Rather, it
formulation and enactment of points again to those with disparate
appropriate legislation that will interests identified with the "marginalized
benefit the nation as a whole. or underrepresented."

The key words in this policy are In the end, the role of the Comelec is to
"proportional representation," see to it that only those Filipinos who are
"marginalized and underrepresented," "marginalized and underrepresented"
and "lack ofwell-defined constituencies." become members of Congress under the
party-list system, Filipino-style.
"Proportional representation" here does
not refer to the number of people in a The intent of the Constitution is clear: to
particular district, because the party-list give genuine power to the people, not
election is national in scope. Neither does only by giving more law to those who
it allude to numerical strength in a have less in life, but more so by enabling
distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it them to become veritable lawmakers
refers to the representation of the themselves. Consistent with this intent,
"marginalized and underrepresented" as the policy of the implementing law, we
exemplified by the enumeration in repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable
Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, and underrepresented sectors,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, organizations and parties, x x x, to
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, become members of the House of
overseas workers, and professionals." Representatives." Where the language of
the law is clear, it must be applied
However, it is not enough for the according to its express terms. 37
candidate to claim representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented, The marginalized and underrepresented
because representation is easy to claim sectors to be represented under the
and to feign. The party-list organization party-list system are enumerated in
or party must factually and truly Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
represent the marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies "SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized
mentioned in Section 5. 36 Concurrently, group of persons may register as a party,
organization or coalition for purposes of underrepresented sectors of
the party-list system by filing with the society." In fact, it contends that any
39

COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days party or group that is not disqualified
before the election a petition verified by under Section 6 40 of RA 7941 may
its president or secretary stating its participate in the elections. Hence, it
desire to participate in the party-list admitted during the Oral Argument that
system as a national, regional or sectoral even an organization representing the
party or organization or a coalition of super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmariñas
such parties or organizations, attaching Village could participate in the party-list
thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform elections. 41
or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement and other The declared policy of RA 7941
relevant information as the COMELEC contravenes the position of the Office of
may require: Provided, that the sector the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress
shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, that the party-list system seeks to enable
urban poor, indigenous cultural certain Filipino citizens – specifically
communities, elderly, handicapped, those belonging to marginalized and
women, youth, veterans, overseas underrepresented sectors, organizations
workers, and professionals." and parties – to be elected to the House
of Representatives. The assertion of the
While the enumeration of marginalized OSG that the party-list system is not
and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive to the marginalized and
exclusive, it demonstrates the clear underrepresented disregards the clear
intent of the law that not all sectors can statutory policy. Its claim that even the
be represented under the party-list super-rich and overrepresented can
system. It is a fundamental principle of participate desecrates the spirit of the
statutory construction that words party-list system.
employed in a statute are interpreted in
connection with, and their meaning is Indeed, the law crafted to address the
ascertained by reference to, the words peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel
and the phrases with which they are dwellers cannot be appropriated by the
associated or related. Thus, the meaning mansion owners of Forbes Park. The
of a term in a statute may be limited, interests of these two sectors are
qualified or specialized by those in manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG's
immediate association. 38 position to treat them similarly defies
reason and common sense. In contrast,
The Party-List System Desecrated by the and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna
OSG Contentions Patajo-Kapunan 42 admitted during the
Oral Argument that a group of bankers,
Notwithstanding the unmistakable industrialists and sugar planters could
statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor not join the party-list system as
General submits that RA No. 7941 "does representatives of their respective
not limit the participation in the party-list sectors. 43
system to the marginalized and
While the business moguls and the of the seats in the House of
mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a Representatives were set aside for the
tiny minority, they are neither party-list system. In arguing that even
marginalized nor underrepresented, for those sectors who normally controlled 80
the stark reality is that their economic percent of the seats in the House could
clout engenders political power more participate in the party-list elections for
awesome than their numerical limitation. the remaining 20 percent, the OSG and
Traditionally, political power does not the Comelec disregard the fundamental
necessarily emanate from the size of difference between the congressional
one's constituency; indeed, it is likely to district elections and the party-list
arise more directly from the number and elections.
amount of one's bank accounts.
As earlier noted, the purpose of the
It is ironic, therefore, that the party-list provision was to open up the
marginalized and underrepresented in system, 44 in order to enhance the
our midst are the majority who wallow in chance of sectoral groups and
poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was organizations to gain representation in
for them that the party-list system was the House of Representatives through
enacted -- to give them not only genuine the simplest scheme possible. 45 Logic
hope, but genuine power; to give them shows that the system has been opened
the opportunity to be elected and to to those who have never gotten a
represent the specific concerns of their foothold within it -- those who cannot
constituencies; and simply to give them a otherwise win in regular elections and
direct voice in Congress and in the larger who therefore need the "simplest scheme
affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, possible" to do so. Conversely, it would
the party-list system truly empowers the be illogical to open the system to those
masses and ushers a new hope for who have long been within it -- those
genuine change. Verily, it invites those privileged sectors that have long
marginalized and underrepresented in dominated the congressional district
the past – the farm hands, the fisher folk, elections.
the urban poor, even those in the
underground movement – to come out The import of the open party-list system
and participate, as indeed many of them may be more vividly understood when
came out and participated during the last compared to a student dormitory "open
elections. The State cannot now house," which by its nature allows
disappoint and frustrate them by outsiders to enter the facilities.
disabling and desecrating this social Obviously, the "open house" is for the
justice vehicle. benefit of outsiders only, not the dormers
themselves who can enter the dormitory
Because the marginalized and even without such special privilege. In
underrepresented had not been able to the same vein, the open party-list system
win in the congressional district elections is only for the "outsiders" who cannot get
normally dominated by traditional elected through regular elections
politicians and vested groups, 20 percent otherwise; it is not for the non-
marginalized or overrepresented who meaning of the words used is unclear and
already fill the ranks of Congress. equivocal should resort be made to
extraneous aids of construction and
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and interpretation, such as the proceedings
overrepresented to vie for the remaining of the Constitutional Commission or
seats under the party-list system would Convention, in order to shed light on and
not only dilute, but also prejudice the ascertain the true intent or purpose of
chance of the marginalized and the provision being construed. 47
underrepresented, contrary to the
intention of the law to enhance it. The Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion
party-list system is a tool for the benefit of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in
of the underprivileged; the law could not Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
have given the same tool to others, to the Secretary 48 that "the debates and
prejudice of the intended beneficiaries. proceedings of the constitutional
convention [may be consulted] in order
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the to arrive at the reason and purpose of the
party-list system to be sullied and resulting Constitution x x x only when
prostituted by those who are neither other guides fail as said proceedings are
marginalized nor underrepresented. It powerless to vary the terms of the
cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed Constitution when the meaning is clear.
out. The clear state policy must permeate Debates in the constitutional convention
every discussion of the qualification of 'are of value as showing the views of the
political parties and other organizations individual members, and as indicating the
under the party-list system. reason for their votes, but they give us
no light as to the views of the large
Refutation of the Separate Opinions majority who did not talk, much less of
the mass or our fellow citizens whose
The Separate Opinions of our votes at the polls gave that instrument
distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. the force of fundamental law. We think it
Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, are safer to construe the constitution from
anchored mainly on the supposed intent what appears upon its face.' The proper
of the framers of the Constitution as interpretation therefore depends more
culled from their deliberations. on how it was understood by the people
adopting it than in the framers'
The fundamental principle in understanding thereof."
constitutional construction, however, is
that the primary source from which to Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,
ascertain constitutional intent or purpose relative to the party-list system, is
is the language of the provision itself. couched in clear terms: the mechanics of
The presumption is that the words in the system shall be provided by law.
which the constitutional provisions are Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA
couched express the objective sought to 7941. In understanding and
be attained. 46 In other words, verba implementing party-list representation,
legis still prevails. Only when the we should therefore look at the law first.
Only when we find its provisions marginalized and overrepresented, could
ambiguous should the use of extraneous field candidates in the party-list elections.
aids of construction be resorted to.
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the agency like the Commission on Elections,
law is obvious and clear from its plain violates or ignores the Constitution or the
words. Section 2 thereof unequivocally law, its action can be struck down by this
states that the party-list system of Court on the ground of grave abuse of
electing congressional representatives discretion. 49 Indeed, the function of all
was designed to "enable judicial and quasi-judicial
underrepresented sectors, organizations instrumentalities is to apply the law as
and parties, and who lack well-defined they find it, not to reinvent or second-
political constituencies but who could guess it. 50
contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan
will benefit the nation as a whole x x x." Muna passionately pleads for the outright
The criteria for participation is well disqualification of the major political
defined. Thus, there is no need for parties – Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP,
recourse to constitutional deliberations, NPC, LP and PMP – on the ground that
not even to the proceedings of Congress. under Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they
In any event, the framers' deliberations have been accredited as the five (six,
merely express their individual opinions including PDP-Laban) major political
and are, at best, only persuasive in parties in the May 14, 2001 elections. It
construing the meaning and purpose of argues that because of this, they have
the constitution or statute. the "advantage of getting official
Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of
Be it remembered that the Canvass, preferred poll watchers x x x."
constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 We note, however, that this accreditation
and 5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here. does not refer to the party-list election,
Hence, they remain parts of the law, but, inter alia, to the election of district
which must be applied plainly and simply. representatives for the purpose of
determining which parties would be
Fourth Issue: entitled to watchers under Section 26 of
Republic Act No. 7166.
Grave Abuse of Discretion
What is needed under the present
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it circumstances, however, is a factual
is manifest that the Comelec failed to determination of whether respondents
appreciate fully the clear policy of the law herein and, for that matter, all the 154
and the Constitution. On the contrary, it previously approved groups, have the
seems to have ignored the facet of the necessary qualifications to participate in
party-list system discussed above. The the party-list elections, pursuant to the
OSG as its counsel admitted before the Constitution and the law.
Court that any group, even the non-
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately to the marginalized and
rule out Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw underrepresented. And it must
sa Droga (MAD), because "it is a demonstrate that in a conflict of
government entity using government interests, it has chosen or is likely to
resources and privileges." This Court, choose the interest of such sectors.
however, is not a trier of facts. 51 It is not
equipped to receive evidence and Second, while even major political parties
determine the truth of such factual are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
allegations. Constitution to participate in the party-list
system, they must comply with the
Basic rudiments of due process require declared statutory policy of enabling
that respondents should first be given an "Filipino citizens belonging to
opportunity to show that they qualify marginalized and underrepresented
under the guidelines promulgated in this sectors x x x to be elected to the House
Decision, before they can be deprived of of Representatives." In other words,
their right to participate in and be elected while they are not disqualified merely on
under the party-list system. the ground that they are political parties,
they must show, however, that they
Guidelines for Screening Party-List represent the interests of the
Participants marginalized and underrepresented. The
counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and
The Court, therefore, deems it proper to other similarly situated political parties
remand the case to the Comelec for the admitted as much during the Oral
latter to determine, after summary Argument, as the following quote shows:
evidentiary hearings, whether the 154
parties and organizations allowed to "JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not
participate in the party-list elections disputing that in my question. All I am
comply with the requirements of the law. saying is, the political party must claim to
In this light, the Court finds it appropriate represent the marginalized and
to lay down the following guidelines, underrepresented sectors?
culled from the law and the Constitution,
to assist the Comelec in its work. ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the
answer is yes."52
First, the political party, sector,
organization or coalition must represent Third, in view of the objections53 directed
the marginalized and underrepresented against the registration of Ang Buhay
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a
In other words, it must show -- through religious group, the Court notes the
its constitution, articles of incorporation, express constitutional provision that the
bylaws, history, platform of government religious sector may not be represented
and track record -- that it represents and in the party-list system. The extent of the
seeks to uplift marginalized and constitutional proscription is
underrepresented sectors. Verily, demonstrated by the following discussion
majority of its membership should belong
during the deliberations of the against a priest running as a candidate.
Constitutional Commission: That is not prohibited here; it is the
registration of a religious sect as a
"MR. OPLE. x x x political party."58

In the event that a certain religious sect Fourth, a party or an organization must
with nationwide and even international not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA
networks of members and supporters, in 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
order to circumvent this prohibition, disqualification as follows:
decides to form its own political party in
emulation of those parties I had "(1) It is a religious sect or
mentioned earlier as deriving their denomination, organization or
inspiration and philosophies from well- association organized for religious
established religious faiths, will that also purposes;
not fall within this prohibition?
(2) It advocates violence or
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that unlawful means to seek its goal;
the intention is to go around the
prohibition, then certainly the Comelec (3) It is a foreign party or
can pierce through the legal fiction."54 organization;

The following discussion is also pertinent: (4) It is receiving support from

any foreign government, foreign
"MR. VILLACORTA. When the political party, foundation,
Commissioner proposed "EXCEPT organization, whether directly or
RELIGIOUS GROUPS," he is not, of through any of its officers or
course, prohibiting priests, imams or members or indirectly through
pastors who may be elected by, say, the third parties for partisan election
indigenous community sector to purposes;
represent their group.
(5) It violates or fails to comply
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am with laws, rules or regulations
objecting to anybody who represents the relating to elections;
Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the
Protestant Church et cetera."55 (6) It declares untruthful
statements in its petition;
Furthermore, the Constitution provides
that "religious denominations and sects (7) It has ceased to exist for at
shall not be registered."56 The prohibition least one (1) year; or
was explained by a member57 of the
Constitutional Commission in this wise: (8) It fails to participate in the last
"[T] he prohibition is on any religious two (2) preceding elections or fails
organization registering as a political to obtain at least two per centum
party. I do not see any prohibition here (2%) of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two (2)
 preceding elections for the nominated as party-list representative
constituency in which it has unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
registered."59 Philippines, a registered voter, a resident
of the Philippines for a period of not less
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, than one (1) year immediately preceding
which disqualifies a party or group for the day of the election, able to read and
violation of or failure to comply with write, a bona fide member of the party or
election laws and regulations. These laws organization which he seeks to represent
include Section 2 of RA 7941, which for at least ninety (90) days preceding
states that the party-list system seeks to the day of the election, and is at least
"enable Filipino citizens belonging to twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
marginalized and underrepresented of the election.
sectors, organizations and parties x x x to
become members of the House of In case of a nominee of the youth sector,
Representatives." A party or an he must at least be twenty-five (25) but
organization, therefore, that does not not more than thirty (30) years of age on
comply with this policy must be the day of the election. Any youth
disqualified. sectoral representative who attains the
age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
Fifth, the party or organization must not allowed to continue in office until the
be an adjunct of, or a project organized expiration of his term."
or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government. By the very nature of the Seventh, not only the candidate party or
party-list system, the party or organization must represent
organization must be a group of citizens, marginalized and underrepresented
organized by citizens and operated by sectors; so also must its nominees. To
citizens. It must be independent of the repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the
government. The participation of the nominees must be Filipino citizens "who
government or its officials in the affairs belong to marginalized and
of a party-list candidate is not only underrepresented sectors, organizations
illegal60 and unfair to other parties, but and parties." Surely, the interests of the
also deleterious to the objective of the youth cannot be fully represented by a
law: to enable citizens belonging to retiree; neither can those of the urban
marginalized and underrepresented poor or the working class, by an
sectors and organizations to be elected to industrialist. To allow otherwise is to
the House of Representatives. betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and
Sixth, the party must not only comply underrepresented.
with the requirements of the law; its
nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 Eighth, as previously discussed, while
of RA 7941 reads as follows: lacking a well-defined political
constituency, the nominee must likewise
"SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List be able to contribute to the formulation
Nominees. – No person shall be and enactment of appropriate legislation
that will benefit the nation as a whole. create a mirage. Instead of enabling the
Senator Jose Lina explained during the marginalized, it would further weaken
bicameral committee proceedings that them and aggravate their
"the nominee of a party, national or marginalization.
regional, is not going to represent a
particular district x x x."61 In effect, the Comelec would have us
believe that the party-list provisions of
Epilogue the Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing
more than a play on dubious words, a
The linchpin of this case is the clear and mockery of noble intentions, and an
plain policy of the law: "to enable Filipino empty offering on the altar of people
citizens belonging to marginalized and empowerment. Surely, this could not
underrepresented sectors, organizations have been the intention of the framers of
and parties, and who lack well-defined the Constitution and the makers of RA
political constituencies but who could 7941.
contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to
will benefit the nation as a whole, to the Comelec, which is hereby DIRECTED
become members of the House of to immediately conduct summary
Representatives." evidentiary hearings on the qualifications
of the party-list participants in the light of
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the the guidelines enunciated in this
fundamental social justice principle that Decision. Considering the extreme
those who have less in life should have urgency of determining the winners in
more in law. The party-list system is one the last party-list elections, the Comelec
such tool intended to benefit those who is directed to begin its hearings for the
have less in life. It gives the great masses parties and organizations that appear to
of our people genuine hope and genuine have garnered such number of votes as
power. It is a message to the destitute to qualify for seats in the House of
and the prejudiced, and even to those in Representatives. The Comelec is further
the underground, that change is possible. DIRECTED to submit to this Court its
It is an invitation for them to come out of compliance report within 30 days from
their limbo and seize the opportunity. notice hereof.1âwphi1.nêt

Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot The Resolution of this Court dated May 9,
accept the submissions of the Comelec 2001, directing the Comelec "to refrain
and the other respondents that the party- from proclaiming any winner" during the
list system is, without any qualification, last party-list election, shall remain in
open to all. Such position does not only force until after the Comelec itself will
weaken the electoral chances of the have complied and reported its
marginalized and underrepresented; it compliance with the foregoing
also prejudices them. It would gut the disposition.
substance of the party-list system.
Instead of generating hope, it would
This Decision is immediately executory SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL,
upon the Commission on Elections' JR. REPRESENTATIVES
receipt thereof. No pronouncement as to MELVYN D. EBALLE,
costs. LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR,
CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA
SO ORDERED. ANN P. ROSALES and
PATRICIA M.
SARENAS, petitioners,
vs. COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, its Chair,
SENATE PRESIDENT BLAS F.
[G.R. No. 141489. November 29,
OPLE, and Members, namely:
2002]
SENATORS FRANKLIN M.
DRILON, RENATO L.
CAYETANO, LOREN LEGARDA-
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, LEVISTE, ROBERT Z.
JR., REPRESENTATIVES BARBERS, ANNA DOMINIQUE
MELVYN D. EBALLE, M.L. COSETENG, GREGORIO
LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, HONASAN, RAMON B.
CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA MAGSAYSAY, JR., TERESA
ANN P. ROSALES and AQUINO-ORETA, RAUL S.
PATRICIA M. ROCO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
SARENAS, petitioners, VICENTE C. SOTTO III and
vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LUIS A.
REPRESENTATIVES ASISTIO, EMILIO R.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ESPINOSA, JR., WIGBERTO E.
JUSTICES JOSE A.R. MELO, TAADA, MANUEL M. GARCIA,
VICENTE V. MENDOZA and SIMEON A. DATUMANONG,
JOSE C. VITUG, and ANTONIO M. DIAZ, FAUSTINO
REPRESENTATIVES ASANI S. S. DY, JR., PACIFICO M.
TAMMANG, RAUL M. FAJARDO, ERNESTO F.
GONZALES, DIDAGEN P. HERRERA, NUR G. JAAFAR,
DILANGALEN, DANTON Q. CARLOS M. PADILLA,
BUESER,[1] NAPOLEON R. ROGELIO M. SARMIENTO and
BERATIO, SIMEON E. GARCIA SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR,
and SPEAKER MANUEL B. JR., respondents.
VILLAR, JR., respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
[G.R. No. 141490 November 29,
2002]
The Case
 Before this Court are two original (2) The party-list representatives shall
petitions for prohibition constitute twenty per centum of the total
and mandamus with prayer for writ of number of representatives including
preliminary injunction. Petitioners assail those under the party list. For three
the composition of the House of consecutive terms after the ratification of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET this Constitution, one-half of the seats
for brevity)[2] and the Commission on allocated to party-list representatives
Appointments (CA for shall be filled, as provided by law, by
brevity).[3] Petitioners pray that selection or election from the labor,
respondents be ordered to alter, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
reorganize, reconstitute and reconfigure communities, women, youth and such
the composition of the HRET and the CA other sectors as may be provided by law
to include party-list representatives in except the religious sector.
accordance with Sections 17 and 18,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and On March 3, 1995, the Party-List
Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known System Act took effect. The Act sought to
as the Party-List System Act. Petitioners promote proportional representation in
further pray that the HRET and the CA be the election of representatives, to the
enjoined from exercising their functions House of Representatives through a
until they have been reorganized. party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which
Antecedent Facts will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties, and
Section 5, Article VI of the 1987
who lack well-defined political
Constitution provides for a party-list
constituencies but who could contribute
system in the House of Representatives
to the formulation and enactment of
(House for brevity), as follows:
appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole, to become
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives
members of the House of
shall be composed of not more than two
Representatives. [4]
hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be On May 11, 1998, in accordance with
elected from legislative districts the Party-List System Act, national
apportioned among the provinces, cities, elections were held which included, for
and the Metropolitan Manila area in the first time, the election through
accordance with the number of their popular vote of party-list groups and
respective inhabitants, and on the basis organizations whose nominees would
of a uniform and progressive ratio, and become members of the House.
those who, as provided by law, shall be Proclaimed winners were 14 party-list
elected through a party-list system of representatives from 13 organizations,
registered national, regional and sectoral including petitioners from party-list
parties or organizations. groups Association of Philippine Electric
Cooperatives[5] (APEC), Alyansang
Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, of the Tribunal to refer Senator Pimentels
Manggagawang Bukid at Mangingisda letter to the Secretary-General of the
(ABA), NATCO Network Party (COOP- House of Representatives.[10] On the
NATCCO), Akbayan! Citizens Action Party same day, HRET Secretary Daisy B.
(AKBAYAN), and Abanse! Pinay Panga-Vega, in an Indorsement[11] of
(ABANSE). Due to the votes it garnered, even date, referred the letter to House of
APEC was able to send 2 representatives Representatives Secretary General
to the House, while the 12 other party- Roberto P. Nazareno.
list groups had one representative each.
On February 2, 2000, petitioners filed
Also elected were district representatives
with this Court their Petitions for
belonging to various political parties.
Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary
Subsequently, the House constituted Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary
its HRET and CA contingent[6] by electing Restraining Order) against the HRET, its
its representatives to these two Chairman and Members,[12]and against
constitutional bodies. In practice, the the CA, its Chairman and
procedure involves the nomination by the Members. [13] Petitioners contend that,
political parties of House members who under the Constitution and the Party-List
are to occupy seats in the HRET and the System Act, party-list representatives
CA.[7] From available records, it does not should have 1.2 or at least 1 seat in the
appear that after the May 11, 1998 HRET,[14] and 2.4 seats in the
elections the party-list groups in the CA. [15] Petitioners charge that
House nominated any of their respondents committed grave abuse of
representatives to the HRET or the CA. discretion in refusing to act positively on
As of the date of filing of the instant the letter of Senator Pimentel. In its
petitions, the House contingents to the Resolution of February 8, 2000,[16] the
HRET and the CA were composed solely Court en banc directed the consolidation
of district representatives belonging to of G.R. No. 141490 with G.R. No.
the different political parties. 141489.
On January 18, 2000, Senator On February 11, 2000, petitioners
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. wrote two letters filed in both cases a motion[17] to amend
addressed to then Senate President Blas their petitions to implead then Speaker
F. Ople,[8] as Chairman of the CA, and to Manuel B. Villar, Jr. as an additional
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court respondent, in his capacity as Speaker of
Jose A. R. Melo (now retired),[9] as the House and as one of the members of
Chairman of the HRET. The letters the CA. The Court granted both motions
requested Senate President Ople and and admitted the amended petitions.
Justice Melo to cause the restructuring of
Senator Pimentel filed the instant
the CA and the HRET, respectively, to
petitions on the strength of his oath to
include party-list representatives to
protect, defend and uphold the
conform to Sections 17 and 18, Article VI
Constitution and in his capacity as
of the 1987 Constitution.
taxpayer and as a member of the CA. He
In its meeting of January 20, 2000, was joined by 5 party-list representatives
the HRET resolved to direct the Secretary
from APEC, ABA, ABANSE, AKBAYAN and Petitioners also invoke the following
COOP-NATCCO as co-petitioners. provision of Section 11 of Republic Act
No. 7941:
Petitioners cite as basis Sections 17
and 18, Article VI of the 1987
Sec. 11. Number of Party-List
Constitution, to wit:
Representatives. - The party-list
representatives shall constitute
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of
twenty per centum (20%) of the total
Representatives shall each have an
number of the members of the House of
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
Representatives including those under
judge of all contests relating to the
the party-list. xxx[19]
election, returns and qualifications of
their respective Members. Each Electoral
According to the Solicitor Generals
Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Consolidated Comment,[20] at the time
Members, three of whom shall be
petitioners filed the instant petitions the
Justices of the Supreme Court to be
House had 220 members, 14 of whom
designated by the Chief Justice, and the
were party-list representatives,
remaining six shall be Members of the
constituting 6.3636% of the House. Of
Senate or the House of Representatives,
the remaining 206 district
as the case may be, who shall be chosen
representatives affiliated with different
on the basis of proportional
political parties, 151 belonged to
representation from the political parties
LAMP (68.6354%), 36 belonged to
and the parties or organizations
LAKAS (16.3636%), 13 to the Liberal
registered under the party-list system
Party (5.9090%), 1
represented therein. The senior Justice in
member (0.4545%) each to KBL,
the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
PDRLM, Aksyon Demokratiko, Reporma
Chairman.
and PROMDI, and 1 representative was
an independent.
Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President In their Reply to Consolidated
of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, Comment,[21] petitioners alleged that,
twelve Senators and twelve Members of following the Solicitor Generals
the House of Representatives, elected by computation, the LP and LAKAS were
each House on the basis of proportional over-represented in the HRET and the
representation from the political parties CA. Petitioners particularly assail the
and parties or organizations registered presence of one LP representative each
under the party-list system represented in the HRET and the CA, and maintain
therein. The Chairman of the Commission that the LP representatives should be
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The ousted and replaced with nominees of
Commission shall act on all appointments the 14 party-list representatives.
submitted to it within thirty session days
of the Congress from their submission.
The Commission shall rule by a majority The Issues
vote of all the Members,[18] (Emphasis
supplied)
 Petitioners raise the following issues: under the party-list system as a Member
of the HRET or CA to represent said party
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT
or organization under the party-list
COMPOSITION OF THE
system of the House of
HOUSE ELECTORAL
Representatives. [22]
TRIBUNAL VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF
The Ruling of the Court
PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE
THERE ARE NO PARTY-LIST Petitioners urge the Court to rule on
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE the issues raised in the petitions under
HRET. review, citing the following
pronouncement in Guingona Jr. v.
2. WHETHER THE PRESENT
Gonzales :[23]
MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE
IN THE COMMISSION ON
Where constitutional issues are properly
APPOINTMENTS VIOLATES
raised in the context of the alleged facts,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
procedural questions acquire a relatively
REQUIREMENT OF
minor significance, and the
PROPORTIONAL
transcendental importance to the public
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE
of the case demands that they be settled
THERE ARE NO PARTY-LIST
promptly and definitely brushing aside
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
xxx technicalities of procedure.
CA.
3. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF Petitioners reliance on Guingona,
THE HRET AND THE CA TO Jr. v. Gonzales is misplaced. The
RECONSTITUTE THEMSELVES procedural questions that petitioners
TO INCLUDE PARTY-LIST want the Court to brush aside are not
REPRESENTATIVES mere technicalities but substantive
CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE matters that are specifically provided for
OF DISCRETION. in the constitutional provisions cited by
petitioners.
On the other hand, the Solicitor
General argues that the instant petitions The Constitution expressly grants to
are procedurally defective and the House of Representatives the
substantially lacking in merit for having prerogative, within constitutionally
been filed prematurely, thus: defined limits, to choose from among its
district and party-list representatives
It is a generally accepted principle that those who may occupy the seats allotted
the averments in the pleading determine to the House in the HRET and the CA.
the existence of a cause of action. In the Section 18, Article VI of the
instant petitions, petitioners failed to aver Constitution[24] explicitly confers on the
that they or any one of them was elected Senate and on the House the authority to
by a party or organization registered elect among their members those who
would fill the 12 seats for Senators and Likewise, Section 1 of the Rules of
12 seats for House members in the the Commission on Appointments
Commission on Appointments. Under provides:
Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution,[25] each chamber of Section 1. Composition of the
Congress exercises the power to choose, Commission On Appointments. Within
within constitutionally defined limits, who thirty (30) days after both Houses of
among their members would occupy the Congress shall have organized
allotted 6 seats of each chambers themselves with the election of the
respective electoral tribunal. Senate President and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the
These constitutional provisions are
Commission on Appointments shall be
reiterated in Rules 3 and 4 (a) of the
constituted. It shall be composed of
1998 Rules of the House of
twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12)
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, to
members of the House of
wit:
Representatives, elected by each House
on the basis of proportional
Rule 3. Composition. - The Tribunal shall
representation from the political parties
be composed of nine Members, three of
and parties or organizations registered
whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
under the party-list system represented
Court to be designated by the Chief
herein.
Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the House of
(Emphasis supplied)
Representatives who shall be chosen on
the basis of proportional representation
Thus, even assuming that party-list
from the political parties and the parties
representatives comprise a sufficient
or organizations registered under the
number and have agreed to designate
party-list system represented therein.
common nominees to the HRET and the
The Senior Justice in the Tribunal shall be
CA, their primary recourse clearly rests
its Chairman.
with the House of Representatives and
not with this Court. Under Sections 17
Rule 4. Organization. - (a) Upon the
and 18, Article VI of the Constitution,
designation of the Justices of the
party-list representatives must first show
Supreme Court and the election of the
to the House that they possess the
Members of the House of
required numerical strength to be
Representatives who are to compose the
entitled to seats in the HRET and the CA.
House of Representatives Electoral
Only if the House fails to comply with the
Tribunal pursuant to Sections 17 and 19
directive of the Constitution on
of Article VI of the Constitution, the
proportional representation of political
Tribunal shall meet for its organization
parties in the HRET and the CA can the
and adoption of such resolutions as it
party-list representatives seek recourse
may deem proper. (Emphasis supplied)
to this Court under its power of judicial
review. Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House
is necessary before petitioners may bring primary recourse of the party-list
the instant case to the court. representatives lies with the House of
Consequently, petitioners direct recourse Representatives, the Court cannot
to this Court is premature. resolve the issues presented by
petitioners at this time.
The discretion of the House to
choose its members to the HRET and the Moreover, it is a well-settled rule that
CA is not absolute, being subject to the a constitutional question will not be heard
mandatory constitutional rule on and resolved by the courts unless the
proportional representation.[26] However, following requirements of judicial inquiry
under the doctrine of separation of concur: (1) there must be an actual
powers, the Court may not interfere with controversy; (2) the person or party
the exercise by the House of this raising the constitutional issue must have
constitutionally mandated duty, absent a a personal and substantial interest in the
clear violation of the Constitution or resolution of the controversy; (3) the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to controversy must be raised at the earliest
lack or excess of reasonable opportunity; and (4) the
jurisdiction.[27] Otherwise, the doctrine of resolution of the constitutional issue
separation of powers calls for each must be indispensable to the final
branch of government to be left alone to determination of the controversy.[29]
discharge its duties as it sees
The five party-list representatives
fit.[28] Neither can the Court speculate on
who are petitioners in the instant case
what action the House may take if party-
have not alleged that they are entitled to,
list representatives are duly nominated
and have been unlawfully deprived of,
for membership in the HRET and the CA.
seats in the HRET or the CA. Neither have
The instant petitions are bereft of they claimed that they have been
any allegation that respondents nominated by the party-list groups in the
prevented the party-list groups in the House to the HRET or the CA. As such,
House from participating in the election they do not possess the personal and
of members of the HRET and the CA. substantial interest required to confer
Neither does it appear that after the May them with locus standi. The party raising
11, 1998 elections, the House barred the the constitutional issue must have
party-list representatives from seeking such personal stake in the outcome of
membership in the HRET or the CA. the controversy as to assure that
Rather, it appears from the available concrete adverseness which sharpens
facts that the party-list groups in the the presentation of issues upon which the
House at that time simply refrained from court depends for illumination of difficult
participating in the election process. The constitutional questions.[30]
party-list representatives did not
We likewise find no grave abuse in
designate their nominees even up to the
the action or lack of action by the HRET
time they filed the instant petitions, with
and the CA in response to the letters of
the predictable result that the House did
Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and
not consider any party-list representative
18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
for election to the HRET or the CA. As the
and their internal rules, the HRET and the
CA are bereft of any power to and RAMON Y. TALAGA,
reconstitute themselves. JR., respondents.
Finally, the issues raised in the
DECISION
petitions have been rendered academic
by subsequent events. On May 14, 2001, QUISUMBING, J.:
a new set of district and party-list
representatives were elected to the Before us is a petition for certiorari,
House. The Court cannot now resolve the with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
issue of proportional representation in injunction and/or temporary restraining
the HRET and the CA based on the order, to nullify and set aside the
present composition of the House of resolution dated May 9, 2001 of public
Representatives as presented by respondent Commission on Elections in
petitioners and the Solicitor General. Comelec SPA No. 01-055, which granted
With the May 14, 2001 elections, it is the motion for reconsideration and
certain that the composition of the House declared private respondent Ramon Y.
has changed. In the absence of a proper Talaga, Jr., qualified to run for Mayor in
petition assailing the present composition Lucena City for the May 14, 2001
of the HRET and the CA, the instant election. Petitioner prays that votes cast
petitions must fail. Otherwise, for the in private respondents favor should not
Court to rule on the instant petitions at be counted; and should it happen that
this time would be tantamount to private respondent had been already
rendering an advisory opinion, which is proclaimed the winner, his proclamation
outside our jurisdiction.[31] should be declared null and void.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated The uncontroverted facts are as
petitions for prohibition follows:
and mandamus are DISMISSED.
Petitioner and private respondent
SO ORDERED. were the only candidates who filed their
certificates of candidacy for mayor
of Lucena City in the May 14,
2001 elections. Private respondent was
then the incumbent mayor.
Private respondent Talaga, Jr. was
elected mayor in May 1992. He served
the full term. Again, he was re-elected in
1995-1998. In the election of 1998, he
[G.R. No. 147927. February 4, 2002] lost to Bernard G. Tagarao. In the recall
election of May 12, 2000, he again won
and served the unexpired term of
RAYMUNDO M. Tagarao until June 30, 2001.
ADORMEO, petitioner, vs. CO On March 2, 2001, petitioner filed
MMISSION ON ELECTIONS with the Office of the Provincial Election
Supervisor, Lucena City a Petition to
Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate Constitution. He cites Lonzanida vs.
of Candidacy and/or Disqualification of COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, 311 SCRA
Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., on the ground that 602, 611 (1999), as authority to the
the latter was elected and had served as effect that to apply disqualification under
city mayor for three (3) consecutive Section 8, Article X of the Constitution,
terms as follows: (1) in the election of two (2) conditions must concur, to wit:
May 1992, where he served the full term; (a) that the official concerned has been
(2) in the election of May 1995, where he elected for three consecutive terms in the
again served the full term; and, (3) in the same local government post, and (b) that
recall election of May 12, 2000, where he he has fully served three (3) consecutive
served only the unexpired term of terms.
Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in
On April 20, 2001, the COMELEC,
the 1998 election. Petitioner contended
through the First Division, found private
that Talagas candidacy as Mayor
respondent Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr.
constituted a violation of Section 8,
disqualified for the position of city mayor
Article X of the 1987 Constitution which
on the ground that he had already served
provides:
three (3) consecutive terms, and his
Certificate of Candidacy was ordered
Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local
withdrawn and/or cancelled.
officials, except barangay officials, which
shall be determined by law, shall be three On April 27, 2001, private
years and no such official shall serve for respondent filed a motion for
more than three consecutive reconsideration reiterating that three (3)
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the consecutive terms means continuous
office for any length of time shall not be service for nine (9) years and that the
considered as an interruption in the two (2) years service from 1998 to 2000
continuity of his service for the full term by Tagarao who defeated him in the
for which he was elected. election of 1998 prevented him from
having three consecutive years of
On March 9, 2001, private service. He added that Tagaraos tenure
respondent responded that he was not from 1998 to 2000 could not be
elected City Mayor for three (3) considered as a continuation of his
consecutive terms but only for two (2) mayorship. He further alleged that the
consecutive terms. He pointed to his recall election was not a regular election,
defeat in the 1998 election by Tagarao. but a separate special election specifically
Because of his defeat the to remove incompetent local officials.
consecutiveness of his years as mayor
On May 3, 2001, petitioner filed his
was interrupted, and thus his mayorship
Opposition to private respondents Motion
was not for three consecutive terms of
for Reconsideration stating therein that
three years each. Respondent added that
serving the unexpired term of office is
his service from May 12, 2001 until June
considered as one (1) term.[1] Petitioner
30, 2001 for 13 months and eighteen
further contended that Article 8 of the
(18) days was not a full term, in the
Constitution speaks of term and does not
contemplation of the law and the
mention tenure. The fact that private
respondent was not elected in the May Stated differently, was private
1998 election to start a term that began respondent disqualified to run for mayor
on June 30, 1998 was of no moment, of Lucena City in the May 14,
according to petitioner, and what matters 2001 elections?[3] This issue hinges on
is that respondent was elected to an whether, as provided by the Constitution,
unexpired term in the recall election he had already served three consecutive
which should be considered one full term terms in that office.
from June 30, 1998 to June 30, 2001.
Petitioner contends that private
On May 9, 2001, the COMELEC en respondent was disqualified to run for
banc ruled in favor of private respondent city mayor by reason of the three-term
Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr.. It reversed the rule because the unexpired portion of the
First Divisions ruling and held that 1) term of office he served after winning a
respondent was not elected for three (3) recall election, covering the period May
consecutive terms because he did not 12, 2000 to June 30, 2001 is considered
win in the May 11, 1998 elections; 2) that a full term. He posits that to interpret
he was installed only as mayor by reason otherwise, private respondent would be
of his victory in the recall elections; 3) serving four (4) consecutive terms of 10
that his victory in the recall elections was years, in violation of Section 8, Article X
not considered a term of office and is not of 1987 Constitution[4] and Section 43 (b)
included in the 3-term disqualification of R.A. 7160, known as the Local
rule, and 4) that he did not fully serve the Government Code.
three (3) consecutive terms, and his loss
in the May 11, 1998 elections is Section 43. Term of Office.
considered an interruption in the
continuity of his service as Mayor of xxx
Lucena City.
(b) No local elective official shall serve for
On May 19, 2001, after canvassing, more than three (3) consecutive terms in
private respondent was proclaimed as the same position. Voluntary
the duly elected Mayor of Lucena City. renunciation of the office for any length
Petitioner is now before this Court, of time shall not be considered as an
raising the sole issue: interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which the elective
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC official concerned was elected.
RESPONDENT COMELEC ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION Private respondent, in turn,
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF maintains that his service as city mayor
JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED ITS of Lucena is not consecutive. He lost his
RESOLUTION DATED MAY 9, 2001, bid for a second re-election in 1998 and
DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENT between June 30, 1998 to May 12, 2000,
RAMON Y. TALAGA, JR., QUALIFIED TO during Tagaraos incumbency, he was a
RUN FOR MAYOR IN LUCENA CITY FOR private citizen, thus he had not been
THE MAY 14, 2001 ELECTIONS.[2] mayor for 3 consecutive terms.
 In its comment, the COMELEC monopoly of political power may bring
restated its position that private about, care should be taken that their
respondent was not elected for three (3) freedom of choice is not unduly curtailed.
consecutive terms having lost his third
bid in the May 11, 1998 elections, said Likewise, in the case of Lonzanida vs.
defeat is an interruption in the continuity COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602, 611 (1999),
of service as city mayor of Lucena. we said,
The issue before us was already
This Court held that the two conditions
addressed in Borja, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 295
for the application of the disqualification
SCRA 157, 169 (1998), where we held,
must concur: a) that the official
concerned has been elected for three
To recapitulate, the term limit for elective
consecutive terms in the same local
local officials must be taken to refer to
government post and 2) that he has fully
the right to be elected as well as the
served three consecutive terms.
right to serve in the same elective
position. Consequently, it is not enough Accordingly, COMELECs ruling that
that an individual has served three
private respondent was not elected for
consecutive terms in an elective local
three (3) consecutive terms should be
office, he must also have been elected to
upheld. For nearly two years he was a
the same position for the same number
private citizen. The continuity of his
of times before the disqualification can
mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in
apply. This point can be made clearer by
the 1998 elections.
considering the following case or
situation: Patently untenable is petitioners
contention that COMELEC in allowing
xxx respondent Talaga, Jr. to run in the May
1998 election violates Article X, Section 8
Case No. 2. Suppose B is elected mayor of 1987 Constitution.[5] To bolster his
and, during his first term, he is twice case, respondent adverts to the
suspended for misconduct for a total of 1 comment of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a
year. If he is twice reelected after that, Constitutional Commission member,
can he run for one more term in the next stating that in interpreting said provision
election? that if one is elected representative to
serve the unexpired term of another, that
Yes, because he has served only two full unexpired, no matter how short, will be
terms successively. considered one term for the purpose of
computing the number of successive
xxx terms allowed.[6]

To consider C as eligible for reelection As pointed out by the COMELEC en

would be in accord with the banc, Fr. Bernas comment is pertinent
understanding of the Constitutional only to members of the House of
Commission that while the people should Representatives. Unlike local government
be protected from the evils that a
officials, there is no recall election SPA No. 01-055 is AFFIRMED. Costs
provided for members of Congress.[7] against petitioner.
Neither can respondents victory in SO ORDERED.
the recall election be deemed a violation
of Section 8, Article X of the Constitution
as voluntary renunciation for clearly it is
not. In Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, we said:

The second sentence of the constitutional EN BANC

provision under scrutiny states, Voluntary
renunciation of office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an [G.R. No. 154512. November 12,
interruption in the continuity of service
2002]
for the full term for which he was
elected. The clear intent of the framers
of the constitution to bar any attempt to
circumvent the three-term limit by a VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES,
voluntary renunciation of office and at Mayor of Puerto Princesa
the same time respect the peoples choice City, petitioner, vs. THE
and grant their elected official full service COMMISSION ON
of a term is evident in this ELECTIONS, THE
provision. Voluntary renunciation of a PREPARATORY RECALL
term does not cancel the renounced term ASSEMBLY (PRA) of Puerto
in the computation of the three term Princesa City, PRA Interim
limit; conversely, involuntary severance Chairman Punong Bgy. MARK
from office for any length of time short of DAVID HAGEDORN, PRA
the full term provided by law amounts to Interim Secretary Punong
an interruption of continuity of Bgy. BENJAMIN JARILLA, PRA
service. The petitioner vacated his post a Chairman and Presiding
few months before the next mayoral Officer Punong Bgy. EARL S.
elections, not by voluntary renunciation BUENVIAJE and PRA
but in compliance with the legal process Secretary Punong Bgy.
of writ of execution issued by the CARLOS ABALLA,
COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary JR. respondents.
severance from office is an interruption
of continuity of service and thus, the
petitioner did not fully serve the 1995- [G.R. No. 154683. November 12,
1998 mayoral term.[8] 2002]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
hereby DISMISSED. The resolution of
public respondent Commission on VICENTE S. SANDOVAL,
Elections dated May 9, 2001, in Comelec JR., petitioner, vs. THE
 COMMISSION ON Princesas mayor on June 30, 2001. The
ELECTIONS, respondent. members of the PRA designated Mark
David M. Hagedorn, president of the
Association of Barangay Captains, as
interim chair of the PRA.
[G.R. Nos. 155083-84. November
12, 2002] On the same date, the PRA passed
Resolution No. 01-02 (Recall Resolution
for brevity) which declared its loss of
confidence in Socrates and called for his
MA. FLORES P. ADOVO, MERCY E.
recall. The PRA requested the COMELEC
GILO and BIENVENIDO
to schedule the recall election for mayor
OLLAVE,
within 30 days from receipt of the Recall
SR., petitioners, vs. THE
Resolution.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, and EDWARD S. On July 16, 2002, Socrates filed with
HAGEDORN, respondents. the COMELEC a petition, docketed as
E.M. No. 02-010 (RC), to nullify and deny
DECISION due course to the Recall Resolution.
CARPIO, J.: On August 14, 2002, the
COMELEC en banc promulgated
[3] a
resolution dismissing for lack of merit
The Case Socrates petition. The COMELEC gave
due course to the Recall Resolution and
scheduled the recall election on
Before us are consolidated petitions
September 7, 2002.
for certiorari[1] seeking the reversal of the
resolutions issued by the Commission on On August 21, 2002, the
Elections (COMELEC for brevity) in COMELEC en banc promulgated
relation to the recall election for mayor of Resolution No. 5673 prescribing the
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. calendar of activities and periods of
certain prohibited acts in connection with
the recall election. The COMELEC fixed
The Antecedents the campaign period from August 27,
2002 to September 5, 2002 or a period of
10 days.
On July 2, 2002, 312 out of 528
members of the then incumbent On August 23, 2002, Edward M.
barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa Hagedorn (Hagedorn for brevity) filed his
convened themselves into a Preparatory certificate of candidacy for mayor in the
Recall Assembly (PRA for brevity) at the recall election.
Gymnasium of Barangay San Jose from
On August 17, 2002, Ma. Flores F.
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The PRA was
Adovo (Adovo for brevity) and Merly E.
convened to initiate the recall[2] of
Gilo (Gilo for brevity) filed a petition
Victorino Dennis M. Socrates (Socrates
before the COMELEC, docketed as SPA
for brevity) who assumed office as Puerto
No. 02-492, to disqualify Hagedorn from which gave due course to the Recall
running in the recall election and to Resolution and scheduled the recall
cancel his certificate of candidacy. On election on September 7, 2002.
August 30, 2002, a certain Bienvenido
Socrates alleges that the COMELEC
Ollave, Sr. (Ollave for brevity) filed a
gravely abused its discretion in upholding
petition-in-intervention in SPA No. 02-
the Recall Resolution. Socrates cites the
492 also seeking to disqualify
following circumstances as legal
Hagedorn. On the same date, a certain
infirmities attending the convening of the
Genaro V. Manaay filed another petition,
PRA and its issuance of the Recall
docketed as SPA No. 02-539, against
Resolution: (1) not all members of the
Hagedorn alleging substantially the same
PRA were notified of the meeting to
facts and involving the same issues. The
adopt the resolution; (2) the proof of
petitions were all anchored on the ground
service of notice was palpably and legally
that Hagedorn is disqualified from
deficient; (3) the members of the PRA
running for a fourth consecutive term,
were themselves seeking a new electoral
having been elected and having served
mandate from their respective
as mayor of the city for three (3)
constituents; (4) the adoption of the
consecutive full terms immediately prior
resolution was exercised with grave
to the instant recall election for the same
abuse of authority; and (5) the PRA
post. Subsequently, SPA Nos. 02-492 and
proceedings were conducted in a manner
02-539 were consolidated.
that violated his and the publics
In a resolution promulgated on constitutional right to information.
September 20, 2002, the COMELECs First
G.R. No. 154683
Division[4] dismissed for lack of merit SPA
Nos. 02-492 and 02-539. The COMELEC Petitioner Vicente S. Sandoval, Jr.
declared Hagedorn qualified to run in the seeks to annul COMELEC Resolution No.
recall election.The COMELEC also reset 5673 dated August 21, 2002 insofar as it
the recall election from September 7, fixed the recall election on September 7,
2002 to September 24, 2002. 2002, giving the candidates only a ten-
day campaign period. He prayed that the
On September 23, 2002, the
COMELEC be enjoined from holding the
COMELEC en banc promulgated a
recall election on September 7, 2002 and
resolution denying the motion for
that a new date be fixed giving the
reconsideration of Adovo and Gilo. The
candidates at least an additional 15 days
COMELEC affirmed the resolution
to campaign.
declaring Hagedorn qualified to run in the
recall election. In a resolution dated September 3,
2002, the Court en banc enjoined the
Hence, the instant consolidated
COMELEC from implementing Resolution
petitions.
No. 5673 insofar as it fixed the date of
G.R. No. 154512 the recall election on September 7,
2002. The Court directed the COMELEC
Petitioner Socrates seeks to nullify
to give the candidates an additional
the COMELEC en banc resolution dated
August 14, 2002 in E.M. No. 02-010 (RC)
fifteen 15 days from September 7, 2002 candidates Socrates and Sandoval
within which to campaign. obtained 17,220 votes and 13,241 votes,
respectively.
Accordingly, on September 9, 2002,
the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Hagedorn filed motions to lift the
No. 5708 giving the candidates an order restraining the COMELEC from
additional 15 days from September 7, proclaiming the winning candidate and to
2002 within which to campaign. Thus, allow him to assume office to give effect
the COMELEC reset the recall election to to the will of the electorate.
September 24, 2002.
On October 1, 2002, the Court
G.R. Nos. 155083-84 granted Socrates motion for leave to file
a petition for intervention.
Petitioners Adovo, Gilo and Ollave
assail the COMELECs resolutions dated
September 20, 2002 and September 23,
The Issues
2002 in SPA Nos. 02-492 and 02-539
declaring Hagedorn qualified to run for
mayor in the recall election. They The issues for resolution of the Court
likewise prayed for the issuance of a are:
temporary restraining order to enjoin the
1. In G.R. No. 154512, whether
proclamation of the winning candidate in
the COMELEC committed
the recall election.
grave abuse of discretion in
Petitioners argue that the COMELEC giving due course to the Recall
gravely abused its discretion in upholding Resolution and scheduling the
Hagedorns qualification to run for mayor recall election for mayor of
in the recall election despite the Puerto Princesa.
constitutional and statutory prohibitions
2. In G.R. Nos.155083-84,
against a fourth consecutive term for
whether Hagedorn is qualified
elective local officials.
to run for mayor in the recall
In a resolution dated September 24, election of Puerto Princesa on
2002, the Court ordered the COMELEC to September 24, 2002.
desist from proclaiming any winning
In G.R. No. 154683, the issue of
candidate in the recall election until
whether the COMELEC committed grave
further orders from the Court. Petitioners
abuse of discretion in fixing a campaign
were required to post a P20,000 bond.
period of only 10 days has become moot.
On September 27, 2002, Socrates Our Resolution of September 3, 2002 and
filed a motion for leave to file an attached COMELEC Resolution No. 5708 granted
petition for intervention seeking the an additional 15 days for the campaign
same reliefs as those sought by Adovo, period as prayed for by petitioner.
Gilo and Ollave.
In the meantime, Hagedorn garnered
First Issue: Validity of the Recall
the highest number of votes in the recall
Resolution.
election with 20,238 votes. Rival
 Petitioner Socrates argues that the The City Election Officer of Puerto
COMELEC committed grave abuse of Princesa City in her Certification
discretion in upholding the Recall dated 10 July 2002 certified that
Resolution despite the absence of notice upon a thorough and careful
to 130 PRA members and the defective verification of the signatures
service of notice to other PRA appearing in PRA Resolution 01-02,
members. The COMELEC, however, x x x the majority of all members of
found that the PRA concerned approved said
resolution. She likewise certified
On various dates, in the month of that not a single member/signatory
June 2002, the proponents for the of the PRA complained or objected
Recall of incumbent City Mayor as to the veracity and authenticity of
Victorino Dennis M. Socrates sent their signatures.
notices of the convening of the PRA
to the members thereof pursuant to The Provincial Election Supervisor of
Section 70 of the Local Government Palawan, Atty. Urbano Arlando, in
Code. Copies of the said notice are his Indorsement dated 10 July
in Volumes I and II entitled Notices 2002, stated, upon proper review,
to PRA. Likewise, Proof of Service all documents submitted are found
for each of the said notices were in order.
attached to the Petition and marked
as Annex G of Volumes II and III of The Acting Director IV, Region IV, in
the Petition. his study dated 30 July 2002
submitted the following
Notices were likewise posted in recommendations:
conspicuous places particularly at
the Barangay Hall. Photos This Office, after evaluating the
establishing the same were documents filed, finds the instant Petition
attached to the Petition and marked sufficient in form and substance. That
as Annex H. The proponents the PRA was validly constituted and that
likewise utilized the broadcast mass the majority of all members thereof
media in the dissemination of the approved Resolution No. 01-02 calling for
convening of the PRA. the recall of Mayor Victorino Dennis M.
Socrates.
Notices of the convening of the
Puerto Princesa PRA were also sent xxx.
to the following: [a list of 25 names
of provincial elective officials, print This Court is bound by the findings of
and broadcast media practitioners, fact of the COMELEC on matters within
PNP officials, COMELEC city, the competence and expertise of the
regional and national officials, and COMELEC, unless the findings are
DILG officials]. patently erroneous. In Malonzo v.
COMELEC, which also dealt with
[5]

xxx
alleged defective service of notice to PRA concern. Socrates, however, admits
members, we ruled that receiving notice of the PRA meeting and
of even sending his representative and
Needless to state, the issue of counsel who were present during the
propriety of the notices sent to the entire PRA proceedings. Proponents of
PRA members is factual in nature, the recall election submitted to the
and the determination of the same COMELEC the Recall Resolution, minutes
is therefore a function of the of the PRA proceedings, the journal of
COMELEC. In the absence of patent the PRA assembly, attendance sheets,
error, or serious inconsistencies in notices sent to PRA members, and
the findings, the Court should not authenticated master list of barangay
disturb the same. The factual officials in Puerto Princesa. Socrates had
findings of the COMELEC, based on the right to examine and copy all these
its own assessments and duly public records in the official custody of
supported by gathered evidence, the COMELEC. Socrates, however, does
are conclusive upon the court, more not claim that the COMELEC denied him
so, in the absence of a this right. There is no legal basis in
substantiated attack on the validity Socrates claim that respondents violated
of the same. his constitutional right to information on
matters of public concern.
In the instant case, we do not find any
Thus, we rule that the COMELEC did
valid reason to hold that the COMELECs
not commit grave abuse of discretion in
findings of fact are patently erroneous.
upholding the validity of the Recall
Socrates also claims that the PRA Resolution and in scheduling the recall
members had no authority to adopt the election on September 24, 2002.
Recall Resolution on July 2, 2002 because
a majority of PRA members were seeking
a new electoral mandate in the barangay Second Issue: Hagedorns
elections scheduled on July 15, qualification to run for mayor
2002. This argument deserves scant in the recall election of September
consideration considering that when the 24, 2002.
PRA members adopted the Recall
Resolution their terms of office had not
The three-term limit rule for elective
yet expired. They were all de
local officials is found in Section 8, Article
jure sangguniang barangay members
X of the Constitution, which states:
with no legal disqualification to
participate in the recall assembly under
Section 8. The term of office of
Section 70 of the Local Government
elective local officials, except
Code.
barangay officials, which shall be
Socrates bewails that the manner determined by law, shall be three
private respondents conducted the PRA years and no such official shall serve
proceedings violated his constitutional for more than three consecutive
right to information on matters of public terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
 office for any length of time shall refers to the next regular election for the
not be considered as an interruption same office following the end of the third
in the continuity of his service for consecutive
the full term for which he was term. Any subsequent election, like a
elected. recall election, is no longer covered by
the prohibition for two reasons. First, a
This three-term limit rule is reiterated subsequent election like a recall election
in Section 43 (b) of RA No. 7160, is no longer an immediate reelection after
otherwise known as the Local three consecutive terms. Second, the
Government Code, which provides: intervening period constitutes an
involuntary interruption in the continuity
Section 43. Term of Office. (a) x x x
of service.
(b) No local elective official shall When the framers of the Constitution
serve for more than three (3) debated on the term limit of elective local
consecutive terms in the same officials, the question asked was whether
position. Voluntary renunciation of there would be no further election after
the office for any length of time three terms, or whether there would
shall not be considered as an be no immediate reelection after
interruption in the continuity of three terms. This is clear from the
service for the full term for which following deliberations of the
the elective official was elected. Constitutional Commission:

These constitutional and statutory THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor

provisions have two parts. The first part Leader is recognized.
provides that an elective local official
cannot serve for more than three MR. ROMULO:[6] We are now ready
consecutive terms. The clear intent is to discuss the two issues, as
that only consecutive terms count in indicated on the blackboard, and
determining the three-term limit these are Alternative No. I where
rule. The second part states that there is no further election after a
voluntary renunciation of office for any total of three terms and Alternative
length of time does not interrupt the No. 2 where there is no
continuity of service. The clear intent is immediate reelection after
that involuntary severance from three successive terms.[7]
office for any length of time interrupts
continuity of service and prevents the The Journal of the Constitutional
service before and after the interruption Commission reports the following
from being joined together to form a manifestation on the term of elective
continuous service or consecutive terms. local officials:
After three consecutive terms, an
MANIFESTATION OF MR. ROMULO
elective local official cannot
seek immediate reelection for a
Upon resumption of session, Mr.
fourth term. The prohibited election
Romulo manifested that the Body
 would proceed to the consideration the three-year full term following the
of two issues on the term of three-term limit, then Senators should
Representatives and local also be prohibited from running in any
officials, namely: 1) Alternative election within the six-year full term
No. 1 (no further reelection after a following their two-term limit. The
total of three terms), and 2) constitutional provision on the term limit
Alternative No. 2 (no immediate of Senators is worded exactly like the
reelection after three term limit of elective local officials, thus:
successive terms).[8]
No Senator shall serve for more
The framers of the Constitution used the than two consecutive
same no immediate reelection question terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
in voting for the term limits of office for any length of time shall
Senators[9] and Representatives of the not be considered as an interruption
House.[10] in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was
Clearly, what the Constitution
elected.[11]
prohibits is an immediate
reelection for a fourth term following
In the debates on the term limit of
three consecutive terms. The
Senators, the following exchange in the
Constitution, however, does not prohibit
Constitutional Convention is instructive:
a subsequent reelection for a fourth term
as long as the reelection is not
GASCON:[12] I would like to ask a
immediately after the end of the third
question with regard to the issue
consecutive term. A recall election mid-
after the second term. We will allow
way in the term following the third
the Senator to rest for a period of
consecutive term is a subsequent
time before he can run again?
election but not an immediate reelection
after the third term. DAVIDE:[13] That is correct.
Neither does the Constitution
prohibit one barred from seeking GASCON: And the question that we
immediate reelection to run in any other left behind before - if the Gentleman
subsequent election involving the same will remember - was: How long will
term of office. What the Constitution that period of rest be? Will it be one
prohibits is a consecutive fourth election which is three years or one
term.The debates in the Constitutional term which is six years?
Commission evidently show that the
prohibited election referred to by the DAVIDE: If the Gentleman will
framers of the Constitution is remember, Commissioner Rodrigo
the immediate reelection after the expressed the view that during the
third term, not any other subsequent election following the expiration of
election. the first 12 years, whether such
election will be on the third or on the
If the prohibition on elective local sixth year thereafter, this particular
officials is applied to any election within
 member of the Senate can run. So, who had reached the maximum three-
it is not really a period of term limit, from running for a fourth
hibernation for six years. That consecutive term as mayor. Thus,
was the Committees stand. Hagedorn did not run for mayor in the
2001 elections.[16] Socrates ran and won
GASCON: So, effectively, the as mayor of Puerto Princesa in the 2001
period of rest would be three elections. After Hagedorn ceased to be
years at the least.[14] (Emphasis mayor on June 30, 2001, he became a
supplied) private citizen until the recall election of
September 24, 2002 when he won by
The framers of the Constitution thus 3,018 votes over his closest opponent,
clarified that a Senator can run after Socrates.
only three years[15] following his
From June 30, 2001 until the recall
completion of two terms. The framers
election on September 24, 2002, the
expressly acknowledged that the
mayor of Puerto Princesa was
prohibited election refers only to
Socrates. During the same period,
the immediate reelection, and not to
Hagedorn was simply a private
any subsequent election, during the six-
citizen. This period is clearly an
year period following the two term
interruption in the continuity of
limit. The framers of the Constitution did
Hagedorns service as mayor, not
not intend the period of rest of an
because of his voluntary renunciation,
elective official who has reached his term
but because of a legal
limit to be the full extent of the
prohibition. Hagedorns three consecutive
succeeding term.
terms ended on June 30,
In the case of Hagedorn, his 2001. Hagedorns new recall term from
candidacy in the recall election on September 24, 2002 to June 30, 2004 is
September 24, 2002 is not an immediate not a seamless continuation of his
reelection after his third consecutive term previous three consecutive terms as
which ended on June 30, 2001. The mayor. One cannot stitch together
immediate reelection that the Hagedorns previous three-terms with his
Constitution barred Hagedorn from new recall term to make the recall term a
seeking referred to the regular elections fourth consecutive term because
in 2001. Hagedorn did not seek factually it is not. An involuntary
reelection in the 2001 elections. interruption occurred from June 30, 2001
to September 24, 2002 which broke the
Hagedorn was elected for three
continuity or consecutive character of
consecutive terms in the 1992, 1995 and
Hagedorns service as mayor.
1998 elections and served in full his three
consecutive terms as mayor of Puerto In Lonzanida v. Comelec,[17] the
Princesa. Under the Constitution and the Court had occasion to explain
Local Government Code, Hagedorn could interruption of continuity of service in this
no longer run for mayor in the 2001 manner:
elections. The Constitution and the Local
Government Code disqualified Hagedorn,
 x x x The second sentence of the service of an elective local
constitutional provision under official. In Adormeo, Ramon Y. Talaga,
scrutiny states, Voluntary Jr. had served two consecutive full terms
renunciation of office for any length as mayor of Lucena City. In his third bid
of time shall not be considered as for election as mayor in 1998, Talaga lost
an interruption in the continuity of to Bernard G. Tagarao. However, in the
service for the full term for which he recall election of May 12, 2000, Talaga
was elected. The clear intent of the won and served the unexpired term of
framers of the constitution to bar Tagarao from May 12, 2000 to June 30,
any attempt to circumvent the 2001. When Talaga ran again for mayor
three-term limit by a voluntary in the 2001 elections, Raymundo
renunciation of office and at the Adormeo, the other candidate for mayor,
same time respect the peoples petitioned for Talagas disqualification on
choice and grant their elected the ground that Talaga had already
official full service of a term is served three consecutive terms as
evident in this provision. Voluntary mayor.
renunciation of a term does not
Thus, the issue in Adormeo was
cancel the renounced term in the
whether Talagas recall term was a
computation of the three-term
continuation of his previous two terms so
limit; conversely, involuntary
that he was deemed to have already
severance from office for any
served three consecutive terms as
length of time short of the full
mayor. The Court ruled that Talaga was
term provided by law amounts
qualified to run in the 2001 elections,
to an interruption of continuity
stating that the period from June 30,
of service. x x x. (Emphasis
1998 to May 12, 2000 when Talaga was
supplied)
out of office interrupted the continuity of
his service as mayor. Talagas recall term
In Hagedorns case, the nearly 15-month
as mayor was not consecutive to his
period he was out of office, although
previous two terms because of this
short of a full term of three years,
interruption, there having been a break
constituted an interruption in the
of almost two years during which time
continuity of his service as mayor. The
Tagarao was the mayor.
Constitution does not require the
interruption or hiatus to be a full term of We held in Adormeo that the period
three years. The clear intent is that an elective local official is out of office
interruption for any length of time, as interrupts the continuity of his service
long as the cause is involuntary, is and prevents his recall term from being
sufficient to break an elective local stitched together as a seamless
officials continuity of service. continuation of his previous two
consecutive terms. In the instant case,
In the recent case of Adormeo v.
we likewise hold that the nearly 15
Comelec and Talaga,[18] a unanimous
months Hagedorn was out of office
Court reiterated the rule that an
interrupted his continuity of service and
interruption consisting of a portion of a
prevents his recall term from being
term of office breaks the continuity of
stitched together as a seamless only then can the recall term constitute a
continuation of his previous three fourth consecutive term. But to consider
consecutive terms. The only difference Hagedorns recall term as a full term of
between Adormeo and the instant case three years, retroacting to June 30, 2001,
is the time of the despite the fact that he won his recall
interruption. In Adormeo, the term only last September 24, 2002, is to
interruption occurred after the first two ignore reality. This Court cannot declare
consecutive terms. In the instant case, as consecutive or successive terms of
the interruption happened after the first office which historically and factually are
three consecutive terms. In both cases, not.
the respondents were seeking election
Worse, to make Hagedorns recall
for a fourth term.
term retroact to June 30, 2001 creates a
In Adormeo, the recall term of legal fiction that unduly curtails the
Talaga began only from the date he freedom of the people to choose their
assumed office after winning the recall leaders through popular elections. The
election. Talagas recall term did not concept of term limits is in derogation of
retroact to include the tenure in office of the sovereign will of the people to elect
his predecessor. If Talagas recall term the leaders of their own choosing. Term
was made to so retroact, then he would limits must be construed strictly to give
have been disqualified to run in the 2001 the fullest possible effect to the sovereign
elections because he would already have will of the people. As this Court aptly
served three consecutive terms prior to stated in Borja, Jr. v. Comelec:
the 2001 elections. One who wins and
serves a recall term does not serve the Thus, a consideration of the
full term of his predecessor but only the historical background of Art. X, 8 of
unexpired term. The period of time prior the Constitution reveals that the
to the recall term, when another elective members of the Constitutional
official holds office, constitutes an Commission were as much
interruption in continuity of concerned with preserving the
service.Clearly, Adormeo established freedom of choice of the
the rule that the winner in the recall people as they were with
election cannot be charged or preventing the monopolization
credited with the full term of three of political power. Indeed, they
years for purposes of counting the rejected a proposal put forth by
consecutiveness of an elective Commissioner Edmundo F. Garcia
officials terms in office. that after serving three consecutive
terms or nine years there should be
In the same manner, Hagedorns
no further reelection for local and
recall term does not retroact to include
legislative officials. Instead, they
the tenure in office of
adopted the alternative
Socrates. Hagedorn can only be
proposal of Commissioner
disqualified to run in the September 24,
Christian Monsod that such
2002 recall election if the recall term is
officials be simply barred from
made to retroact to June 30, 2001, for
running for the same position in
 the succeeding election Senator and two more terms for the
following the expiration of the Members of the Lower House.[21]
third consecutive term. Monsod
warned against prescreening Although the discussion referred to
candidates [from] whom the people special elections for Senators and
will choose as a result of the Representatives of the House, the same
proposed absolute disqualification, principle applies to a recall election of
considering that the draft local officials. Otherwise, an elective local
constitution contained provisions official who serves a recall term can serve
recognizing people's for more than nine consecutive years
power. [19] (Emphasis supplied) comprising of the recall term plus the
regular three full terms. A local official
A necessary consequence of the who serves a recall term should know
interruption of continuity of service is the that the recall term is in itself one term
start of a new term following the although less than three years. This is
interruption. An official elected in recall the inherent limitation he takes by
election serves the unexpired term of the running and winning in the recall
recalled official. This unexpired term is in election.
itself one term for purposes of counting
In summary, we hold that Hagedorn
the three-term limit. This is clear from
is qualified to run in the September 24,
the following discussion in the
2002 recall election for mayor of Puerto
Constitutional Commission:
Princesa because:
SUAREZ:[20] For example, a special 1. Hagedorn is not running for
election is called for a Senator, and immediate reelection
the Senator newly elected would following his three
have to serve the unexpired portion consecutive terms as mayor
of the term. Would that mean that which ended on June 30,
serving the unexpired portion of the 2001;
term is already considered one
2. Hagedorns continuity of
term? So, half a term, which is
service as mayor was
actually the correct statement, plus
involuntarily interrupted from
one term would disqualify the
June 30, 2001 to September
Senator concerned from running? Is
24, 2002 during which time he
that the meaning of this provision
was a private citizen;
on disqualification, Madam
President? 3. Hagedorns recall term from
September 24, 2002 to June
DAVIDE: Yes, because we speak of 30, 2004 cannot be made to
term, and if there is a special retroact to June 30, 2001 to
election, he will serve only for the make a fourth consecutive
unexpired portion of that particular term because factually the
term plus one more term for the recall term is not a fourth
consecutive term; and
 4. Term limits should be certificate of candidacy of petitioner
construed strictly to give the Arsenio A. Latasa, declaring him
fullest possible effect to the disqualified to run for mayor of Digos
right of the electorate to City, Davao del Sur Province in the May
choose their leaders. 14, 2001 elections, ordering that all votes
cast in his favor shall not be counted, and
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R.
if he has been proclaimed winner,
Nos. 154512, 154683 and 155083-84 are
declaring said proclamation null and void.
DISMISSED. The temporary restraining
order issued by this Court on September The facts are fairly simple.
24, 2002 enjoining the proclamation of
Petitioner Arsenio A. Latasa, was
the winning candidate for mayor of
elected mayor of
Puerto Princesa in the recall election of
the Municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur
September 24, 2002 is lifted. No costs.
in the elections of 1992, 1995, and
SO ORDERED. 1998. During petitioners third term,
the Municipality of Digos was declared a
component city, to be known as the City
of Digos. A plebiscite conducted on
September 8, 2000 ratified Republic Act
No. 8798 entitled, An Act Converting the
[G.R. No. 154829. December 10,
Municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur
2003]
Province into a Component City to be
known as the City of Digos or the Charter
of the City of Digos. This event also
ARSENIO A. LATASA, petitioner, marked the end of petitioners tenure as
vs. COMMISSION ON mayor of
ELECTIONS, and ROMEO the Municipality of Digos. However,
SUNGA, respondents. under Section 53, Article IX of the
Charter, petitioner was mandated to
DECISION serve in a hold-over capacity as mayor of
the new City of Digos. Hence, he took his
AZCUNA, J.:
oath as the city mayor.
This is a petition for certiorari under On February 28, 2001, petitioner
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which seeks filed his certificate of candidacy for city
to challenge the resolution issued by the mayor for the May 14, 2001 elections. He
First Division of the Commission on stated therein that he is eligible therefor,
Elections (COMELEC) dated April 27, and likewise disclosed that he had
2001 in SPA Case No. 01-059 already served for three consecutive
entitled, Romeo M. Sunga, petitioner, terms as mayor of the Municipality of
versus Arsenio A. Latasa, respondent, Digos and is now running for the first
and the Resolution of the COMELEC en time for the position of city mayor.
banc denying herein petitioners Motion
On March 1, 2001, private
for Reconsideration. The assailed
respondent Romeo M. Sunga, also a
Resolution denied due course to the
candidate for city mayor in the said 2001. On May 16, 2001, private
elections, filed before the COMELEC a respondent Sunga filed an Ex Parte
Petition to Deny Due Course, Cancel Motion for Issuance of Temporary
Certificate of Candidacy and/ or For Restraining Order Enjoining the City
Disqualification[1] against petitioner Board of Canvassers From Canvassing or
Latasa. Respondent Sunga alleged Tabulating Respondents Votes, and From
therein that petitioner falsely represented Proclaiming Him as the Duly Elected
in his certificate of candidacy that he is Mayor if He Wins the Elections.[6]Despite
eligible to run as mayor this, however, petitioner Latasa was still
of Digos City since petitioner had already proclaimed winner on May 17, 2001,
been elected and served for three having garnered the most number of
consecutive terms as mayor from 1992 to votes. Consequently, private respondent
2001. Sunga filed, on May 27, 2001, a
Supplemental Motion[7]which essentially
On March 5, 2001, petitioner Latasa
sought the annulment of petitioners
filed his Answer,[2] arguing that he did
proclamation and the suspension of its
not make any false representation in his
effects.
certificate of candidacy since he fully
disclosed therein that he had served as On July 1, 2001, petitioner was
mayor of the Municipalityof Digos for sworn into and assumed his office as the
three consecutive terms. Moreover, he newly elected mayor of Digos City. It
argued that this fact does not bar him was only on August 27, 2002 that the
from filing a certificate of candidacy for COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution
the May 14, 2001 elections since this will denying petitioners Motion for
be the first time that he will be running Reconsideration.
for the post of city mayor.
Hence, this petition.
Both parties submitted their position
It cannot be denied that the Court
papers on March 19, 2001.[3]
has previously held in Mamba-Perez v.
On April 27, 2001, respondent COMELEC[8] that after an elective official
COMELECs First Division issued a has been proclaimed as winner of the
Resolution, the dispositive portion of elections, the COMELEC has no
which reads, as follows: jurisdiction to pass upon his
qualifications. An opposing partys
Wherefore, premises considered, the remedies after proclamation would be to
respondents certificate of candidacy file a petition for quo warranto within ten
should be cancelled for being a violation days after the proclamation.
of the three (3)-term rule proscribed by
On the other hand, certain
the 1987 Constitution and the Local
peculiarities in the present case reveal
Government Code of 1991.[4]
the fact that its very heart is something
which this Court considers of paramount
Petitioner filed his Motion for
interest. This Court notes from the very
Reconsideration dated May 4,
beginning that petitioner himself was
2001, which remained unacted upon
[5]
already entertaining some doubt as to
until the day of the elections, May 14,
whether or not he is indeed eligible to run which shall be determined by law, shall
for city mayor in the May 14, be three years and no such official shall
2001 elections. In his certificate of serve for more than three consecutive
candidacy, after the phrase I am eligible, terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
petitioner inserted a footnote and office for any length of time shall not be
indicated: considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term
*Having served three (3) term[s] as for which he was elected.
municipal mayor and now running for the
first time as city mayor.[9] An examination of the historical
background of the subject Constitutional
Time and again, this Court has held provision reveals that the members of the
that rules of procedure are only tools Constitutional Commission were as much
designed to facilitate the attainment of concerned with preserving the freedom
justice, such that when rigid application of choice of the people as they were with
of the rules tend to frustrate rather than preventing the monopolization of political
promote substantial justice, this Court is power. In fact, they rejected a proposal
empowered to suspend their set forth by Commissioner Edmundo
operation. We will not hesitate to set Garcia that after serving three
aside technicalities in favor of what is fair consecutive terms or nine years, there
and just.[10] should be no further re-election for local
and legislative officials.[11] The members,
The spirit embodied in a
instead, adopted the alternative proposal
Constitutional provision must not be
of Commissioner Christian Monsod that
attenuated by a rigid application of
such officials be simply barred from
procedural rules.
running for the same position in the
The present case raises a novel issue succeeding election following the
with respect to an explicit Constitutional expiration of the third consecutive term:
mandate: whether or not petitioner
Latasa is eligible to run as candidate for MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I was
the position of mayor of the newly- reflecting on this issue earlier and I asked
created City of Digosimmediately after he to speak because in this draft
served for three consecutive terms as Constitution, we are recognizing peoples
mayor of the Municipality of Digos. power. We have said that now there is a
new awareness, a new kind of voter, a
As a rule, in a representative
new kind of Filipino. And yet at the same
democracy, the people should be allowed
time, we are prescreening candidates
freely to choose those who will govern
among whom they will choose. We are
them. Article X, Section 8 of the
saying that this 48-member
Constitution is an exception to this rule,
Constitutional Commission has decreed
in that it limits the range of choice of the
that those who have served for a period
people.
of nine years are barred from running for
the same position.
Section 8. The term of office of elective
local officials, except barangay officials,
The argument is that there may be other many of our countrymen in the future
positions. But there are some people who who may have a lot more years ahead of
are very skilled and good at legislation, them in the service of their country.
and yet are not of a national stature to
be Senators. They may be perfectly If we agree that we will make sure that
honest, perfectly competent and with these people do not set up structures
integrity.They get voted into office at the that will perpetuate them, then let us
age of 25, which is the age we provide give them this rest period of three years
for Congressmen. And at 34 years old we or whatever it is. Maybe during that time,
put them into pasture. we would even agree that their fathers or
mothers or relatives of the second degree
Second, we say that we want to broaden should not run. But let us not bar them
the choices of the people. We are talking for life after serving the public for number
here only of congressional or senatorial of years.[12]
seats. We want to broaden the peoples
choice but we are making prejudgment The framers of the Constitution, by
today because we exclude a certain including this exception, wanted to
number of people. We are, in effect, establish some safeguards against the
putting an additional qualification for excessive accumulation of power as a
office that the officials must have not result of consecutive terms. As
have served a total of more than a Commissioner Blas Ople stated during
number of years in their lifetime. the deliberations:

Third, we are saying that by putting x x x I think we want to prevent future

people to pasture, we are creating a situations where, as a result of
reserve of statesmen, but the future continuous service and frequent re-
participation of these statesmen is elections, officials from the President
limited. Their skills may be only in some down to the municipal mayor tend to
areas, but we are saying that they are develop a proprietary interest in their
going to be barred from running for the positions and to accumulate these
same position. powers and perquisites that permit them
to stay on indefinitely or to transfer these
Madam President, the ability and capacity posts to members of their families in a
of a statesman depend as well on the subsequent election. x x x [13]
day-to-day honing of his skills and
competence, in intellectual combat, in An elective local official, therefore, is
concern and contact with the people, and not barred from running again in for
here we are saying that he is going to be same local government post, unless two
barred from the same kind of public conditions concur: 1.) that the official
service. concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms to the same local
I do not think it is in our place today to government post, and 2.) that he has
make such a very important and fully served three consecutive terms.[14]
momentous decision with respect to
 In the present case, petitioner states Provided, That, the creation thereof
that a city and a municipality have shall not reduce the land area,
separate and distinct personalities. Thus population, and income of the original
they cannot be treated as a single entity unit or units at the time of said creation
and must be accorded different to less than the minimum requirements
treatment consistent with specific prescribed herein.
provisions of the Local Government
Code. He does not deny the fact that he (b) The territorial jurisdiction of a
has already served for three consecutive newly-created city shall be properly
terms as municipal mayor. However, he identified by metes and bounds. The
asserts that when Digos was converted requirement on land are shall not apply
from a municipality to a city, it attained a where the city proposed to be created is
different juridical personality. Therefore, composed of one (1) or more island. The
when he filed his certificate of candidacy territory need not be contiguous if it
for city mayor, he cannot be construed as comprises two (2) or more islands.
vying for the same local government
post. (c) The average annual income shall
include the income accruing to the
For a municipality to be converted
general fund, exclusive of special funds,
into a city, the Local Government Code
transfers, and non-recurring income.[15]
provides:
Substantial differences do exist
SECTION 450. Requisites for Creation.
between a municipality and a city. For
- (a) A municipality or a cluster of
one, there is a material change in the
barangays may be converted into a
political and economic rights of the local
component city it has an average annual
government unit when it is converted
income, as certified by the Department of
from a municipality to a city and
Finance, of at least Twenty million pesos
undoubtedly, these changes affect the
(20,000,000.00) for the last two (2)
people as well.[16] It is precisely for this
consecutive years based on 1991
reason why Section 10, Article X of the
constant prices, and if it has either of the
Constitution mandates that no province,
following requisites:
city, municipality, or barangay may be
created, divided, merged, abolished, or
(i) a contiguous territory of
its boundary substantially altered,
at least one hundred (100)
without the approval by a majority of the
square kilometers, as
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political
certified by the Land
units directly affected.
Management Bureau; or,
As may be gleaned from the Local
(ii) a population of not less Government Code, the creation or
than one hundred fifty conversion of a local government unit is
thousand (150,000) done mainly to help assure its economic
inhabitants, as certified by viability. Such creation or conversion is
the National Statistics Office. based on verified indicators:
Section 7. Creation and Conversion. --- converted into a component city to be
As a general rule, the creation of a local known as the City of Digos, hereinafter
government unit or its conversion from referred to as the City, which shall
one level to another shall be based on comprise the present territory of
verifiable indicators or viability and the Municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur
projected capacity to provide services, to Province. The territorial jurisdiction of
wit: the City shall be within the present metes
and bounds of the Municipality of Digos.
(a) Income. --- It must be sufficient, xxx
based on acceptable standards, to
provide for all essential government Moreover, Section 53 of the said
facilities and services and special Charter further states:
functions commensurate with the size of
its population, as expected of the local Section 53. Officials of the City
government unit concerned; of Digos. --- The present elective officials
of the Municipality of Digos shall
(b) Population. --- It shall be determined continue to exercise their powers and
as the total number of inhabitants within functions until such a time that a new
the territorial jurisdiction of the local election is held and the duly-elected
government unit concerned; and officials shall have already qualified and
assumed their offices. x x x.
(c) Land Area. --- It must be contiguous,
unless it comprises two (2) or more As seen in the aforementioned
islands or is separated by a local provisions, this Court notes that the
government unit independent of the delineation of the metes and bounds of
others; properly identified by metes and the City of Digos did not change even by
bounds with technical descriptions; and an inch the land area previously covered
sufficient to provide for such basic by the Municipality of Digos.This Court
services and facilities to meet the also notes that the elective officials of
requirements of its populace. the Municipality of Digos continued to
exercise their powers and functions until
Compliance with the foregoing indicators elections were held for the new
shall be attested to by the Department of city officials.
Finance (DOF), the National Statistics
True, the new city acquired a new
Office (NSO), and the Lands
corporate existence separate and distinct
Management Bureau (LMB) of the
from that of the municipality. This does
Department of Environment and Natural
not mean, however, that for the purpose
Resources (DENR).[17]
of applying the subject Constitutional
provision, the office of the municipal
On the other hand, Section 2 of the
mayor would now be construed as a
Charter of the City of Digos provides:
different local government post as that of
Section 2. The City of Digos --- the office of the city mayor. As stated
The Municipality of Digos shall be earlier, the territorial jurisdiction of the
City of Digos is the same as that of the
municipality.Consequently, the mayor. The vice-mayor does not hold
inhabitants of the municipality are the office as chief executive over his local
same as those in the city. These government unit. In the present case,
inhabitants are the same group of voters petitioner, upon ratification of the law
who elected petitioner Latasa to be their converting the municipality to a city,
municipal mayor for three consecutive continued to hold office as chief
terms.These are also the same executive of the same territorial
inhabitants over whom he held power jurisdiction. There were changes in the
and authority as their chief executive for political and economic rights of Digos as
nine years. local government unit, but no substantial
change occurred as to petitioners
This Court must distinguish the
authority as chief executive over the
present case from previous cases ruled
inhabitants of Digos.
upon this Court involving the same
Constitutional provision. In Lonzanida v.
COMELEC, petitioner was elected and
[19]
In Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC,[18] the
served two consecutive terms as mayor
issue therein was whether a vice-mayor
from 1988 to 1995. He then ran again for
who became the mayor by operation of
the same position in the May 1995
law and who served the remainder of the
elections, won and discharged his duties
mayors term should be considered to
as mayor. However, his opponent
have served a term in that office for the
contested his proclamation and filed an
purpose of the three-term limit under the
election protest before the Regional Trial
Constitution. Private respondent in that
Court, which ruled that there was a
case was first elected as vice-mayor, but
failure of elections and declared the
upon the death of the incumbent mayor,
position of mayor vacant. The COMELEC
he occupied the latters post for the
affirmed this ruling and petitioner
unexpired term. He was, thereafter,
acceded to the order to vacate the
elected for two more terms. This Court
post. During the May 1998 elections,
therein held that when private
petitioner therein again filed his
respondent occupied the post of the
certificate of candidacy for mayor. A
mayor upon the incumbents death and
petition to disqualify him was filed on the
served for the remainder of the term, he
ground that he had already served three
cannot be construed as having served a
consecutive terms. This Court ruled,
full term as contemplated under the
however, that petitioner therein cannot
subject constitutional provision. The
be considered as having been duly
term served must be one for which [the
elected to the post in the May 1995
official concerned] was elected.
elections, and that said petitioner did not
It must also be noted that in Borja, fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term
the private respondent therein, before he by reason of involuntary relinquishment
assumed the position of mayor, first of office.
served as the vice-mayor of his local
In the present case, petitioner Latasa
government unit. The nature of the
was, without a doubt, duly elected as
responsibilities and duties of the vice-
mayor in the May 1998 elections. Can he
mayor is wholly different from that of the
then be construed as having involuntarily years, private respondent therein lived as
relinquished his office by reason of the a private citizen. The same, however,
conversion of Digos from municipality to cannot be said of petitioner Latasa in the
city? This Court believes that he did present case.
involuntarily relinquish his office as
Finally, in Socrates v.
municipal mayor since the said office has
COMELEC,[21] the principal issue was
been deemed abolished due to the
whether or not private respondent
conversion. However, the very instant he
Edward M. Hagedorn was qualified to run
vacated his office as municipal mayor, he
during the recall elections. Therein
also assumed office as city mayor. Unlike
respondent Hagedorn had already served
in Lonzanida, where petitioner therein,
for three consecutive terms as mayor
for even just a short period of time,
from 1992 until 2001 and did not run in
stepped down from office, petitioner
the immediately following regular
Latasa never ceased from acting as chief
elections. On July 2, 2002, the barangay
executive of the local government
officials of Puerto Princesa convened
unit. He never ceased from discharging
themselves into a Preparatory Recall
his duties and responsibilities as chief
Assembly to initiate the recall of the
executive of Digos.
incumbent mayor, Victorino Dennis M.
In Adormeo v. COMELEC,[20] this Socrates. On August 23, 2002,
Court was confronted with the issue of respondent Hagedorn filed his certificate
whether or not an assumption to office of candidacy for mayor in the recall
through a recall election should be election. A petition for his disqualification
considered as one term in applying the was filed on the ground that he cannot
three-term limit rule. Private respondent, run for the said post during the recall
in that case, was elected and served for elections for he was disqualified from
two consecutive terms as mayor. He then running for a fourth consecutive
ran for his third term in the May 1998 term. This Court, however, ruled in favor
elections, but lost to his opponent. In of respondent Hagedorn, holding that the
June 1998, his opponent faced recall principle behind the three-term limit rule
proceedings and in the recall elections of is to prevent consecutiveness of the
May 2000, private respondent won and service of terms, and that there was in
served for the unexpired term. For the his case a break in such consecutiveness
May 2001 elections, private respondent after the end of his third term and before
filed his certificate of candidacy for the the recall election.
office of mayor. This was questioned on
It is evident that in the
the ground that he had already served as
abovementioned cases, there exists a
mayor for three consecutive terms. This
rest period or a break in the service of
Court held therein that private
the local elective official. In Lonzanida,
respondent cannot be construed as
petitioner therein was a private citizen a
having been elected and served for three
few months before the next mayoral
consecutive terms. His loss in the May
elections. Similarly,
1998 elections was considered by this
in Adormeo and Socrates, the private
Court as an interruption in the continuity
respondents therein lived as private
of his service as mayor. For nearly two
citizens for two years and fifteen months fact and in law of a candidates
respectively. Indeed, the law disqualification so as to bring such
contemplates a rest period during which awareness within the realm of notoriety,
the local elective official steps down from would nonetheless cast their votes in
office and ceases to exercise power or favor of the ineligible candidate. In such
authority over the inhabitants of the case, the electorate may be said to have
territorial jurisdiction of a particular local waived the validity and efficacy of their
government unit. votes by notoriously misapplying their
franchise or throwing away their votes, in
This Court reiterates that the framers
which case, the eligible candidate
of the Constitution specifically included
obtaining the next higher number of
an exception to the peoples freedom to
votes may be deemed elected. The
choose those who will govern them in
same, however, cannot be said of the
order to avoid the evil of a single person
present case.
accumulating excessive power over a
particular territorial jurisdiction as a This Court has consistently ruled that
result of a prolonged stay in the same the fact that a plurality or a majority of
office. To allow petitioner Latasa to vie the votes are cast for an ineligible
for the position of city mayor after having candidate at a popular election, or that a
served for three consecutive terms as a candidate is later declared to be
municipal mayor would obviously defeat disqualified to hold office, does not
the very intent of the framers when they entitle the candidate who garnered the
wrote this exception. Should he be second highest number of votes to be
allowed another three consecutive terms declared elected. The same merely
as mayor of the City of Digos, petitioner results in making the winning candidates
would then be possibly holding office as election a nullity.[23] In the present case,
chief executive over the same territorial moreover, 13,650 votes were cast for
jurisdiction and inhabitants for a total of private respondent Sunga as against the
eighteen consecutive years. This is the 25,335 votes cast for petitioner
very scenario sought to be avoided by the Latasa.[24] The second placer is obviously
Constitution, if not abhorred by it. not the choice of the people in that
particular election. In any event, a
Finally, respondent Sunga claims that
permanent vacancy in the contested
applying the principle in Labo v.
office is thereby created which should be
COMELEC,[22] he should be deemed the
filled by succession.[25]
mayoralty candidate with the highest
number of votes. On the contrary, this WHEREFORE, the petition
Court held in Labo that the is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to
disqualification of a winning candidate costs.
does not necessarily entitle the candidate
SO ORDERED.
with the highest number of votes to
proclamation as the winner of the
elections. As an obiter, the Court merely
mentioned that the rule would have been
different if the electorate, fully aware in
[G.R. No. 147589. June 25, 2003] [G.R. No. 147613. June 25, 2003]

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR BAYAN

PARTY (under the acronym MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMI
OFW), represented herein by SSION ON ELECTIONS;
its Secretary-General, NATIONALIST PEOPLES
MOHAMMAD OMAR COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG
FAJARDO, petitioner, vs. COM DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO
MISSION ON ELECTIONS; (LDP); PARTIDO NG MASANG
CITIZENS DRUG WATCH; PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-
MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA NUCD-UMDP, LIBERAL
DROGA; GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; PARTY; MAMAMAYANG AYAW
THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST SA DROGA; CREBA;
ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE SUGARCANE PLANTERS;
LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI
MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ORGANIZATION, respondents
ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT .
AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF REAL
ESTATE BUILDERS RESOLUTION
ASSOCIATION; SPORTS &
PANGANIBAN, J.:
HEALTH ADVANCEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG
Before the Court are Motions for
LAKAS NG OVERSEAS
proclamation filed by various party-list
CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW);
participants. The ultimate question
BAGONG BAYANI
raised is this: Aside from those already
ORGANIZATION and others
validly proclaimed[1] pursuant to earlier
under Organizations/Coalitions
Resolutions of this Court, are there other
of Omnibus Resolution No.
party-list candidates that should be
3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG
proclaimed winners? The answer to this
PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP;
question is circumscribed by the eight-
NATIONALIST PEOPLES
point guideline given in our June 26,
COALITION; LABAN NG
2001 Decision in these consolidated
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO;
cases, as well as by the four unique
AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-
parameters of the Philippine party-list
LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY;
system:
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG
BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG;
First, the twenty percent allocation -
and others under Political
- the combined number of all party-list
Parties of Omnibus Resolution
congressmen shall not exceed twenty
No. 3785, respondents.
percent of the total membership of the
House of Representatives, including to qualify for seats in the House of
those elected under the party-list. Representatives. The Comelec is
further DIRECTED to submit to this
Second, the two percent threshold -- only Court its compliance report within 30
those parties garnering a minimum of days from notice hereof.
two percent of the total valid votes cast
for the party-list system are qualified to The Resolution of this Court dated May 9,
have a seat in the House of 2001, directing the Comelec to refrain
Representatives. from proclaiming any winner during the
last party-list election, shall remain in
Third, the three-seat limit -- each force until after the Comelec itself will
qualified party, regardless of the number have complied and reported its
of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to compliance with the foregoing
a maximum of three seats; that is, one disposition.[3]
qualifying and two additional seats.

Fourth, proportional representation -- Comelecs First Partial

the additional seats which a qualified Compliance Report
party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of
In its First Partial Compliance Report
votes.[2]
dated July 27, 2001, Comelec
recommended that the following party-
list participants be deemed to have
The Antecedents
hurdled the eight-point guideline referred
to in the aforementioned Court Decision:
To fully understand the matter on
1. BAYAN MUNA (BAYAN
hand, we deem it wise to recapitulate
MUNA)
some relevant antecedents.
2. AKBAYAN! CITIZENS
On June 26, 2001, the Court ACTION PARTY
promulgated in these consolidated cases (AKBAYAN!)
its Decision requiring Comelec to do the 3. LUZON FARMERS PARTY
following: (BUTIL)
4. ANAK MINDANAO (AMIN)
x x x [I]mmediately conduct summary 5. ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN
evidentiary hearings on the qualifications NG MGA MAGSASAKA,
of the party-list participants in the light of MANGGAGAWANG
the guidelines enunciated in this BUKID AT
Decision. Considering the extreme MANGINGISDA (ABA)
urgency of determining the winners in 6. PARTIDO NG
the last party-list elections, the Comelec MANGGAGAWA (PM)
is directed to begin its hearings for the 7. SANLAKAS
parties and organizations that appear to
have garnered such number of votes as It also recommended the
disqualification of the following party-list
participants for their failure to pass the ASOSASYON PARA
guidelines: SA KAUNLARAN NG
INDUSTRIYA NG
MAMAMAYAN
AKLAT, INC. (AKLAT)
AYAW SA DROGA
THE TRUE
(MAD)
MARCOS LOYALIST
ASSOCIATION OF
(FOR GOD,
PHILIPPINE
COUNTRY, AND
ELECTRIC
PEOPLE) ASSOCIATI
COOPERATIVES
ON OF THE
(APEC)
PHILIPPINES
VETERANS
(MARCOS LOYALIST)
FEDERATION PARTY
CHAMBER OF
(VFP)
REAL ESTATE AND
ABAG PROMDI
BUILDERS
(PROMDI)
ASSOCIATION, INC.
NATIONALIST
(CREBA)
PEOPLES COALITION
BIGKIS PINOY
(NPC)
FOUNDATION
LAKAS NUCD-
(BIGKIS)
UMDP (LAKAS)
AKSYON
CITIZENS BATTLE
DEMOKRATIKO
AGAINST
(AKSYON)
CORRUPTION
(CIBAC) In response to this Report, the Court
LABAN NG issued its August 14, 2001 Resolution
DEMOKRATIKONG which partially lifted its May 9, 2001
PILIPINO (LDP) Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The
BUHAY HAYAANG Court did so to enable Comelec to
YUMABONG (BUHAY) proclaim BAYAN MUNA as the first
COCOFED- winner in the last party-list election, with
PHILIPPINE the caveat that all proclamations should
COCONUT be made in accordance not only with the
PRODUCERS Decision of the Court in the instant case
FEDERATION, INC. but also with Veterans Federation Party
(COCOFED) v. Comelec, GR Nos. 136781, 136786,
COOPERATIVE and 136795, October 6, 2000, on how to
NATCCO NETWORK determine and compute the winning
PARTY (COOP- parties and nominees in the party-list
NATCCO) elections.
NATIONAL
In another Resolution dated August
CONFEDERATION OF
24, 2001, the Court again partially lifted
IRRIGATORS
its May 9, 2001 TRO to enable the
ASSOCIATION (NCIA)
Comelec to
proclaim AKBAYAN and BUTIL as votes to entitle them to seats in
winning party-list groups, in accordance Congress. Since these issues are factual
not only with the Decision of the Court in in character, we are inclined to adopt the
the instant case but also with Veterans Commissions findings, absent any patent
Federation Party v. Comelec, GR Nos. arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its
136781, 136786, and 136795, October 6, action. There is no substantial proof that
2000. CIBAC is merely an arm of JIL, or that
APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. The
In its Consolidated Reply dated
OSG explained that these are separate
October 15, 2001, the Office of the
entities with separate memberships.
Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the
Although APECs nominees are all
Comelec, recommended that -- except
professionals, its membership is
for the modification that the APEC,
composed not only of professionals but
BUHAY, COCOFED and CIBAC be
also of peasants, elderly, youth and
declared as having complied with the
women. Equally important, APEC
guidelines set forth in the June 26, 2001
addresses the issues of job creation,
Decision in the instant cases [--] the
poverty alleviation and lack of electricity.
Partial Compliance Report dated July 27,
Likewise, CIBAC is composed of the
2001 be AFFIRMED.[4] But because of (1)
underrepresented and marginalized and
the conflicting Comelec reports regarding
is concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is
the qualifications of APEC and CIBAC and
particularly interested in the youth and
(2) the disparity in the percentage of
professional sectors.[6]
votes obtained by AMIN, the Court in a
Resolution dated November 13, 2001,
To summarize, after the Court had
required the parties to file within 20 days
accepted and approved the First Partial
from notice their respective final position
Compliance Report and its amendments,
papers on why APEC, CIBAC, and/or
the following nominees were validly
AMIN should or should not be proclaimed
proclaimed winners: BAYAN MUNA (Satur
winners in the last party-list elections.
C. Ocampo, Crispin B. Beltran and Liza L.
Thereafter, in another Resolution Maza), AKBAYAN (Loretta Ann P.
dated January 29, 2002,[5] the Court Rosales), BUTIL (Benjamin A. Cruz),
agreed to qualify APEC and CIBAC, which APEC (Ernesto C. Pablo) and CIBAC (Joel
had previously been disqualified by J. Villanueva).
Comelec in its First Compliance Report.
Thus, in the same Resolution, the
Comelecs Second Partial
Court once more lifted its May 9, 2001
Compliance Report
TRO to enable the Comelec to proclaim
APEC and CIBAC as winners in the party-
list elections. The Court said: In its Second Compliance Report
dated August 22, 2001 and received by
we accept Comelecs submission, per the this Court on August 28, 2001, Comelec
OSG, that APEC and CIBAC have recommended that the following party-
sufficiently met the 8-point guidelines of list participants[7] be deemed qualified
this Court and have garnered sufficient under the Courts guidelines:
10. ABANSE! PINAY FARMERS AND
11. ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN FISHERFOLKS OF THE
NG ORDINARYONG PHILIPPINES (AAAFPI)
TAO PARA SA LUPA, 23. ALL WORKERS
PABAHAY, AT ALLIANCE TRADE
HANAPBUHAY (AKO) UNIONS (AWATU)
12. ALAGAD
In the same Compliance Report, the
13. SENIOR
poll body classified the following party-
CITIZENS/ELDERY
list groups as unqualified:
SECTORAL PARTY
(ELDERLY) GREEN
14. ALL TRADE UNION PHILIPPINES
CONGRESS OF THE FOUNDATION
PHILIPPINES (ATUCP) (GREEN PHIL)
15. MARITIME PARTY PARTIDO NG
(MARITIME) MASANG PILIPINO
16. ANG BAGONG BAYANI (PMP)
OFW LABOR PARTY ANG LAKAS NG
(OFW) BAGONG
17. ANIBAN NG MGA KOOPERATIBA
MAGSASAKA, (ALAB)
MANGINGISDA, AT PARTIDO NG
MANGGAGAWA SA MARALITANG
AGRIKULTURA PILIPINO PINATUBO
KATIPUNAN (AMMMA) PARTY (PMP-
18. ALYANSA NG PINATUBO)
NAGKAKAISANG REBOLUSYONARY
KABATAAN NG ONG
SAMBAYANAN PARA SA ALYANSANG MAKABA
KAUNLARAN NSA (RAM)
(ANAKBAYAN) BAYAN NG
19. ALYANSA NG MGA MAY NAGTATAGUYOD NG
KAPANSANAN SA DEMOKRATIKONG
PILIPINAS (AKAP) IDEOLOGIYA AT
20. MINDANAO LAYUNIN, INC.
FEDERATION OF (BANDILA)
SMALL COCONUT BAGONG BAYANI
FARMERS ORGANIZATION (BA
ORGANIZATION, INC. GONG BAYANI)
(MSCFO) KABATAAN NG
21. WOMENPOWER, INC. MASANG
(WPI) PILIPINO (KAMPIL)
22. AGGRUPATION AND
ALLIANCE OF
 AARANGKADA ANG LAKAS NG
ANG MGA HANDA OVERSEAS
ORAS-ORAS (AHOY) CONTRACT
PHILIPPINE WORKERS (OCW)
MEDICAL NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION (PMA) FEDERATION OF
ALLIANCE TO SUGAR
ALLEVIATE THE PLANTERS (NFSP)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC KABALIKAT NG
AND SOCIAL ORDER, BAYAN
INC. (AASENSO KA) PARTY (KABALIKAT)
PARTIDO PARTIDO
DEMOKRATIKO DEMOKRATIKONG
SOSYALISTA NG PILIPINO LAKAS NG
PILIPINAS (PDSP) BAYAN (PDP-LABAN)
COOPERATIVE BANTAY BAYAN
UNION OF THE FOUNDATION
PHILIPPINES (CUP) PARTY,
ATIN (FORMERLY INC. (BANTAY-
ABANTE BISAYA) BAYAN)
VOLUNTEERS ABANTE
AGAINST CRIME AND KILUSANG
CORRUPTION (VACC) KOOPERATIBA SA
ASSOCIATION OF GITNANG LUZON
BUILDERS [AKK COALITION]
CONSULTANTS AND GREEN
DESIGNERS, INC. PHILIPPINES
(ABCD) (GREEN)
LIBERAL PHILIPPINE
PARTY (LP) ASSOCIATION OF
CITIZENS DETECTIVE AND
DRUGWATCH PROTECTIVE
FOUNDATION, AGENCY
INC. (DRUGWATCH) OPERATORS (PADPA
ALAY SA BAYAN O)
PARA SA KALAYAAN ALLIANCE FOR
AT GREATER
DEMOKRASYA (ABAK ACHIEVEMENTS IN
ADA) PEACE AND
ASOSASYON NG PROSPERITY (AGAP)
MGA TAGA ALYANSA NG
INSURANCE SA KOOPERATIBANG
PILIPINAS, INC. PANGKABUHAYAN
(ATIP) PARTY (ANGKOP)
 NATIONAL FARMERS
ALLIANCE FOR ORGANIZATION,
DEMOCRACY (NAD) INC. (SCFO)
PEOPLE POWER 26. TRIBAL COMMUNITIES
PARTY (PEOPLE ASSOCIATION OF THE
POWER) PHILIPPINES (TRICAP)
PHILIPPINE 27. PILIPINONG MAY
TECHNOLOGICAL KAPANSANAN (PINOY
COUNCIL (PTC) MAY K)
PHILIPPINE LOCAL 28. VETERANS CARE AND
AUTONOMY WELFARE
MOVEMENT, INC. ORGANIZATION (VETE
(PLAM) RANS CARE)
PROFESSIONAL 29. UNION OF THE FILIPINO
CRIMINOLOGIST OVERSEAS WORKERS,
ASSOCIATION OF INC. (OCW-UNIFIL)
THE 30. DEMOCRATIC
PHILIPPINES (PCAP) ALLIANCE (DA)
CITIZENS 31. PILIPINO WORKERS
MOVEMENT FOR PARTY (PWP)
JUSTICE, ECONOMY, 32. PHILIPPINE
ENVIRONMENT, AND ASSOCIATION OF
PEACE (JEEP) RETIRED
PERSONS (PARP)
33. ALLIANCE OF RETIRED
Comelecs Final Partial POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Compliance Report AND SENIOR
CITIZENS, INC.
(ARPES)
In its Final Partial Compliance Report
34. AGRARIAN REFORM
dated September 27, 2001 and received
BENEFICIARIES
by the Court a day later, Comelec
ASSOCIATION, INC.
recommended that the following be
(ARBA)
considered as qualified party-list
35. FEDERATION OF
participants:
JEEPNEY OPERATORS
24. NATIONAL AND DRIVERS
CONFEDERATION OF ASSOCIATION OF THE
TRICYCLE OPERATOR PHILIPPINES (FEJODA
S AND DRIVERS P)
ASSOCIATION OF THE 36. GABAY NG
PHILIPPINES MANGGAGAWANG
(NACTODAP) PILIPINO
25. NATIONAL FEDERATION PARTY (GABAY-OFW)
OF SMALL COCONUT
 37. ALTERNATIVE PHILIPPINES (CONSU
APPROACHES OF MERS)
SETTLERS (AASAHAN) CONFEDERATION
38. ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH OF NON-STOCK
SOLIDARITY (AYOS) SAVINGS AND LOAN
39. PARTY FOR OVERSEAS ASSOCIATION, INC.
WORKERS AND (CONSLA)
EMPOWERMENT AND PEOPLES
RE- PROGRESSIVE
INTEGRATION (POWE ALLIANCE FOR PEACE
R) AND GOOD
40. KILOS KABATAAN GOVERNMENT
PILIPINO (KILOS) TOWARDS
41. KALOOB-KA ISANG ALLEVIATION OF
LOOB PARA SA POVERTY AND
MARANGAL NA SOCIAL
PANINIRAHAN (KALOO ADVANCEMENT (PAG
B) -ASA)
42. ALYANSA NG MGA AHONBAYAN,
MAMAMAYAN AT INC. (AHONBAYAN)
MANDARAGAT SA ANGAT
LAWA NG LAGUNA, SAMA-SAMA KAYA
INC. (ALYANSA) NATIN TO
43. DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,
FOUNDATION OF THE INC. (KASAMA)
PHILIPPINES (DFP) A PEACEFUL
44. PARTIDO KATUTUBONG ORGANIZATION
PILIPINO (KATUTUBO) LEADERSHIP,
FRIENDSHIP,
Further, the Comelec recommended
SERVICE
the disqualification of the following party-
MOVEMENT (APO)
list groups:
PHILIPPINE
AALAGAHAN ANG DENTAL
ATING KALIKASAN ASSOCIATION (PDA)
(ALAS) PUSYON (BISAYA)
PHILIPPINE PILIPINO (PUSYON)
SOCIETY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY (SJS)
ENGINEERS (PSAE) CITIZENS ANTI-
PARTIDO PARA SA CRIME ASSISTANCE
DEMOKRATIKONG GROUP, INC. (CAAG)
REPORMA (PDR) ASA AT SAMAHAN
CONSUMERS NG KARANIWANG
UNION OF THE PILIPINO (ASAKAPIL)
 BUSINESSMEN KATARUNGAN, AT
AND KAUNLARAN (KKK)
ENTREPRENEURS BONDING
ASSOCIATION, IDEALISM FOR
INC. (BEA) NATIONAL HUMAN
UNITED INITIATIVE (BINHI)
ARCHITECTS OF THE KATIPUNAN NG
PHILIPPINES (UAP) MGA BANTAY BAYAN
ABAY PAMILYA SA
FOUNDATION, PILIPINAS (KABAYAN
INC. (ABAY PAMILYA) )
PEOPLES REFORM FEDERATION OF
PARTY (PRP) SONS AND
COALITION FOR DAUGHTERS
CONSUMER OF PHIL. VETERANS,
PROTECTION AND INC. (LAHING
WELFARE (COALITIO VETERANO)
N 349) PRIME MOVERS
RIZALIST FOR PEACE AND
PARTY (RP) PROGRESS (PRIMO)
NATIONAL URBAN PROGRESSIVE
POOR ASSEMBLY ALLIANCE OF
(NUPA) CITIZENS FOR
ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY (PACD)
MERITOCRACY (AFM) COUNCIL OF
BALIKATAN SA AGRICULTURAL
KABUHAYAN BUHAY PRODUCERS (CAP)
COALITION (BSK) TAPAT
BANTAY DAGAT, FOUNDATION,
INC. (BDI) INC. (TAPAT)
CONFEDERATION ALLIANCE FOR
OF HOME OWNERS ALLEVIATION OF
ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL
REFORMS IN GOVERNANCE AND
GOVERNANCE AND TRUST PARTY (AKA)
ENVIRONMENT, ANG IPAGLABAN
INC. (HOMEOWNERS MO
) FOUNDATION (AIM)
PORT USERS PHILIPPINE MINE
CONFEDERATION, SAFETY AND
INC. (PUC) ENVIRONMENT (PMS
LABAN PARA SA EA)
KAPAYAPAAN, BICOL SARO
PARTY (BSP)
 AABANTE KA SECURITY UNITED
PILIPINAS PARTY LEAGUE
(SAGIP BAYAN NATIONWIDE
MOVEMENT) (APIL) GUARDS,
PHILIPPINE INC. (SULONG)
PEOPLES ORGANISASYONG
PARLIAMENT (PPP- KAUGNAYAN
YOUTH) NASYONAL SA PAG-
SPORTS AND UNLAD (O.K. NAPU)
HEALTH PAMBANSANG
ADVANCEMENT SANGGUNIANG
FOUNDATION, KATIPUNAN NG
INC. (SHAF) BARANGAY
KILUSAN TUNGO KAGAWAD SA
SA PAMBANSANG PILIPINAS (KATIPUN
TANGKILIKAN, INC. AN)
(KATAPAT) NATIONAL
CITIZENS COUNCIL FOR
FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY
THE PREVENTION OF ORGANIZER (NCCO)
CRIMES AND NATIONWIDE
INJUSTICES, ASSOCIATION OF
INC. (CITIZEN) CONSUMERS,
NACIONALISTA INC. (NACI)
PARTY (NP) LUZVIMINDA
(Withdrew ECONOMIC
participation in the DEVELOPMENT
party-list election) FOUNDATION,
SANDIGANG INC. (LEDFI)
MARALITA (SM) TINDOG PARA
ONEWAY HAN KABUBUWASON
PRINTING HAN
TECHNICAL WARAYNON (TINDO
FOUNDATION, G WARAY)
INC. (ONEWAY FEDERATION OF
PRINT) LAND REFORM
PHILIPPINE JURY FARMERS OF THE
MOVEMENT (JURY) PHILIPPINES (FLRF)
ALTERNATIVE KATRIBU
ACTION (AA) MINDANAO,
DEMOCRATIC INC. (KATRIBU)
WORKERS DEMOKRATIKONG
PARTY (DWP) UGNAYAN TAPAT SA
 SAMBAYANAN (DUGT its Compliance Reports by, inter alia,
UNGAN) adding four more party-list participants
KATARUNGAN SA (BUHAY, COCOFED, NCIA and BAGONG
BAYAN BAYANI) to the list of qualified candidates
TAGAPAGTANGGOL for the May 14, 2001 elections.
NG
In its Comment dated November 15,
SAMBAYANAN (KABA
2002, the OSG opined that Comelec
TAS)
acted correctly in revising its Party-List
GO! GO!
Canvass Report No. 26, so as to reflect
PHILIPPINES
the correct number of votes cast in favor
MOVEMENT
of qualified party-list parties and
PAMBANSANG
organizations.[9] Consequently, it moved
SAMAHANG LINGKOD
to lift our TRO with respect to COCOFED,
NG BAYAN,
BUHAY, SANLAKAS and PM, because [a]s
INC. (PASALBA)
shown in the revised COMELEC Party-list
PHILIPPINE
Canvass Report No. 26, movants BUHAY,
REFORMIST
COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM received
SOCIETY (PRS)
4.25%, 3.35%, 2.21% and 3.17%,
GABAYBAYAN (GA
respectively, of the total votes cast[10] in
D)
the May 14, 2001 party-list election.[11]
ALUHAY
NEIGHBORHOOD It added that the proclamation by the
ASSOCIATION, COMELEC of BUHAY, COCOFED,
INC. (ALUHAI) SANLAKAS and PM (as well as all other
ORGANIZED qualified parties and organizations which
SUPPORT FOR THE received at least 2% of the total votes
MOVEMENT TO cast in the same party-list election) as
ENHANCE THE winners in the said party-list is in
NATIONAL order.[12]
AGENDA (OSMEA)
However, in its November 25, 2002
All these Compliance Reports have Comment, the OSG contended that NCIA,
already been affirmed by this Court which is not a qualified party or
except that, in regard to the First organization per the Comelec [First]
Compliance Report, it agreed -- as earlier Partial Compliance Report dated July 27,
stated -- to add APEC and CIBAC to the 2001, cannot be proclaimed as winner in
list of qualified groups. the last party-list elections.[13] It also
recommended that ABAs Motion to lift
the TRO with respect to its proclamation
Other Significant should be likewise granted, because it is
Orders and Pleadings a qualified party or organization that
hurdled the 2% threshold in the last
party-list elections. For, ABA received
Under its Resolution No. NBC-02-
3.54% of the votes cast in the said party-
001,[8] Comelec motu proprio amended
list elections, as shown in COMELEC
Resolution No. NBC-02-001. ABAs BUHAY and COCOFED
proclamation as winner is therefore in
order.[14]
In recommending the disqualification
Preparatory to resolving the present of BUHAY for being most probably merely
Motions and in observance of due an extension of the El Shaddai, a religious
process, the Court resolved on February group, Comelec said in the above-
18, 2003 to require the parties, including mentioned Report:
the OSG, to submit their respective
Position Papers on the following issues: Upon hearing the case for BUHAY, the
Commission determined that, based
1) Whether Labo v. upon BUHAYs declarations of intent in its
Comelec,[15] Grego v. constitution, upon its avowed platform of
Comelec[16] and related cases government which both mirror the
should be deemed applicable sentiments of the El Shaddai Movement
to the determination of and upon the circumstances surrounding
winners in party-list elections its relationship with the El Shaddai
Movement, BUHAY is most probably
2) Whether the votes cast for merely an extension of the El Shaddai. In
parties/organizations that this light, it is very likely that the
were subsequently relationship between the leader of the El
disqualified for having failed Shaddai, and the nominee of BUHAY is
to meet the eight-point less a matter of serendipity than
guideline contained in our an attempt to circumvent the statutory
June 26, 2001 Decision should prohibition against sects or
be deducted from the total denominations from participating in the
votes cast for the party-list party-list elections.[17]
system during the said
elections In the same Report, Comelec also
stated that COCOFED did not deserve a
seat in the House of Representatives,
The Courts Ruling because it was allegedly an adjunct of the
government. Explained the Commission:
At the outset, the Court needs to
COCOFED is a sectoral party representing
pass upon the claims of the OSG that the
the peasantry. It is a non-stock, non-
initial recommendation contained in
profit organization of coconut farmers
Comelecs First Compliance Report dated
and producers, established in 1947. It
July 27, 2001, regarding BUHAY and
has no religious affiliations. However, the
COCOFED should be reconsidered, and
records indicate that it is an adjunct of
that these two party-list groups should be
the government.
deemed qualified.
COCOFEDs Amended By-Laws
specifically provides that:
Qualification of
The Chairman of the Philippine Coconut National Board has already been deleted
Authority or his duly authorized as early as May, 1988.
representative shall automatically be a
It added that while the primary
member of the National Board.
purposes of COCOFEDs Articles of
Incorporation authorize the organization
The Philippine Coconut Authority is an
to help explore and obtain possible
administrative agency of the government
technical and financial assistance for
which receives support and funding from
industry development from private or
the national government. Thus, to have
governmental sources x x x, this
the Chairman of the Philippine Coconut
statement does not by itself constitute
Authority sit on the National Board of
such substantial evidence to support a
COCOFED clearly amounts to
conclusion that the COCOFED is an entity
participation of the government in the
funded or assisted by the government.
affairs of candidate which, as this Court
has said, would be unfair to the other We are convinced. For the same
parties, and deleterious to the objectives reasons that we concurred in the earlier
of the law. accreditation of APEC and CIBAC, we
accept the OSGs position that indeed
Furthermore, in the Articles of Comelec erred in disqualifying BUHAY and
Incorporation of COCOFED, it declared, COCOFED.[20]
as one of its primary purposes, the
Therefore, we now add these two
obtaining of possible technical and
groups to the list of 44 qualified groups
financial assistance for industry
earlier mentioned and thereby increase
development from private or
the total to 46.
governmental sources.[18]
We shall now take up the main
On the other hand, in its question of which parties/organizations
Consolidated Reply dated October 15, won during the last party-list election.
2001, the OSG -- in representation of the
poll agency -- argued that the above
findings of the Comelec in regard, inter Legal Effect of the Disqualifications
alia, to BUHAY and COCOFED are not on the Total Votes Cast
supported by substantial evidence and,
thus, should be modified
The instant Motions for proclamation
accordingly. This opinion is buttressed by
contend that the disqualification of many
the OSGs Comment dated November 15,
party-list organizations has reduced the
2002.[19]
total number of votes cast for the party-
The OSG stressed that the Comelec list elections. Because of this reduction,
report on BUHAY was merely anchored the two-percent benchmark required by
on conjectures or speculations. On law has now been allegedly attained by
COCOFED, the OSG explained that the movants. Hence, they now pray for their
bylaws making the chairman of the proclamation as winners in the last party-
Philippine Coconut Authority an list elections.
automatic member of the COCOFED
 Recall that under Section 11(b)[21] of may be said to have waived the validity
RA 7941 (the Party-List Act), only those and efficacy of their votes by notoriously
parties garnering a minimum of two misapplying their franchise or throwing
percent of the total votes cast for the away their votes, in which case, the
party-list system are entitled to have a eligible candidate obtaining the next
seat in the House of higher number of votes may be deemed
Representatives. The critical question elected.[25] In short, the votes cast for a
now is this: To determine the total votes notoriously disqualified candidate may be
cast for the party-list system, should the considered stray and excluded from the
votes tallied for the disqualified canvass.
candidates be deducted? Otherwise
The foregoing pronouncement was
stated, does the clause total votes cast
reiterated in Grego, which held that the
for the party-list system include only
exception mentioned in Labo v.
those ballots cast for qualified party-list
Comelec is predicated on the
candidates?
concurrence of two assumptions,
To answer this question, there is a namely: (1) the one who obtained the
need to review related jurisprudence on highest number of votes is disqualified;
the matter, especially Labo v. and (2) the electorate is fully aware in
Comelec[22] and Grego v. fact and in law of a candidates
Comelec, which were mentioned in
[23] disqualification so as to bring such
our February 18, 2003 Resolution. awareness within the realm of notoriety
but would nonetheless cast their votes in
favor of the ineligible candidate.[26]
Labo and Grego
Note, however, that the foregoing
Not Applicable
pronouncements (1) referred to regular
elections for local offices and (2) involved
In Labo, the Court declared that the the interpretation of Section 6 of RA
ineligibility of a candidate receiving 6646.[27] They were not meant to cover
majority votes does not entitle the party-list elections, which are specifically
eligible candidate receiving the next governed by RA 7941. Section 10 of this
highest number of votes to be declared latter law clearly provides that the votes
elected. A minority or defeated candidate cast for a party, a sectoral organization
cannot be deemed elected to the or a coalition not entitled to be voted for
office.[24] In other words, the votes cast shall not be counted:
for an ineligible or disqualified candidate
cannot be considered stray. SEC. 10. Manner of Voting. Every voter
shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first
However, this rule would be different
vote is a vote for candidate for
if the electorate, fully aware in fact and
membership of the House of
in law of a candidates disqualification so
Representatives in his legislative district,
as to bring such awareness within the
and the second, a vote for the party,
realm of notoriety, would nonetheless
organization, or coalition he wants
cast their votes in favor of the ineligible
represented in the House of
candidate. In such case, the electorate
Representatives: Provided, That a 6,523,185. This means that the two-
vote cast for a party, sectoral percent threshold can be more easily
organization, or coalition not attained by the qualified marginalized
entitled to be voted for shall not be and under-represented groups. Hence,
counted: Provided, finally, That the first disregarding the votes of disqualified
election under the party-list system shall party-list participants will increase and
be held in May 1998. (Emphasis broaden the number of representatives
supplied) from these sectors.Doing so will further
concretize and give flesh to the policy
The language of the law is clear; declaration in RA 7941, which we
hence, there is room, not for reproduce thus:
interpretation, but merely for
application.[28] Likewise, no recourse to SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State
extrinsic aids is warranted when the shall promote proportional
language of the law is plain and representation in the election of
unambiguous.[29] representation in the election of
representatives to the House of
Another reason for not
Representatives through a party-list
applying Labo and Grego is that these
system of registered, national and
cases involve single elective posts, while
sectoral parties or organizations or
the present controversy pertains to the
coalitions thereof, which will enable
acquisition of a number of congressional
Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
seats depending on the total election
and underrepresented sectors,
results -- such that even those garnering
organizations and parties, and who lack
second, third, fourth or lesser places
well-defined political constituencies but
could be proclaimed winners depending
who could contribute to the enactment of
on their compliance with other
appropriate legislation that will benefit
requirements.
the nation as a whole, to become
RA 7941 is a special statute members of the House of
governing the elections of party-list Representatives. Towards this end, the
representatives and is the controlling law State shall develop and guarantee a full,
in matters pertaining free and open party system in order to
thereto. Since Labo and Section 6 of RA attain the broadest possible
6646 came into being prior to the representation of party, sectoral or group
enactment of RA 7941, the latter is a interests in the House of Representatives
qualification of the former ruling and by enhancing their chances to compete
law. On the other hand, Grego and other for and win seats in the legislature, and
related cases that came after the shall provide the simplest scheme
enactment of RA 7941 should be possible.
construed as inapplicable to the latter.[30]
Subtracting the votes garnered by
Need for Patience
these disqualified party-list groups from
and Perseverance
the total votes cast under the party-list
system will reduce the base figure to
 BAYAN MUNA contends that the a clarion call for innovation and creativity
deduction of votes obtained by party-list in adopting this novel system of popular
candidates disqualified after the holding democracy.
of the party-list elections will result in the
instability of the system. The reason is With adequate information and
that qualified party-list candidates would dissemination to the public and more
be encouraged to seek the active sectoral parties, we are confident
disqualification of the other candidates our people will be more responsive to
for the sole purpose of attaining the future party-list elections. Armed with
needed percentage of the votes patience, perseverance and perspicacity,
cast. Although such scenario may be our marginalized sectors, in time, will
possible, we believe that the perceived fulfill the Filipino dream of full
instability can be alleviated because, (1) representation in Congress under the
unlike in the past elections, Comelec now aegis of the party-list system, Philippine
has the herein qualified and disqualified style.[31]
participants list, which can be used for
future elections; and (2) in the light of We also take this opportunity to
recent jurisprudential developments, emphasize that the formulas devised
Comelec will now be guided accordingly in Veterans for computing the number of
when accrediting new candidates for the nominees that the party-list winners are
next party-list elections and will be able entitled to cannot be disregarded by the
to set the period for accreditation in such concerned agencies of government,
time and manner as to enable it to especially the Commission on
determine their qualifications long before Elections. These formulas ensure that
the elections are held. the number of seats allocated to the
winning party-list candidates conform to
Indeed, it takes patience and
the principle of proportional
perseverance to have the marginalized
representation mandated by the law.
and under-represented sectors ably
represented in Congress. The
controversies churned during the 1998
The Party-List Winners
and the 2001 party-list elections should
further embolden, not distract, the nation
in the process of implementing a genuine As discussed earlier, the votes
and sound Philippine-style party-list obtained by disqualified party-list
system. At this point, the Court needs to candidates are not to be counted in
stress what it said in Veterans: determining the total votes cast for the
party-list system. In the present cases,
[T]he dismal result of the first election for the votes they obtained should be
party-list representatives should serve as deducted from the canvass of the total
a challenge to our sectoral parties and number of votes cast during the May 14,
organizations. It should stir them to be 2001 elections. Consequently, following
more active and vigilant in their Section 12 of RA 7941, a new tally and
campaign for representation in the States ranking of qualified party-list candidates
lawmaking body. It should also serve as is now in order, according to the
percentage of votes they obtained as
compared with the total valid votes cast %
nationwide. )
Accordingly, we will now tally and
1 BAYAN MUNA 1,708,253 26.19
rank the qualified party-list participants
2 APEC 802,060 12.29
during the last elections, pursuant to the
3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79
approved Comelec Compliance
4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06
Reports [32] and our various Resolutions
5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96
in these consolidated cases.Based on our
6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46
foregoing discussion, we will deduct the
7 AMIN 252,051 3.86
votes obtained by the 116[33] disqualified
8 ABA 242,199 3.71
candidates from the total votes cast for
9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51
the May 14, 2001 elections. The votes for
10 PM 216,823 3.32
these disqualified groups total
11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31
8,595,630.Subtracting this figure from
12 ABANSE!
15,118,815 (the total votes cast as
PINAY 135,211 2.07
reported in the Compliance Reports) will
13 AKO 126,012 1.93
result in a new total of 6,523,185 valid
14 ALAGAD 117,161 1.80
votes cast for the May 14, 2001 party-list
15 ELDERLY 106,496 1.63
elections. This new figure representing
16 ATUCP 103,273 1.58
the votes cast for the 46 qualified party-
17 MARITIME 98,946 1.52
list participants will now be the basis for
18 OFW 97,085 1.49
computing the two-percent threshold for
19 AMMMA 65,735 1.01
victory and the number of seats the
20 ANAKBAYAN 63,312 0.97
winners are entitled to.
21 AKAP 54,925 0.84
To repeat, there are only 46 qualified 22 MSCFO 49,914 0.76
party-list participants. Be it remembered 23 WPI 46,831 0.72
that the Commission recommended for 24 AAAFPI 43,882 0.67
qualification only 42 party-list candidates 25 AWATU 42,149 0.65
in its three Compliance Reports. To this 26 NACTODAP 38,898 0.60
figure should be added the two 27 SCFO 37,470 0.57
participants we approved in our January 28 TRICAP 35,807 0.55
29, 2002 Resolution, plus another two 29 PINOY MAY K 32,151 0.49
(BUHAY and COCOFED) per our earlier 30 VETERANS CARE 31,694 0.49
discussion in this ruling. Table No. 1 31 OCW-UNIFIL 29,400 0.45
below-lists the 46 qualified parties. 32 PWP 24,182 0.37
33 DA 24,029 0.37
Table No. 1[34]
34 PARP 23,297 0.36
35 ARPES 22,497 0.34
Rank Party-List Votes
36 ARBA 22,345 0.34
Cast Percentage to
37 FEJODAP 21,335 0.33
Group Total
38 GABAY OFW 17,777 0.27
Votes
39 AASAHAN 16,787 0.26
Cast
 40 AYOS 15,871 0.24 We shall now determine the number
41 POWER 13,050 0.20 of nominees each winning party is
42 KILOS 11,170 0.17 entitled to, in accordance with the
43 KALOOB 9,137 0.14 formula in Veterans. For purposes of
44 ALYANSA 7,882 0.12 determining the number of its nominees,
45 KATUTUBO 6,602 0.10 BAYAN MUNA (the party that obtained
46 DFP 6,600 0.10 the highest number of votes) is
Total 6,523,185 considered the first party. The applicable
formula[35] is as follows:

The Winners and

Their Nominees
Number of votes of first party = Proportion of
Using simple mathematics, we find votes of first party relative to
that only 12 of the 46 qualified parties Total votes for party-list system total votes
obtained at least two percent of the for party-list system
6,523,185 total valid votes cast. Two
percent of this number is Applying this formula, we arrive at
130,464. Hence, only those qualified 26.19 percent:
parties that obtained at least 130,464
votes may be declared winners. On this 1,708,253 = 26.19%
basis, the winners are as follows: 6,523,185
Table No. 2 Having obtained 26.19 percent,
BAYAN MUNA is entitled to three (3)
Rank Party-List Votes seats. This finding is pursuant to our
Cast Percentage to Total
ruling in Veterans, the pertinent portions
Group Votes Cast
of which we reproduce as follows:
(%)
If the proportion of votes received by the
1 BAYAN MUNA 1,708,253 26.19 first party without rounding it off is equal
2 APEC 802,060 12.29
to at least six percent of the total valid
3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79 votes cast for all the party list groups,
4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06
then the first party shall be entitled to
5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96
two additional seats or a total of three
6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46 seats overall. If the proportion of votes
7 AMIN 252,051 3.86
without a rounding off is equal to or
8 ABA 242,199 3.71
greater than four percent, but less than
9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51
six percent, then the first party shall have
10 PM 216,823 3.32 one additional or a total of two seats. And
11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31
if the proportion is less than four percent,
12 ABANSE! PINAY 135,211 2.07
then the first party shall not be entitled
to any additional seat.
 xxxxxxxxx COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS and ABANSE!
PINAY.
Note that the above formula will be
Applying the relevant formula
applicable only in determining the
in Veterans to BUHAY, we arrive at 0.51:
number of additional seats the first
party is entitled to. It cannot be used to
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for Qualified
determine the number of additional seats
Party x Allotted Seats for First Party
of the other qualified parties. As
Votes Cast for First
explained earlier, the use of the same
Party
formula for all would contravene the
proportional representation parameter. = 290,760 x 3
For example, a second party obtains six 1,708,253
percent of the total number of votes cast.
According to the above formula, the said = 0.51
party would be entitled to two additional
seats or a total of three seats overall. Since 0.51 is less than one, BUHAY is
However, if the first party received a not entitled to any additional seat.[37] It
significantly higher amount of votes -- is entitled to only one qualifying seat like
say, twenty percent -- to grant it the all the other qualified parties that are
same number of seats as the second ranked below it, as shown in Table No. 3:
party would violate the statutory
Table No. 3
mandate of proportional representation,
since a party getting only six percent of Rank Party-
the votes will have an equal number of List Votes Percentage(%) Addition
representatives as the one obtaining al
twenty percent. The proper solution, Seats[38]
therefore, is to grant the first party a total
of three seats; and the party receiving six 2 APEC 802,060 12.29 n/c
percent, additional seats in proportion to 3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79 n/c
those of the first party. [36] 4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06 n/c
5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96 n/c
As adverted to earlier, the issue of 6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46 0.51
whether additional seats should be 7 AMIN 252,051 3.86 0.44
allocated to APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL and 8 ABA 242,199 3.71 0.42
CIBAC will not be addressed in this 9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51 0.40
Resolution; a separate Motion (with 10 PM 216,823 3.32 0.38
Supplemental Motion) challenging their 11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31 0.2
entitlement thereto has been filed by 6
BAYAN MUNA and is still pending 12 ABANSE! PINAY 135,211 2.07 0.24
completion as of this writing. Hence, we
shall compute only the additional seat or In sum, the above-named party-list
seats to be allocated, if any, to the other winners, excluding those with a separate
qualified parties BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, pending challenge, are entitled to the
following congressional seats:
 1. BAYAN MUNA three (3) earmarked unique parameters, giving
seats [one qualifying and rise to an equally distinctive Philippine-
t style party-list system. Our difficulties
w have also been aggravated by the less
o than firm actions of the Commission on
a Elections referred to earlier, which had to
d be reversed based on the OSGs later
d submissions.
it
To help all concerned, especially the
i
Commission on Elections, speed up the
o
process of determining the party-list
n
winners in the future, we deem it wise to
a
summarize the implementing process we
l
followed in this Resolution, as follows:
s
e
1. After the promulgation of our
a
Decision on June 26, 2001,
t
we directed Comelec to
s
conduct a factual
]
determination as to which
2. BUHAY one qualifying seat
of the various party-list
only
candidates had passed the
3. AMIN one qualifying seat only
eight-point guideline we
4. ABA one qualifying seat only
instituted in that
5. COCOFED one qualifying seat
Decision.Although we gave
only
Comelec only 30 days to
6. PM one qualifying seat only
undertake the work, it was
7. SANLAKAS one qualifying seat
able to submit its Final
only
Compliance Report only on
8. ABANSE! PINAY one
September 27, 2001.
qualifying seat only
2. Of the various parties and
organizations[39] which
Epilogue
Comelec allowed to
participate in the 2001
The determination of the winners in party-list elections, it
the last party-list elections has been recommended -- in its
neither easy nor simple. The novelty of three Compliance Reports
the party-list system in our country to the Court -- 42 to be
necessarily demanded careful study and qualified. Later on, four
deliberation by the Court.Principles and more groups were added,
precedents in other democracies of the for a total of 46.
world have not been very helpful,
because our party-list law (RA 7941) has
3. Next, we determined which of 7. The two rollos of these two
the 46 qualified parties consolidated cases contain
garnered at least two about 14,000 pages,
percent of the total votes because almost all of the
cast for the party-list original party-list
system. To do so, we participants filed -- some
subtracted the votes repeatedly -- motions,
obtained by the disqualified pleas, position papers and
candidates from the total so on, which all needed
votes cast.Those parties, attention. Thus, the Court
organizations and had to devote an enormous
coalitions that had obtained amount of time and effort
at least two percent of this poring over,
balance were declared understanding, and ruling
winners. upon these submissions.

4. After identifying the winners, 8. In the interest of speedy

we determined, by using justice, this matter was
the formulas mandated deliberated upon; and this
in Veterans v. Comelec, Resolution was discussed,
how many nominees each finalized and promulgated
winning party was entitled by the Court within weeks
to. after it had received the
last Position Paper
5. The foregoing process would mentioned in item 6 above.
have been finished long
ago and the winners IN THE FUTURE, the determination
proclaimed before the end of the winners can truly be made much
of the year 2002, had more expeditiously, now that there are
Comelec been more precedents to guide all concerned,
resolute and exacting in the especially the Commission on
factual determinations Elections. For one thing, Comelec already
contained in its Compliance has the herein base list of 46 qualified
Reports. parties. For another, given the lessons
and experiences in these proceedings, it
6. In the interest of due process, can now more speedily, more carefully
the Court required Position and more prudently pass upon the
Papers on the issue of qualifications of new candidates. Such
whether the votes of process can even be done in advance
disqualified candidates under such rules and regulations it may
should be deducted from issue, consistent with the law and with
the total votes cast our Decisions and Resolutions here and
nationwide. in Veterans, to pre-qualify participants
well in advance of the elections.
 In closing, the Court hopes that, with ELECTIONS, SENATOR RALPH
each bit of wisdom they learned and after G. RECTO and SENATOR
the arduous journey they experienced in GREGORIO B.
our one-of-a-kind Philippine-style party- HONASAN, respondents.
list system, the marginalized and under-
represented sectors of our country will be DECISION
accorded ever-widening opportunities to
CARPIO, J.:
participate in nation-building, so that
they can help develop -- in peace and
harmony -- a society that is just,
The Case
humane, progressive and free.
WHEREFORE, we HOLD that,
This is a petition for prohibition to set
having obtained at least two percent of
aside Resolution No. NBC 01-005 dated 5
the total valid votes cast in the last party-
June 2001 (Resolution No. 01-005) and
list elections, the following qualified
Resolution No. NBC 01-006 dated 20 July
participants are DECLARED elected with
2001 (Resolution No. 01-006) of
one nominee each: BUHAY, AMIN, ABA,
respondent Commission on Elections
COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS and ABANSE!
(COMELEC). Resolution No. 01-005
PINAY. To enable the Commission on
proclaimed the 13 candidates elected as
Elections to proclaim -- upon finality of
Senators in the 14 May 2001 elections
this Resolution -- these winners and their
while Resolution No. 01-006 declared
respective nominees, we hereby
official and final the ranking of the 13
partially LIFTour Temporary Restraining
Senators proclaimed in Resolution No.
Order dated May 9, 2001, in regard to
01-005.
them only. It is made permanent in
regard to the rest that did not qualify and
win.
The Facts
SO ORDERED.
Shortly after her succession to the
Presidency in January 2001, President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo nominated then
Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
(Senator Guingona) as Vice-
President. Congress confirmed the
[G.R. No. 148334. January 21, nomination of Senator Guingona who
2004] took his oath as Vice-President on 9
February 2001.
Following Senator Guingonas
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and confirmation, the Senate on 8 February
ARTURO C. 2001 passed Resolution No. 84
MOJICA, petitioners, vs. (Resolution No. 84) certifying to the
COMMISSION ON existence of a vacancy in the Senate.
Resolution No. 84 called on COMELEC to Petitioners contend that COMELEC
fill the vacancy through a special election issued Resolution No. 01-005 without
to be held simultaneously with the jurisdiction because: (1) it failed to notify
regular elections on 14 May 2001. Twelve the electorate of the position to be filled
Senators, with a 6-year term each, were in the special election as required under
due to be elected in that Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6645 (R.A.
election.[1] Resolution No. 84 further No. 6645);[4] (2) it failed to require
provided that the Senatorial candidate senatorial candidates to indicate in their
garnering the 13th highest number of certificates of candidacy whether they
votes shall serve only for the unexpired seek election under the special or regular
term of former Senator Teofisto T. elections as allegedly required under
Guingona, Jr., which ends on 30 June Section 73 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
2004.[2] 881;[5] and, consequently, (3) it failed to
specify
On 5 June 2001, after COMELEC had
in the Voters Information Sheet the can
canvassed the election results from all
didates seeking election under the special
the provinces but one (Lanao del Norte),
or regular senatorial elections as
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 01-005
purportedly required under Section 4,
provisionally proclaiming 13 candidates
paragraph 4 of Republic Act No. 6646
as the elected Senators. Resolution No.
(R.A. No. 6646).[6] Petitioners add that
01-005 also provided that the first twelve
because of these omissions, COMELEC
(12) Senators shall serve for a term of six
canvassed all the votes cast for the
(6) years and the thirteenth (13th)
senatorial candidates in the 14 May 2001
Senator shall serve the unexpired term of
elections without distinction such that
three (3) years of Senator Teofisto T.
there were no two separate Senate
Guingona, Jr. who was appointed Vice-
elections held simultaneously but just a
President.[3] Respondents Ralph Recto
single election for thirteen seats,
(Recto) and Gregorio Honasan
irrespective of term.[7]
(Honasan) ranked 12 and
th 13th,
respectively, in Resolution No. 01-005. Stated otherwise, petitioners claim
that if held simultaneously, a special and
On 20 June 2001, petitioners Arturo
a regular election must be distinguished
Tolentino and Arturo Mojica (petitioners),
in the documentation as well as in the
as voters and taxpayers, filed the instant
canvassing of their results. To support
petition for prohibition, impleading only
their claim, petitioners cite the special
COMELEC as respondent. Petitioners
elections simultaneously held with the
sought to enjoin COMELEC from
regular elections of 13 November 1951
proclaiming with finality the candidate for
and 8 November 1955 to fill the seats
Senator receiving the 13th highest
vacated by Senators Fernando Lopez and
number of votes as the winner in the
Carlos P. Garcia, respectively, who
special election for a single three-year
became Vice-Presidents during their
term seat. Accordingly, petitioners
tenures in the Senate.[8] Petitioners point
prayed for the nullification of Resolution
out that in those elections, COMELEC
No. 01-005 in so far as it makes a
separately canvassed the votes cast for
proclamation to such effect.
the senatorial candidates running under
the regular elections from the votes cast not a proper party to this case because
for the candidates running under the the petition only involves the validity of
special elections. COMELEC also the proclamation of the 13thplacer in the
separately proclaimed the winners in 14 May 2001 senatorial elections.
each of those elections.[9]
Petitioners sought the issuance of a
The Issues
temporary restraining order during the
pendency of their petition.
The following are the issues
Without issuing any restraining
presented for resolution:
order, we required COMELEC to
Comment on the petition. (1) Procedurally
On 20 July 2001, after COMELEC had
(a) whether the petition is in fact a
canvassed the results from all the
petition for quo warranto over which the
provinces, it issued Resolution No. 01-
Senate Electoral Tribunal is the sole
006 declaring official and final the
judge;
ranking of the 13 Senators proclaimed in
Resolution No. 01-005. The 13 Senators
(b) whether the petition is moot; and
took their oaths of office on 23 July 2001.
In view of the issuance of Resolution (c) whether petitioners have standing to
No. 01-006, the Court required litigate.
petitioners to file an amended petition
impleading Recto and Honasan as (2) On the merits, whether a special
additional respondents. Petitioners election to fill a vacant three-year term
accordingly filed an amended petition in Senate seat was validly held on 14 May
which they reiterated the contentions 2001.
raised in their original petition and, in
addition, sought the nullification of
Resolution No. 01-006. The Ruling of the Court
In their Comments, COMELEC,
Honasan, and Recto all claim that a The petition has no merit.
special election to fill the seat vacated by
Senator Guingona was validly held on 14
May 2001. COMELEC and Honasan On the Preliminary Matters
further raise preliminary issues on the
mootness of the petition and on
petitioners standing to litigate. Honasan The Nature of the Petition and the
also claims that the petition, which seeks Courts Jurisdiction
the nullity of his proclamation as Senator,
is actually a quo warranto petition and A quo warranto proceeding is,
the Court should dismiss the same for among others, one to determine the right
lack of jurisdiction. For his part, Recto, as of a public officer in the exercise of his
the 12th ranking Senator, contends he is
office and to oust him from its enjoyment ranking of the 13 Senators render the
if his claim is not well-founded.[10] Under instant petition to set aside Resolutions
Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, Nos. 01-005 and 01-006 moot and
the Senate Electoral Tribunal is the sole academic.
judge of all contests relating to the
Admittedly, the office of the writ of
qualifications of the members of the
prohibition is to command a tribunal or
Senate.
board to desist from committing an act
A perusal of the allegations threatened to be done without
contained in the instant petition shows, jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
however, that what petitioners are discretion amounting to lack or excess of
questioning is the validity of the special jurisdiction.[11] Consequently, the writ
election on 14 May 2001 in which will not lie to enjoin acts already
Honasan was elected. Petitioners various done.[12] However, as an exception to the
prayers are, namely: (1) a declaration rule on mootness, courts will decide a
that no special election was held question otherwise moot if it is capable
simultaneously with the general elections of repetition yet evading review.[13] Thus,
on 14 May 2001; (2) to enjoin COMELEC in Alunan III v. Mirasol,[14] we took
from declaring anyone as having won in cognizance of a petition to set aside an
the special election; and (3) to annul order canceling the general elections for
Resolution Nos. 01-005 and 01-006 in so the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) on 4
far as these Resolutions proclaim December 1992 despite that at the time
Honasan as the winner in the special the petition was filed, the SK election had
election. Petitioners anchor their prayers already taken place. We noted
on COMELECs alleged failure to comply in Alunan that since the question of the
with certain requirements pertaining to validity of the order sought to be
the conduct of that special annulled is likely to arise in every SK
election. Clearly then, the petition does elections and yet the question may not
not seek to determine Honasans right in be decided before the date of such
the exercise of his office as Senator. elections, the mootness of the petition is
Petitioners prayer for the annulment of no bar to its resolution. This observation
Honasans proclamation and, ultimately, squarely applies to the instant case. The
election is merely incidental to petitioners question of the validity of a special
cause of action. Consequently, the Court election to fill a vacancy in the Senate in
can properly exercise jurisdiction over relation to COMELECs failure to comply
the instant petition. with requirements on the conduct of such
special election is likely to arise in every
such election. Such question, however,
On the Mootness of the Petition may not be decided before the date of
the election.
COMELEC contends that its
proclamation on 5 June 2001 of the
On Petitioners Standing
13 Senators and its subsequent
confirmation on 20 July 2001 of the
 Honasan questions petitioners violation of specific constitutional
standing to bring the instant petition as protections against abuses of legislative
taxpayers and voters because petitioners power or that there [was] misapplication
do not claim that COMELEC illegally of such funds by COMELEC or that public
disbursed public funds. Neither do money [was] deflected to any improper
petitioners claim that they sustained purpose.[20]
personal injury because of the issuance
On the other hand, we have relaxed
of Resolution Nos. 01-005 and 01-006.
the requirement on standing and
Legal standing or locus standi refers exercised our discretion to give due
to a personal and substantial interest in a course to voters suits involving the right
case such that the party has sustained or of suffrage.[21] Also, in the recent case
will sustain direct injury because of the of Integrated Bar of the Philippines
challenged governmental act.[15] The v. Zamora,[22] we gave the same liberal
requirement of standing, which treatment to a petition filed by the
necessarily sharpens the presentation of Integrated Bar of
issues,[16] relates to the constitutional the Philippines (IBP). The IBP
mandate that this Court settle only actual questioned the validity of a Presidential
cases or controversies.[17] Thus, directive deploying elements of the
generally, a party will be allowed to Philippine National Police and the
litigate only when (1) he can show that Philippine Marines in Metro Manila to
he has personally suffered some actual or conduct patrols even though the IBP
threatened injury because of the presented too general an interest. We
allegedly illegal conduct of the held:
government; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and [T]he IBP primarily anchors its standing
(3) the injury is likely to be redressed by on its alleged responsibility to uphold the
a favorable action.[18] rule of law and the Constitution. Apart
from this declaration, however, the IBP
Applied strictly, the doctrine of
asserts no other basis in support of
standing to litigate will indeed bar the
its locus standi. The mere invocation by
instant petition. In questioning, in their
the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of
capacity as voters, the validity of the
law and nothing more, while undoubtedly
special election on 14 May 2001,
true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
petitioners assert a harm classified as a
standing in this case. This is too general
generalized grievance. This generalized
an interest which is shared by other
grievance is shared in substantially equal
groups and the whole citizenry x x x.
measure by a large class of voters, if not
all the voters, who voted in that
Having stated the foregoing, this Court
election.[19] Neither have petitioners
has the discretion to take cognizance of
alleged, in their capacity as taxpayers,
a suit which does not satisfy the
that the Court should give due course to
requirement of legal standing when
the petition because in the special
paramount interest is involved. In not a
election held on 14 May 2001 tax money
few cases, the court has adopted a liberal
[was] x x x extracted and spent in
attitude on the locus standi of a
petitioner where the petitioner is able to In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the
craft an issue of transcendental House of Representatives, a special
significance to the people. Thus, when election may be called to fill such
the issues raised are of paramount vacancy in the manner prescribed by law,
importance to the public, the Court may but the Senator or Member of the House
brush aside technicalities of of Representatives thus elected shall
procedure. In this case, a reading of the serve only for the unexpired term.
petition shows that the IBP has advanced (Emphasis supplied)
constitutional issues which deserve the
attention of this Court in view of their To implement this provision of the
seriousness, novelty and weight as Constitution, Congress passed R.A. No.
precedents. Moreover, because peace 6645, which provides in pertinent parts:
and order are under constant threat and
lawless violence occurs in increasing SECTION 1. In case a vacancy arises in
tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the Senate at least eighteen (18) months
the Mindanao insurgency problem, the or in the House of Representatives at
legal controversy raised in the petition least one (1) year before the next regular
almost certainly will not go away. It will election for Members of Congress, the
stare us in the face again. It, therefore, Commission on Elections, upon receipt of
behooves the Court to relax the rules on a resolution of the Senate or the House
standing and to resolve the issue now, of Representatives, as the case may be,
rather than later.[23] (Emphasis supplied) certifying to the existence of such
vacancy and calling for a special election,
We accord the same treatment to shall hold a special election to fill such
petitioners in the instant case in their vacancy. If Congress is in recess, an
capacity as voters since they raise official communication on the existence
important issues involving their right of of the vacancy and call for a special
suffrage, considering that the issue election by the President of the Senate or
raised in this petition is likely to arise by the Speaker of the House of
again. Representatives, as the case may be,
shall be sufficient for such purpose. The
Senator or Member of the House of
Whether a Special Election for a Representatives thus elected shall serve
Single, Three-Year Term only for the unexpired term.
Senatorial Seat was Validly Held on
14 May 2001 SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections
shall fix the date of the special election,
which shall not be earlier than forty-five
Under Section 9, Article VI of the
(45) days nor later than ninety (90) days
Constitution, a special election may be
from the date of such resolution or
called to fill any vacancy in the Senate
communication, stating among other
and the House of Representatives in the
things the office or offices to be voted
manner prescribed by law, thus:
for: Provided, however, That if within the
said period a general election is
scheduled to be held, the special election A survey of COMELECs resolutions
shall be held simultaneously with such relating to the conduct of the 14 May
general election. (Emphasis supplied) 2001 elections reveals that they contain
nothing which would amount to a
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 compliance, either strict or substantial,
subsequently amended Section 2 of R.A. with the requirements in Section 2 of R.A.
No. 6645, as follows: No. 6645, as amended. Thus, nowhere in
its resolutions[24] or even in its press
Postponement, Failure of Election and releases[25] did COMELEC state that it
Special Elections. x x x In case a would hold a special election for a single
permanent vacancy shall occur in the three-year term Senate seat
Senate or House of Representatives at simultaneously with the regular elections
least one (1) year before the expiration on 14 May 2001. Nor did COMELEC give
of the term, the Commission shall call formal notice that it would proclaim as
and hold a special election to fill the winner the senatorial candidate receiving
vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days the 13th highest number of votes in the
nor longer than ninety (90) days after the special election.
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in
The controversy thus turns on
case of such vacancy in the Senate, the
whether COMELECs failure, assuming it
special election shall be held
did fail, to comply with the requirements
simultaneously with the next succeeding
in Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645, as
regular election. (Emphasis supplied)
amended, invalidated the conduct of the
Thus, in case a vacancy arises in special senatorial election on 14 May
Congress at least one year before the 2001 and accordingly rendered Honasans
expiration of the term, Section 2 of R.A. proclamation as the winner in that special
No. 6645, as amended, requires election void. More precisely, the
COMELEC: (1) to call a special election by question is whether the special election is
fixing the date of the special election, invalid for lack of a call for such election
which shall not be earlier than sixty (60) and for lack of notice as to the office to
days nor later than ninety (90) after the be filled and the manner by which the
occurrence of the vacancy but in case of winner in the special election is to be
a vacancy in the Senate, the special determined. For reasons stated below,
election shall be held simultaneously with the Court answers in the negative.
the next succeeding regular election; and
(2) to give notice to the voters of, among
other things, the office or offices to be COMELECs Failure to Give Notice
voted for. of the Time of the Special Election
Did Not
Did COMELEC, in conducting the Negate the Calling of such Election
special senatorial election simultaneously
with the 14 May 2001 regular elections,
The calling of an election, that is, the
comply with the requirements in Section
giving notice of the time and place of its
2 of R.A. No. 6645?
occurrence, whether made by the
legislature directly or by the body with February 2001 could not be held at any
the duty to give such call, is other time but must be held
indispensable to the elections simultaneously with the next succeeding
validity.[26]In a general election, where regular elections on 14 May 2001. The
the law fixes the date of the election, the law charges the voters with knowledge of
election is valid without any call by the this statutory notice and COMELECs
body charged to administer the failure to give the additional notice did
election.[27] not negate the calling of such special
election, much less invalidate it.
In a special election to fill a vacancy,
the rule is that a statute that expressly Our conclusion might be different
provides that an election to fill a vacancy had the present case involved a special
shall be held at the next general elections election to fill a vacancy in the House of
fixes the date at which the special Representatives. In such a case, the
election is to be held and operates as the holding of the special election is subject
call for that election. Consequently, an to a condition precedent, that is, the
election held at the time thus prescribed vacancy should take place at least one
is not invalidated by the fact that the year before the expiration of the
body charged by law with the duty of term. The time of the election is left to
calling the election failed to do so.[28] This the discretion of COMELEC subject only
is because the right and duty to hold the to the limitation that it holds the special
election emanate from the statute and election within the range of time provided
not from any call for the election by some in Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645, as
authority[29] and the law thus charges amended. This makes mandatory the
voters with knowledge of the time and requirement in Section 2 of R.A. No.
place of the election.[30] 6645, as amended, for COMELEC to call
x x x a special election x x x not earlier
Conversely, where the law does not
than 60 days nor longer than 90 days
fix the time and place for holding a
after the occurrence of the vacancy and
special election but empowers some
give notice of the office to be filled. The
authority to fix the time and place after
COMELECs failure to so call and give
the happening of a condition precedent,
notice will nullify any attempt to hold a
the statutory provision on the giving of
special election to fill the
notice is considered mandatory, and
vacancy.Indeed, it will be well-nigh
failure to do so will render the election a
impossible for the voters in the
nullity.[31]
congressional district involved to know
In the instant case, Section 2 of R.A. the time and place of the special election
No. 6645 itself provides that in case of and the office to be filled unless the
vacancy in the Senate, the special COMELEC so notifies them.
election to fill such vacancy shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding
regular election.Accordingly, the special No Proof that COMELECs
election to fill the vacancy in the Senate Failure to Give Notice of the Office
arising from Senator Guingonas to be Filled and the Manner of
appointment as Vice-President in
Determining the Winner in the appointment as Vice-President in
Special February 2001 was to be filled in the next
Election Misled Voters succeeding regular election of 14 May
2001. Similarly, the absence of formal
notice from COMELEC does not preclude
The test in determining the validity of
the possibility that the voters had actual
a special election in relation to the failure
notice of the special election, the office
to give notice of the special election is
to be voted in that election, and the
whether the want of notice has resulted
manner by which COMELEC would
in misleading a sufficient number of
determine the winner. Such actual notice
voters as would change the result of the
could come from many sources, such as
special election. If the lack of official
media reports of the enactment of R.A.
notice misled a substantial number of
No. 6645 and election propaganda during
voters who wrongly believed that there
the campaign.[33]
was no special election to fill a vacancy,
a choice by a small percentage of voters More than 10 million voters cast their
would be void.[32] votes in favor of Honasan, the party who
stands most prejudiced by the instant
The required notice to the voters in
petition. We simply cannot
the 14 May 2001 special senatorial
disenfranchise those who voted for
election covers two matters. First, that
Honasan, in the absence of proof that
COMELEC will hold a special election to
COMELECs omission prejudiced voters in
fill a vacant single three-year term
the exercise of their right of suffrage so
Senate seat simultaneously with the
as to negate the holding of the special
regular elections scheduled on the same
election. Indeed, this Court is loathe to
date. Second, that COMELEC will
annul elections and will only do so when
proclaim as winner the senatorial
it is impossible to distinguish what votes
candidate receiving the 13th highest
are lawful and what are unlawful, or to
number of votes in the special
arrive at any certain result whatever, or
election. Petitioners have neither claimed
that the great body of the voters have
nor proved that COMELECs failure to give
been prevented by violence, intimidation,
this required notice misled a sufficient
and threats from exercising their
number of voters as would change the
franchise.[34]
result of the special senatorial election or
led them to believe that there was no Otherwise, the consistent rule has
such special election. been to respect the electorates will and
let the results of the election stand,
Instead, what petitioners did is
despite irregularities that may have
conclude that since COMELEC failed to
attended the conduct of the
give such notice, no special election took
elections. [35] This is but to acknowledge
place. This bare assertion carries no
the purpose and role of elections in a
value. Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645, as
democratic society such as ours, which
amended, charged those who voted in
is:
the elections of 14 May 2001 with the
knowledge that the vacancy in the
Senate arising from Senator Guingonas
to give the voters a direct participation in on Section 4(4) of R.A. No. 6646 on the
the affairs of their government, either in printing of election returns and tally
determining who shall be their public sheets, to support their claim is
officials or in deciding some question of misplaced. These provisions govern
public interest; and for that purpose all of elections in general and in no way require
the legal voters should be permitted, separate documentation of candidates or
unhampered and unmolested, to cast separate canvass of votes in a jointly held
their ballot. When that is done and no regular and special elections.
frauds have been committed, the ballots
Significantly, the method adopted by
should be counted and the election
COMELEC in conducting the special
should not be declared null. Innocent
election on 14 May 2001 merely
voters should not be deprived of their
implemented the procedure specified by
participation in the affairs of their
the Senate in Resolution No. 84. Initially,
government for mere irregularities on the
the original draft of Resolution No. 84 as
part of the election officers, for which
introduced by Senator Francisco Tatad
they are in no way responsible. A
(Senator Tatad) made no mention of the
different rule would make
manner by which the seat vacated by
the manner and method of performing a
former Senator Guingona would be
public duty of greater importance than
filled. However, upon the suggestion of
the duty itself.[36] (Emphasis in the
Senator Raul Roco (Senator Roco), the
original)
Senate agreed to amend Resolution No.
84 by providing, as it now appears, that
the senatorial candidate garnering the
Separate Documentation and
thirteenth (13th) highest number of votes
Canvassing
shall serve only for the unexpired term of
not Required under Section 2 of R.A.
former Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
No. 6645,
Senator Roco introduced the amendment
to spare COMELEC and the candidates
Neither is there basis in petitioners needless expenditures and the voters
claim that the manner by which further inconvenience, thus:
COMELEC conducted the special
senatorial election on 14 May 2001 is a S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Mr. President, I
nullity because COMELEC failed to move that we now consider Proposed
document separately the candidates and Senate Resolution No. 934 [later
to canvass separately the votes cast for converted to Resolution No. 84].
the special election. No such
requirements exist in our election T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Is there any
laws. What is mandatory under Section 2 objection? [Silence] There being none,
of R.A. No. 6645 is that COMELEC fix the the motion is approved.
date of the election, if necessary, and
state, among others, the office or offices Consideration of Proposed Senate
to be voted for. Similarly, petitioners Resolution No. 934 is now in order. With
reliance on Section 73 of B.P. Blg. 881 on the permission of the Body, the Secretary
the filing of certificates of candidacy, and
will read only the title and text of the RESOLVED by the Senate, as it is hereby
resolution. resolved, to certify, as it hereby certifies,
the existence of a vacancy in the Senate
T[HE] S[ECRETARY]. Proposed Senate and calling the Commission on Elections
Resolution No. 934 entitled (COMELEC) to fill up such vacancy
through election to be held
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING TO THE simultaneously with the regular election
EXISTENCE OF A VACANCY IN THE on May 14, 2001 and the Senator thus
SENATE AND CALLING ON THE elected to serve only for the unexpired
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS term.
(COMELEC) TO FILL UP SUCH VACANCY
THROUGH ELECTION TO BE HELD Adopted,
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE REGULAR
ELECTION ON MAY 14, 2001 AND THE (Sg
SENATOR THUS ELECTED TO SERVE d.) FRANCISCO S. TATAD
ONLY FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM S
enator
WHEREAS, the Honorable Teofisto T.
Guingona, Jr. was elected Senator of S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Mr. President, I
the Philippines in 1998 for a term which move for the adoption of this resolution.
will expire on June 30, 2004;
S[ENATOR] O[SMEA] (J). Mr. President.
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, Her
Excellency President Gloria Macapagal T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Sen. John H.
Arroyo nominated Senator Guingona as Osmea is recognized.
Vice-President of the Philippines;
S[ENATOR] O[SMEA] (J). Thank you, Mr.
WHEREAS, the nomination of Senator President. Will the distinguished Majority
Guingona has been confirmed by a Leader, Chairman of the Committee on
majority vote of all the members of both Rules, author of this resolution, yield for
House of Congress, voting separately; a few questions?

WHEREAS, Senator Guingona will take S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. With trepidation,

his Oath of Office as Vice-President of Mr. President. [Laughter]
the Philippines on February 9, 2001;
S[ENATOR] O[SMEA] (J). What a way of
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 7166 flattery. [Laughter]
provides that the election for twelve (12)
Senators, all elective Members of the Mr. President, I think I recall that
House of Representatives, and all sometime in 1951 or 1953, there was a
elective provincial city and municipal special election for a vacant seat in the
officials shall be held on the second Senate. As a matter of fact, the one who
Monday and every three years was elected in that special election was
thereafter; Now, therefore, be it then Congressman, later Senator
Feli[s]berto Verano.
In that election, Mr. President, the T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. May I share this
candidates contested the seat. In other information that under Republic Act No.
words, the electorate had to cast a vote 6645, what is needed is a resolution of
for a ninth senator because at that time this Chamber calling attention to the
there were only eight to elect a member need for the holding of a special election
or rather, a candidate to that particular to fill up the vacancy created, in this
seat. particular case, by the appointment of
our colleague, Senator Guingona, as Vice
Then I remember, Mr. President, that President.
when we ran after the EDSA revolution,
twice there were 24 candidates and the It can be managed in the Commission on
first 12 were elected to a six-year term Elections so that a slot for the particular
and the next 12 were elected to a three- candidate to fill up would be that
year term. reserved for Mr. Guingonas unexpired
term. In other words, it can be arranged
My question therefore is, how is this in such a manner.
going to be done in this election? Is the
candidate with the 13th largest number of xxxx
votes going to be the one to take a three-
year term? Or is there going to be an S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. Mr. President.
election for a position of senator for the
unexpired term of Sen. Teofisto T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Sen. Raul S. Roco is
Guingona? recognized.

S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Mr. President, in S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. May we suggest,

this resolution, we are leaving the subject to a one-minute caucus,
mechanics to the Commission on wordings to the effect that in the
Elections. But personally, I would like to simultaneous elections, the 13th placer
suggest that probably, the candidate be therefore deemed to be the special
obtaining the 13th largest number of election for this purpose. So we just
votes be declared as elected to fill up the nominate 13 and it is good for our
unexpired term of Senator Guingona. colleagues. It is better for the
candidates. It is also less expensive
S[ENATOR] O[SMEA] (J). Is there a law because the ballot will be printed and
that would allow the Comelec to conduct there will be less disfranchisement.
such an election? Is it not the case that
the vacancy is for a specific office? I am T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. That is right.
really at a loss. I am rising here because
I think it is something that we should S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. If we can just deem
consider. I do not know if we can No, this it therefore under this resolution to be
is not a Concurrent Resolution. such a special election, maybe, we satisfy
the requirement of the law.
S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. May we solicit the
legal wisdom of the Senate President.
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Yes. In other S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Yes. Whoever gets
words, this shall be a guidance for the No. 13.
Comelec.
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. I think we can
S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. Yes. specifically define that as the intent of
this resolution.
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. to implement.
S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Subject to style,
S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. Yes. The Comelec we accept that amendment and if there
will not have the flexibility. will be no other amendment, I move for
the adoption of this resolution.
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. That is right.
xxxx
S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. We will already
consider the 13th placer of the ADOPTION OF S. RES. NO. 934
forthcoming elections that will be held
simultaneously as a special election If there are no other proposed
under this law as we understand it. amendments, I move that we adopt this
resolution.
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Yes. That will be a
good compromise, Senator Roco. T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. There is a motion to
adopt this resolution. Is there any
S[ENATOR] R[OCO]. Yes. So if the objection? [Silence] There being none,
sponsor can introduce that later, maybe the motion is approved.[37]
it will be better, Mr. President.
Evidently, COMELEC, in the exercise
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. What does the of its discretion to use means and
sponsor say? methods to conduct the special election
within the confines of R.A. No. 6645,
S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. Mr. President, that merely chose to adopt the Senates
is a most satisfactory proposal because I proposal, as embodied in Resolution No.
do not believe that there will be anyone 84. This Court has consistently
running specifically acknowledged and affirmed COMELECs
wide latitude of discretion in adopting
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Correct. means to carry out its mandate of
ensuring free, orderly, and honest
S[ENATOR] T[ATAD]. to fill up this elections subject only to the limitation
position for three years and campaigning that the means so adopted are not illegal
nationwide. or do not constitute grave abuse of
discretion.[38] COMELECs decision to
T[HE] P[RESIDENT]. Actually, I think abandon the means it employed in the 13
what is going to happen is the November 1951 and 8 November 1955
13th candidate will be running with special elections and adopt the method
specific groups. embodied in Resolution No. 84 is but a
legitimate exercise of its discretion. 2001, COMELEC should not take chances
Conversely, this Court will not interfere in future elections. We remind COMELEC
should COMELEC, in subsequent special to comply strictly with all the
senatorial elections, choose to revert to requirements under applicable laws
the means it followed in the 13 November relative to the conduct of regular
1951 and 8 November 1955 elections. elections in general and special elections
That COMELEC adopts means that are in particular.
novel or even disagreeable is no reason
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the
to adjudge it liable for grave abuse of
petition for lack of merit.
discretion. As we have earlier noted:
SO ORDERED.
The Commission on Elections is a
constitutional body. It is intended to play
a distinct and important part in our
scheme of government. In the discharge FRANCIS G. ONG, G.R. No. 163295 Petitioner,
of its functions, it should not be P
hampered with restrictions that would be r
fully warranted in the case of a less e
responsible organization. The s
Commission may err, so may this Court e
also. It should be allowed considerable
n
latitude in devising means and methods
t
that will insure the accomplishment of
the great objective for which it was :
created free, orderly and honest PANG
elections. We may not agree fully with its ANIBA
choice of means, but unless these are N, C.J.
clearly illegal or constitute gross abuse of PUNO,
discretion, this court should not QUISU
interfere.[39] MBIN
G,
YNARE
A Word to COMELEC S-
SANTI
The calling of a special election, if AGO,
necessary, and the giving of notice to the SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
electorate of necessary information - versus - CARPIO
regarding a special election, are central AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
to an informed exercise of the right of CORONA,
suffrage. While the circumstances CARPIO MORALES,
attendant to the present case have led us
CALLEJO, SR.,
to conclude that COMELECs failure to so
AZCUNA,
call and give notice did not invalidate the
special senatorial election held on 14 May TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
May 7, 2004 in SPA Case No. 04-048,
GARCIA, JJ.
granting private respondent Joseph
JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE Stanley Alegre's motion for
and Promulgated:
reconsideration of the resolution dated
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondents. January 23, 2006 March 31, 2004[2] of the COMELECs First
x---------------------x Division.

ROMMEL G. ONG,
The second, G.R. No. 163354, is
Petitioner,
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
with application for injunctive relief, filed
- versus - G.R. No.
by petitioner Rommel Ong, brother of
163354
Francis, seeking, among other things, to
stop the COMELEC from enforcing and
JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE and
implementing its aforesaid May 7,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondents. 2004 en banc resolution in SPA Case No.
x------------------------ 04-048 pending the outcome of the
----------------x
petition in G.R. No. 163295.
DECISION

Per its en banc Resolution of June 1,

GARCIA, J.: 2004, the Court ordered the
consolidation of these petitions.

Before the Court are these two separate

The recourse stemmed from the
petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of
following essential and undisputed
Court to nullify and set aside certain
factual backdrop:
issuances of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) en banc. Private respondent Joseph Stanley
Alegre (Alegre) and petitioner Francis
The first, docketed as G.R. No.
Ong (Francis) were candidates who filed
163295, is a petition for certiorari with
certificates of candidacy for mayor of San
petitioner Francis G. Ong impugning the
Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 10,
COMELEC en banc resolution[1] dated
2004 elections. Francis was then the fully served the 1998-2001 mayoralty
incumbent mayor. term and was in fact already starting to
serve the 2001-2004 term as mayor-elect
On January 9, 2004, Alegre filed with the of the municipality of San Vicente.
COMELEC Provincial Office a Petition to Acting on Alegres petition to disqualify
Disqualify, Deny Due Course and Cancel and to cancel Francis certificate of
Certificate of Candidacy[3] of Francis. candidacy for the May 10, 2004 elections,
Docketed as SPA Case No. 04-048, the the First Division of the COMELEC
petition to disqualify was predicated on rendered on March 31, 2004 a
the three-consecutive term rule, Francis resolution[5] dismissing the said petition
having, according to Alegre, ran in the of Alegre, rationalizing as follows:
May 1995, May 1998, and May 2001
We see the circumstances
mayoralty elections and have assumed
in the case now before us
office as mayor and discharged the duties analogous to those
thereof for three (3) consecutive full obtaining in the sample
situations addressed by the
terms corresponding to those elections.
Highest Court in the Borja
case. Herein, one of the
To digress a bit, the May 1998 requisites for the
elections saw both Alegre and Francis application of the three
term rule is not present.
opposing each other for the office of
Francis Ong might have
mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte, indeed fully served the
with the latter being subsequently mayoral terms of 1995 to
1998; 1998 to 2001 and
proclaimed by COMELEC winner in that
2001 to 2004. The mayoral
contest. Alegre subsequently filed an term however, from 1998
election protest, docketed as Election to 2001 cannot be
considered his because he
Case No. 6850 before the Regional Trial
was not duly elected
Court (RTC) at Daet, Camarines Norte. In thereto. The [RTC] of Daet,
it, the RTC declared Alegre as the duly Camarines Norte, Branch
41 has voided his election
elected mayor in that 1998 mayoralty
for the 1998 term when it
contest,[4] albeit the decision came out held, in its decision that
only on July 4, 2001, when Francis had Stanley Alegre was
 the legally elected
Comelecand Lonzanida vs.
mayor in the 1998
mayoralty election in Comelec, infra.
San Vicente, Camarines
Norte. This disposition had
become final after the On May 7, 2004, the COMELEC en
[COMELEC] dismissed the
banc issued, in SPA No. 04-048, a
appeal filed by Ong, the
case having become moot resolution[6] reversing the March 31,
and academic. 2004 resolution of the COMELECs First
Division and thereby (a) declaring
xxx xxx xxx
Francis as disqualified to run for mayor of
On the basis of the words San Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May
of the Highest Court
10, 2004; (b) ordering the deletion of
pronounced in the
Lonzanida case and Francis name from the official list of
applicable in the case at candidates; and (c) directing the
bench, Ong could not be
concerned board of election inspectors
considered as having
served as mayor from 1998 not to count the votes cast in his favor.
to 2001 because he was The following day, May 8, Francis
not duly elected to the
received a fax machine copy of the
post; he merely assumed
office as a presumptive aforecited May 7, 2004 resolution,
winner; which presumption sending him posthaste to seek the
was later overturned when
assistance of his political party, the
[the RTC] decided with
finality that [he] lost in the Nationalist Peoples Coalition, which
May 1998 elections. (Words immediately nominated his older
in bracket and emphasis in
the original). brother, Rommel Ong (Rommel), as
substitute candidate. At about 5:05 p.m.
Undaunted, Alegre filed a timely motion of the very same day - which is past the
for reconsideration, contending, in the deadline for filing a certificate of
main, that there was a misapplication of candidacy, Rommel filed his own
the three-term rule, as applied in the certificate of candidacy for the position of
cited cases of Borja vs. mayor, as substitute candidate for his
brother Francis.
 The
undersigned ADOPTS the
The following undisputed events
recommendation of Atty.
then transpired: Alioden D. Dalaig [Director
IV, Law Department],
1. On May 9, 2004, or a day before which he quote your
the May 10 elections, Alegre filed stand, "that substitution is
a Petition to Deny Due Course to or not proper if the certificate
Cancel Certificate of Rommel Ong. of the substituted
candidacy is denied due
2. Atty. Evillo C. Pormento, course. In the Resolution of
counsel for the Ong brothers, addressed the Commission En banc,
a letter[7] to Provincial Election the Certificate of candidacy
Supervisor (PES) of Camarines Norte Liza of Francis Ong was denied
Z. Cario and Acting Election Officer Emily due course," and
G. Basilonia in which he appealed that, elaborated further that:
owing to the COMELECs inaction on
Alegre's petition to cancel Rommels "x x x
certificate of candidacy, the there is an
name Rommel Ong be included in the existing
official certified list of candidates for policy of the
mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte. Commission
The desired listing was granted by the not to include
PES Carino. the name of a
substitute
3. On May 10, 2004, Alegre candidate in
wrote[8] to then COMELEC Commissioner the certified
Virgilio Garcillano, Commissioner-in- list of
Charge for Regions IV and V, seeking candidates
clarification on the legality of the action unless the
thus taken by the PES Cario. Responding, substitution
Commissioner Garcillano issued a is approved
Memorandum under date May 10, by the
2004[9] addressed to PES Liza D. Zabala- Commission.
Cario, ordering her to implement the
resolution of the COMELEC en banc in In
SPA No. 04-048 promulgated on May 7, view, thereof,
2004.[10] Said Memorandum partly it is
stated: recommende
d that 1) the
substitute
 certificate of faithfully implement the
candidacy of said Resolution of the
Rommel Ong Commission En Banc in SPA
Gan Ong, No. 04-048 promulgated on
should be May 7, 2004. (Emphasis in
denied due the original; words in
course; and bracket added].
2) the
election
officer be 4. Owing to the aforementioned
directed to Garcillano Memorandum, it would seem
delete his that the Chairman of the Municipal Board
name from of Canvasser of San Vicente issued an
the list of order enjoining all concerned not to
candidates." canvass the votes cast for Rommel,
prompting the latter to file a protest with
The above position that Board.[11]
of the Commission was in
line with the 5. On May 11, 2004, the Municipal
pronouncement of Board of Canvassers proclaimed Alegre
Supreme Court in Miranda as the winning candidate for the
vs. Abaya (311 SCRA 617) mayoralty post in San Vicente, Camarines
which states: Norte.[12]

"There
can no valid
On May 12, 2004, Francis filed
substitution
where a before the Court a petition for certiorari,
candidate is presently docketed as G.R. No.
excluded not
163295. His brother Rommels petition
only by
disqualificatio in G.R. No. 163354 followed barely a
n but also by week after.
denial and
cancellation
In our en banc resolution dated
of his
certificate of June 1, 2004, G.R. No.
candidacy." 163295 and G.R. No. 163354 were
consolidated.[13]
In view thereof, you
are hereby directed to
 Meanwhile, on June 4, 2004, the A resolution of the issues thus formulated
COMELEC issued an order dismissing hinges on the question of whether or not
private respondent Alegres Petition to petitioner Franciss assumption of office
Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate as Mayor of San Vicente, Camarines
of Candidacy of Rommel Ong, for being Norte for the mayoralty term 1998 to
moot and academic.[14] 2001 should be considered as full service
for the purpose of the three-term limit
The issues for resolution of the rule.
Court are:
Respondent COMELEC resolved
In G.R. No. 163295, whether the the question in the affirmative. Petitioner
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of Francis, on the other hand, disagrees. He
discretion amounting to lack or excess of argues that, while he indeed assumed
jurisdiction in issuing its en office and discharged the duties as Mayor
banc resolution dated May 7, 2004 of San Vicente for three consecutive
declaring petitioner Francis as terms, his proclamation as mayor-elect in
disqualified to run for Mayor of San the May 1998 election was contested and
Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 10, eventually nullified per the decision of the
2004 elections and consequently RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte dated July
ordering the deletion of his name from 4, 2001. Pressing the point, petitioner
the official list of candidates so that any argues, citing Lonzanida vs.
vote cast in his favor shall be considered Comelec[15], that a proclamation
stray. subsequently declared void is no
proclamation at all and one assuming
In G.R. No. 163354, whether the
office on the strength of a protested
COMELEC committed grave abuse of
proclamation does so as a presumptive
discretion when it denied due course to
winner and subject to the final outcome
Rommels certificate of candidacy in the
of the election protest.
same mayoralty election as substitute for
his brother Francis.
 the elective official
The three-term limit rule for elective local
concerned was elected.
officials is found in Section 8, Article X of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
For the three-term limit for elective local
Sec. 8. The term of office of
elective local officials, government officials to apply, two
except barangay officials, conditions or requisites must concur, to
which shall be determined
wit: (1) that the official concerned has
by law, shall be three years
and no such official shall been elected for three (3) consecutive
serve for more than three terms in the same local government post,
consecutive terms.
and (2) that he has fully served three (3)
Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of consecutive terms.[16]
time shall not be
considered as an With the view we take of the case, the
interruption in the
disqualifying requisites are present
continuity of his service for
the full term for which he herein, thus effectively barring petitioner
was elected. Francis from running for mayor of San
Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 10,
2004 elections. There can be no dispute
Section 43 (b) of the Local Government
about petitioner Francis Ong having been
Code restates the same rule as follows:
duly elected mayor of that municipality in
Sec. 43. Term of Office. the May 1995 and again in the May 2001
elections and serving the July 1, 1995-
xxx xxx xxx
June 30, 1998 and the July 1, 2001-June
(b) No local elective official 30, 2004 terms in full. The herein
shall serve for more than
controversy revolves around the 1998-
three consecutive years in
the same position. 2001 mayoral term, albeit there can also
Voluntary renunciation of be no quibbling that Francis ran for
the office for any length of
mayor of the same municipality in the
time shall not be
considered an interruption May 1998 elections and actually served
in the continuity of service the 1998-2001 mayoral term by virtue of
for the full term for which
a proclamation initially declaring him
mayor-elect of the municipality of San only a presumptive winner in the 1998
Vicente. The question that begs to be mayoralty derby as his proclamation was
addressed, therefore, is whether or under protest did not make him less than
not Franciss assumption of office as a duly elected mayor. His proclamation
Mayor of San Vicente, Camarines by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Norte from July 1, 1998 to June 30, San Vicente as the duly elected mayor in
2001, may be considered as one full the 1998 mayoralty election coupled by
term service in the context of the his assumption of office and his
consecutive three-term limit rule. continuous exercise of the functions
thereof from start to finish of the term,
We hold that such assumption of office should legally be taken as service for a
constitutes, for Francis, service for the full term in contemplation of the three-
full term, and should be counted as a full term rule.
term served in contemplation of the
three-term limit prescribed by the The absurdity and the deleterious effect
constitutional and statutory of a contrary view is not hard to discern.
provisions, supra, barring local elective Such contrary view would mean that
officials from being elected and serving Alegre would under the three-term rule -
for more than three consecutive term for be considered as having served a term by
the same position. virtue of a veritably meaningless electoral
It is true that the RTC-Daet, Camarines protest ruling, when another actually
Norte ruled in Election Protest Case No. served such term pursuant to a
6850,[17] that it was Francis opponent proclamation made in due course after an
(Alegre) who won in the 1998 mayoralty election.
race and, therefore, was the legally
elected mayor of San Vicente. However,
Petitioner cites, but, to our mind,
that disposition, it must be stressed, was
cannot seek refuge from the Courts
without practical and legal use and value,
ruling in, Lonzanida vs.
having been promulgated after the term
Comelec,[18] citing Borja vs.
of the contested office has expired.
Comelec[19]. In Lonzanida, petitioner
Petitioner Francis contention that he was
Lonzanida was elected and served for 1998 term because he was ordered to
two consecutive terms as mayor of San vacate [and in fact vacated] his post
Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 8, before the expiration of the term.
1995 elections. He then ran again for the
The difference between the case
same position in the May 1995 elections,
at bench and Lonzanida is at once
won and discharged his duties as Mayor.
apparent. For one, in Lonzanida, the
However, his opponent contested his
result of the mayoralty election was
proclamation and filed an election protest
declared a nullity for the stated reason
before the RTC of Zambales, which, in a
of failure of election, and, as a
decision dated January 9, 1997, ruled
consequence thereof, the proclamation
that there was a failure of elections and
of Lonzanida as mayor-elect was
declared the position vacant. The
nullified, followed by an order for him to
COMELEC affirmed this ruling and
vacate the office of mayor. For another,
petitioner Lonzanida acceded to the
Lonzanida did not fully serve the 1995-
order to vacate the post. Lonzanida
1998 mayoral term, there being an
assumed the office and performed his
involuntary severance from office as a
duties up to March 1998 only. Now,
result of legal processes. In fine, there
during the May 1998 elections, Lonzanida
was an effective interruption of the
again ran for mayor of the same town. A
continuity of service.
petition to disqualify, under the three-
term rule, was filed and was eventually
On the other hand, the failure-of-
granted. There, the Court held that
election factor does not obtain in the
Lonzanida cannot be considered as
present case. But more importantly,
having been duly elected to the post in
here, there was actually no interruption
the May 1995 election, and that he did
or break in the continuity of Francis
not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoralty
service respecting the 1998-2001 term.
term by reason of involuntary
Unlike Lonzanida, Francis was never
relinquishment of office. As the Court
unseated during the term in question; he
pointedly observed, Lonzanida cannot be
never ceased discharging his duties and
deemed to have served the May 1995 to
responsibilities as mayor of San Vicente,
 would have served
Camarines Norte for the entire period
continuously for three
covering the 1998-2001 term. consecutive terms, from
1995 to 2004. His full term
The ascription, therefore, of grave from 1998 to 2001 could
not be simply discounted
abuse of discretion on the part of the on the basis that he was
COMELEC en banc when it disqualified not duly elected thereto on
account of void
Francis from running in the May 10, 2004 proclamation because it
elections for the mayoralty post of San would have iniquitous
effects producing outright
Vicente and denying due course to his injustice and inequality as it
certificate of candidacy by force of the rewards a legally
disqualified and repudiated
constitutional and statutory provisions
loser with a crown of
regarding the three-term limit rule for victory. (Word in bracket
any local elective official cannot be added; emphasis in the
original)
sustained. What the COMELEC en
banc said in its May 7, 2004 assailed
Resolution commends itself for Given the foregoing consideration, the
question of whether or not then
concurrence:
Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano
overstepped his discretion when he
As correctly pointed
out by Petitioner-Movant issued the May 10, 2004 Memorandum,
[Alegre]in applying the ordering the implementation of aforesaid
ruling in May 7, 2004 COMELEC en
the Borja and Lonzanida banc resolution even before its
cases in the instant finality [20] is now of little moment and
petition will be erroneous need not detain us any longer.
because the factual milieu
in those cases is different
from the one obtaining Just as unmeritorious as Francis petition
here. Explicitly, the three- in G.R. No. 163295 is Rommels petition
term limit was not made in G.R. No. 163354 in which he (Rommel)
applicable in the cases challenges the COMELEC's act of not
of Borja and Lonzanida including his name as a substitute
because there was an candidate in the official list of candidates
interruption in the for the May 10, 2004 elections. As it
continuity of service of the were, existing COMELEC
three consecutive terms. policy[21] provides for the non-inclusion
Here, Respondent Ong of the name of substitute candidates in
the certified list of candidates pending substitution for the latter
approval of the substitution. case, much in the same
way that a nuisance
candidate whose certificate
Not to be overlooked is the Courts of candidacy is denied due
holding in Miranda vs. Abaya,[22] that a course and/or cancelled
candidate whose certificate of candidacy may not be substituted. If
has been cancelled or not given due the intent of the lawmakers
were otherwise, they could
course cannot be substituted by another
have so easily and
belonging to the same political party as
conveniently included
that of the former, thus:
those persons whose
certificates of candidacy
While there is no have been denied due
dispute as to whether or course and/or cancelled
not a nominee of a under the provisions of
registered or accredited Section 78 of the Code.
political party may
substitute for a candidate xxx xxx xxx
of the same party who had
been disqualified for any A person without a
cause, this does not include valid certificate of
those cases where the candidacy cannot be
certificate of candidacy of considered a candidate in
the person to be much the same way as any
substituted had been person who has not filed
denied due course and any certificate of candidacy
cancelled under Section 78 at all can not, by any
of the Code. stretch of the imagination,
be a candidate at all.
Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius. While the xxx xxx xxx
law enumerated the
occasions where a After having
candidate may be validly considered the importance
substituted, there is no of a certificate of
mention of the case where candidacy, it can be readily
a candidate is excluded not understood why in Bautista
only by disqualification but [Bautista vs. Comelec, G.R.
also by denial and No. 133840, November 13,
cancellation of his 1998] we ruled that a
certificate of candidacy. person with a cancelled
Under the foregoing rule, certificate is no candidate
there can be no valid at all. Applying this
 principle to the case at bar vs.
and considering that COMELEC and MARINO "BOKING"
Section 77 of the Code is MORALES, Respondents.
clear and unequivocal that
only an official candidate of x---------------------------------------------x
a registered or accredited
party may be substituted, G.R. No. 170577 May 9, 2007
there demonstrably cannot
be any possible substitution ANTHONY D. DEE, Petitioner,
of a person whose vs.
certificate of candidacy has COMELEC and MARINO "BOKING"
been cancelled and denied MORALES, Respondents.
due course.
DECISION

In any event, with the hard reality that SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

the May 10, 2004 elections were
already pass, Rommel Ongs petition in For our resolution are two consolidated
G.R. No. 163354 is already moot and petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of
academic. the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, assailing the Resolutions dated
March 14, 2005 and November 8, 2005
of the COMELEC En Banc.
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions
are DISMISSED and the assailed en G.R. No. 167591
banc Resolution dated May 7, 2004 of the
COMELEC, in SPA No. 04- ATTY. VENANCIO Q. RIVERA III and
048 AFFIRMED. ATTY. NORMANDICK DE GUZMAN v.
COMELEC and MARINO "BOKING"
MORALES
Costs against petitioners.
In the May 2004 Synchronized National
and Local Elections, respondent Marino
SO ORDERED. "Boking" Morales ran as candidate for
mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for the
term commencing July 1, 2004 to June
30, 2007. Prior thereto or on January 5,
2004, he filed his Certificate of
Candidacy.
G.R. No. 167591 May 9, 2007
On January 10, 2004, Attys. Venancio Q.
ATTY. VENANCIO Q. RIVERA III and Rivera and Normandick De Guzman,
ATTY. NORMANDICK DE petitioners, filed with the Second Division
GUZMAN, Petitioners, of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) a petition to cancel
respondent Morales’ Certificate of cancelled. On May 7, 2004, he filed with
Candidacy on the ground that he was the COMELEC En Banc a motion for
elected and had served three previous reconsideration.
consecutive terms as mayor of
Mabalacat. They alleged that his On March 14, 2005, the COMELEC En
candidacy violated Section 8, Article X of Banc issued a Resolution granting
the Constitution and Section 43 (b) of respondent Morales’ motion for
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, also known reconsideration and setting aside that of
as the Local Government Code. the Second Division. The COMELEC En
Banc held that since the Decision in EPC
In his answer to the petition, respondent No. 98-131 of the RTC, Branch 57,
Morales admitted that he was elected Angeles City declared respondent
mayor of Mabalacat for the term Morales’ proclamation void, his discharge
commencing July 1, 1995 to June 30, of the duties in the Office of the Mayor in
1998 (first term) and July 1, 2001 to June Mabalacat is that of a de facto officer or
30, 2004 (third term), but he served the a de facto mayor. Therefore, his
second term from July 1, 1998 to June continuous service for three consecutive
30, 2001 only as a "caretaker of the terms has been severed.
office" or as a "de facto officer" because
of the following reasons: Hence, this petition for certiorari.

a. He was not validly elected for G.R. No. 170577

the second term 1998 to 2001
since his proclamation as mayor ANTHONY DEE v. COMMISSION ON
was declared void by the Regional ELECTIONS and MARIO "BOKING"
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, MORALES
Angeles City in its Decision dated
April 2, 2001 in Election Protest On May 24, 2004, after respondent
Case (EPC) No. 98-131. The Morales was proclaimed the duly elected
Decision became final and mayor of Mabalacat for the term
executory on August 6, 2001; and commencing July 1, 2004 to June 30,
2007, petitioner Anthony Dee, also a
b. He was preventively suspended candidate for mayor, filed with the RTC,
by the Ombudsman in an anti- Branch 61, Angeles City a petition for quo
graft case from January 16, 1999 warranto against the said respondent.
to July 15, 1999. Petitioner alleged that respondent
Morales, having served as mayor for
On May 6, 2004, the COMELEC Second three consecutive terms, is ineligible to
Division rendered its Resolution finding run for another term or fourth term. The
respondent Morales disqualified to run case was docketed as Civil Case No.
for the position of municipal mayor on 11503.
the ground that he had already served
three (3) consecutive terms. Accordingly, In his answer, respondent Morales raised
his Certificate of Candidacy was the following defenses:
 a. He was not validly elected for Petitioner Dee interposed an appeal to
the term 1998 to 2001 since the the COMELEC First Division, alleging that
RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City respondent Morales violated the three-
declared in its Decision that his term limit rule when he ran for re-election
proclamation as mayor of (fourth time) as mayor in the 2004
Mabalacat was void. Petitioner elections. Consequently, his proclamation
Dee was then proclaimed the duly as such should be set aside. In a
elected mayor; and Resolution dated July 29, 2005 the
COMELEC First Division issued a
b. He was preventively suspended Resolution dismissing the appeal. It held
for six months by the that respondent Morales cannot be
Ombudsman, during the same deemed to have served as mayor of
term in an anti-graft case, an Mabalacat during the term 1998 to 2001
interruption in the continuity of his because his proclamation was declared
service as municipal mayor of void by the RTC, Branch 57 of Angeles
Mabalacat.1 City. He only served as a caretaker, thus,
his service during that term should not be
In its Decision dated November 22, 2004, counted.
the RTC dismissed petitioner Dee’s
petition for quo warranto on the ground On August 12, 2005, petitioner Dee filed
that respondent Morales did not serve with the COMELEC En Banc a motion for
the three-term limit since he was not the reconsideration. In a Resolution dated
duly elected mayor of Mabalacat, but November 8, 2005, the COMELEC En
petitioner Dee in the May 1998 elections Banc affirmed the questioned Resolution
for the term 1998 to 2001, thus: of the Second Division.

Respondent, Marino Morales, was not the Hence, petitioner Dee’s instant petition
duly elected mayor of Mabalacat, for certiorari.
Pampanga in the May 1998 elections for
the term 1998 to 2001 because although Both cases may be decided based on the
he was proclaimed as the elected mayor same facts and issues.
of Mabalacat, Pampanga by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers, had assumed office It is undisputed that respondent Morales
and discharged the duties of mayor, his was elected to the position of mayor of
close rival, the herein petitioner, Anthony Mabalacat for the following consecutive
D. Dee, was declared the duly elected terms:
Mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga in the
Decision promulgated on April 2, 2001 in a) July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998
Election Protest EPC No. 98-131 filed by
Anthony Dee against herein respondent, b) July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001
Marino Morales, and decided by RTC, Br.
57, Angeles City. x x x. c) July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004

d) July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007

THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE. – should be considered as full service for
the purpose of the three-term limit rule.
Respondent Morales argued and the
Comelec held that the July 1, 2003 to Respondent COMELEC resolved the
June 30, 2007 term is not his fourth question in the affirmative. Petitioner
because his second term, July 1, 1998 to Francis, on the other hand, disagrees. He
June 30, 2001 to which he was elected argues that, while he indeed assumed
and which he served, may not be office and discharged the duties as Mayor
counted since his proclamation was of San Vicente for three consecutive
declared void by the RTC, Branch 57 of terms, his proclamation as mayor-elected
Angeles City. in the May 1998 election was contested
and eventually nullified per the Decision
Respondent Morales is wrong. This of the RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte
Court, through Mr. Justice Cancio C. dated July 4, 2001. Pressing the point,
Garcia, resolved the same issue in Ong v. petitioner argues, citing Lonzanida v.
Alegre2 with identical facts, thus: Comelec, that a proclamation
subsequently declared void is no
To digress a bit, the May 1998 elections proclamation at all and one assuming
saw both Alegre and Francis opposing office on the strength of a protested
each other for the office of mayor of San proclamation does so as a presumptive
Vicente, Camarines Norte, with the latter winner and subject to the final outcome
being subsequently proclaimed by the of the election protest.
COMELEC winner in the contest. Alegre
subsequently filed an election protest, xxx
docketed as Election Case No. 6850
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at For the three-term limit for elective local
Daet, Camarines Norte. In it, the RTC government officials to apply, two
declared Alegre as the duly elected conditions or requisites must concur, to
mayor in that 1998 mayoralty contest, wit: (1) that the official concerned has
albeit the decision came out only on July been elected for three (3) consecutive
4, 2001, when Francis had fully served terms in the same local government post,
the 1998-2001 mayoralty term and was and (2) that he has fully served three (3)
in fact already starting to serve the 2001- consecutive terms.
2004 term as mayor-elected for the
municipality of San Vicente. With the view we take of the case, the
disqualifying requisites are present
xxx herein, thus effectively barring petitioner
Francis from running for mayor of San
A resolution of the issues thus formulated Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 10,
hinges on the question of whether or not 2004 elections. There can be no dispute
petitioner Francis’ assumption of office as about petitioner Francis Ong having been
mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte duly elected mayor of that municipality in
for the mayoralty term 1998 to 2001 the May 1995 and again in the May 2001
elections and serving the July 1, 1995-
June 30, 1998 and the July 1, 2001-June make him less than a duly elected mayor.
30, 2004 terms in full. The herein His proclamation by the Municipal Board
controversy revolves around the 1998- of Canvassers of San Vicente as the duly
2001 mayoral term, albeit there can also elected mayor in the 1998 mayoralty
be no quibbling that Francis ran for election coupled by his assumption of
mayor of the same municipality in the office and his continuous exercise of the
May 1998 elections and actually served functions thereof from start to finish of
the 1998-2001 mayoral term by virtue of the term, should legally be taken as
a proclamation initially declaring him service for a full term in contemplation of
mayor-elect of the municipality of San the three-term rule.
Vicente. The question that begs to be
addressed, therefore, is whether or not The absurdity and the deleterious effect
Francis’ assumption of office as Mayor of of a contrary view is not hard to discern.
San Vicente, Camarines Norte from July Such contrary view would mean that
1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, may be Alegre would-under the three-term rule-
considered as one full term service in the be considered as having served a term by
context of the consecutive three-term virtue of a veritably meaningless electoral
limit rule. protest ruling, when another actually
served such term pursuant to a
We hold that such assumption of office proclamation made in due course after an
constitutes, for Francis, "service for the election.
full term," and should be counted as a full
term served in contemplation of the Petitioner cites, but, to our mind, cannot
three-term limit prescribed by the seek refuge from the Court’s ruling in
constitutional and statutory provisions, Lonzanida v. Comelec, citing Borja v.
supra, barring local elective officials from Comelec. In Lonzanida, petitioner
being elected and serving for more than Lonzanida was elected and served for
three consecutive terms for the same two consecutive terms as mayor of San
position. Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 8,
1995 elections. He then ran again for the
It is true that the RTC-Daet, Camarines same position in the May 1995 elections,
Norte ruled in Election Protest Case No. won and discharged his duties as Mayor.
6850, that it was Francis’ opponent However, his opponent contested his
(Alegre) who "won" in the 1998 proclamation and filed an election protest
mayoralty race and, therefore, was the before the RTC of Zambales, which, in a
legally elected mayor of San Vicente. decision dated January 8, 1997, ruled
However, that disposition, it must be that there was a failure of
stressed, was without practical and legal elections and declared the position
use and value, having been promulgated vacant. The COMELEC affirmed this
after the term of the contested office has ruling and petitioner Lonzanida acceded
expired. Petitioner Francis’ contention to the order to vacate the post.
that he was only a presumptive winner in Lonzanida assumed the office and
the 1998 mayoralty derby as his performed his duties up to March 1998
proclamation was under protest did not only. Now, during the May 1998
elections, Lonzanida again ran for mayor Camarines Norte for the entire period
of the same town. A petition to disqualify, covering the 1998-2001 term.
under the three-term rule, was filed and
was eventually granted. There, the Court It bears stressing that in Ong v. Alegre
held that Lonzanida cannot be cited above, Francis Ong was elected and
considered as having been duly elected assumed the duties of the mayor of San
to the post in the May 1995 election, and Vicente, Camarines Norte for three
that he did not fully serve the 1995- consecutive terms. But his proclamation
1998 mayoralty term by reason of as mayor in the May 1998 election was
involuntary relinquishment of declared void by the RTC of Daet,
office. As the Court pointedly observed, Camarines Norte in its Decision dated
Lonzanida "cannot be deemed to have July 4, 2001. As ruled by this Court, his
served the May 1995 to 1998 term service for the term 1998 to 2001 is for
because he was ordered to vacate [and the full term. Clearly, the three-term limit
in fact vacated] his post before the rule applies to him. Indeed, there is no
expiration of the term." reason why this ruling should not also
apply to respondent Morales who is
The difference between the case at similarly situated.
bench and Lonzanida is at once apparent.
For one, in Lonzanida, the result of the Here, respondent Morales invoked not
mayoralty elections was declared a nullity only Lonzanida v. COMELEC,3 but also
for the stated reason of "failure of Borja, Jr. v. Commission on
election," and, as a consequence thereof, 4
Elections which is likewise inapplicable.
the proclamation of Lonzanida as mayor- The facts in Borja are:
elect was nullified, followed by an order
for him to vacate the office of the mayor. Private respondent Jose T. Capco was
For another, Lonzanida did not fully serve elected vice-mayor of Pateros on January
the 1995-1998 mayoral term, there being 18, 1998 for a term ending June 30,
an involuntary severance from office as a 1992. On September 2, 1989, he became
result of legal processes. In fine, there mayor, by operation of law, upon the
was an effective interruption of the death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja. On
continuity of service. May 11, 1992, he ran and was elected
mayor for a term of three years which
On the other hand, the failure-of-election ended on June 30, 1995. On May 8, 1995,
factor does not obtain in the present he was reelected mayor for another term
case. But more importantly, here, there of three years ending June 30, 1998.
was actually no interruption or break in
the continuity of Francis’ service On March 27, 1998, private respondent
respecting the 1998-2001 term. Unlike Capco filed a certificate of candidacy for
Lonzanida, Francis was never unseated mayor of Pateros relative to the May 11,
during the term in question; he never 1998 elections, Petitioner Benjamin U.
ceased discharging his duties and Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for
responsibilities as mayor of San Vicente, mayor, sought Capco’s disqualification on
the theory that the latter would have
already served as mayor for three He assumed the position. He served as
consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and mayor until June 30, 2001. He was
would therefore be ineligible to serve for mayor for the entire period
another term after that. notwithstanding the Decision of the RTC
in the electoral protest case filed by
On April 30, 1998, the Second Division of petitioner Dee ousting him (respondent)
the Commission on Elections ruled in as mayor. To reiterate, as held in Ong v.
favor of petitioner and declared private Alegre,6 such circumstance does not
respondent Capco disqualified from constitute an interruption in serving the
running for reelection as mayor of full term.
Pateros. However, on motion of private
respondent, the COMELEC en Section 8, Article X of the Constitution
banc, voting 5-2, reversed the decision can not be more clear and explicit –
and declared Capco eligible to run for
mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. x x The term of the office of elected local
x officials x x x, shall be three years and no
such official shall serve for more than
This Court held that Capco’s assumption three consecutive terms. x x x
of the office of mayor upon the death of
the incumbent may not be regarded as a Upon the other hand, Section 43 (b) of
"term" under Section 8, Article X of the R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government
Constitution and Section 43 (b) of R.A. Code) clearly provides:
No. 7160 (the Local Government Code).
He held the position from September 2, No local official shall serve for more than
1989 to June 30, 1992, a period of less three consecutive terms in the same
than three years. Moreover, he was not position. x x x
elected to that position.
Respondent Morales is now serving his
Similarly, in Adormeo v. COMELEC,5 this fourth term. He has been mayor of
Court ruled that assumption of the office Mabalacat continuously without any
of mayor in a recall election for the break since July 1, 1995. In just over a
remaining term is not the "term" month, by June 30, 2007, he will have
contemplated under Section 8, Article X been mayor of Mabalacat for twelve (12)
of the Constitution and Section 43 (b) of continuous years.
R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government
Code). As the Court observed, there was In Latasa v. Comelec,7 the Court
a "break" in the service of private explained the reason for the maximum
respondent Ramon T. Talanga as mayor. term limit, thus:
He was a "private citizen" for a time
before running for mayor in the recall The framers of the Constitution, by
elections. including this exception, wanted to
establish some safeguards against the
Here, respondent Morales was elected for excessive accumulation of power as a
the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. result of consecutive terms. As
Commissioner Blas Ople stated during served for three consecutive terms as
the deliberations: municipal mayor would obviously defeat
the very intent of the framers when they
x x x I think we want to prevent future wrote this exception. Should he be
situations where, as a result of allowed another three consecutive term
continuous service and frequent re- as mayor of the City of Digos, petitioner
elections, officials from the President would then be possibly holding office as
down to the municipal mayor tend to chief executive over the same territorial
develop a proprietary interest in their jurisdiction and inhabitants for a total of
positions and to accumulate these eighteen consecutive years. This is the
powers and prerequisites that permit very scenario sought to be avoided by the
them to stay on indefinitely or to transfer Constitution, if not abhorred by it.
these posts to members of their families
in a subsequent election. x x x This is the very situation in the instant
case. Respondent Morales maintains that
xxx he served his second term (1998 to
2001) only as a "caretaker of the office"
It is evident that in the abovementioned or as a "de facto officer." Section 8,
cases, there exists a rest period or a Article X of the Constitution is violated
break in the service of local elective and its purpose defeated when an official
official. In Lonzanida, petitioner therein serves in the same position for three
was a private citizen a few months before consecutive terms. Whether as
the next mayoral elections. Similarly, in "caretaker" or "de facto" officer, he
Adormeo and Socrates, the private exercises the powers and enjoys the
respondents therein lived as private prerequisites of the office which enables
citizens for two years and fifteen months him "to stay on indefinitely".
respectively. Indeed, the law
contemplates a rest period during which Respondent Morales should be promptly
the local elective official steps down from ousted from the position of mayor of
office and ceases to exercise power or Mabalacat.
authority over the inhabitants of the
territorial jurisdiction of a particular local G.R. No. 167591 –
government unit.
Having found respondent Morales
This Court reiterates that the framers of ineligible, his Certificate of Candidacy
the Constitution specifically included an dated December 30, 2003 should be
exception to the people’s freedom to cancelled. The effect of the cancellation
choose those who will govern them in of a Certificate of Candidacy is provided
order to avoid the evil of a single person under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 6646,
accumulating excessive power over a thus:
particular territorial jurisdiction as a
result of a prolonged stay in the same SECTION 6. Effect of Disqualification
office. To allow petitioner Latasa to vie Case. – Any candidate who has been
for the position of city mayor after having declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall not be voted for, and considered as a stray vote but it shall not
the votes cast for him shall not be invalidate the whole ballot.
counted. If for any reason a candidate is
not declared by final judgment before an xxx
election to be disqualified and he is voted
for and receives the winning number of In the light of the foregoing, respondent
votes in such election, the Court or Morales can not be considered a
Commission shall continue with the trial candidate in the May 2004 elections. Not
and hearing of the action, inquiry, or being a candidate, the votes cast for
protest and, upon motion of the him SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED and
complainant or any intervenor, may must be considered stray votes.
during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such G.R. No. 170577 –
candidate whenever the evidence of guilt
is strong. Since respondent Morales
is DISQUALIFIED from continuing to
SECTION 7. Petition to Deny Due Course serve as mayor of Mabalacat, the instant
To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. – petition for quo warranto has become
The procedure hereinabove provided moot.
shall apply to petitions to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of Going back to G.R. No. 167591, the
candidacy as provided in Section 78 of question now is whether it is the vice-
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. mayor or petitioner Dee who shall serve
for the remaining portion of the 2004 to
in relation to Section 211 of the Omnibus 2007 term.
Election Code, which provides:
In Labo v. Comelec,8 this Court has ruled
SEC. 211. Rules for the appreciation of that a second place candidate cannot be
ballots. – In the reading and appreciation proclaimed as a substitute winner, thus:
of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed
to be valid unless there is clear and good The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of
reason to justify its rejection. The board a candidate receiving majority votes does
of election inspectors shall observe the not entitle the eligible candidate
following rules, bearing in mind that the receiving the next highest number of
object of the election is to obtain the votes to be declared elected. A minority
expression of the voter’s will: or defeated candidate cannot be deemed
elected to the office.
xxx
xxx
19. Any vote in favor of a person who has
not filed a certificate of candidacy or in It is therefore incorrect to argue that
favor of a candidate for an office for since a candidate has been disqualified,
which he did not present himself shall be the votes intended for the disqualified
candidate should, in effect, be
considered null and void. This would
amount to disenfranchising the WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No.
electorate in whom sovereignty resides. 167591 is GRANTED. Respondent
At the risk of being repetitious, the Morales’ Certificate of Candidacy dated
people of Baguio City opted to elect December 30, 2003 is cancelled. In view
petitioner Labo bona fide, without any of the vacancy in the Office of the Mayor
intention to misapply their franchise, and in Mabalacat, Pampanga, the vice-mayor
in the honest belief that Labo was then elect of the said municipality in the May
qualified to be the person to whom they 10, 2004 Synchronized National and
would entrust the exercise of the powers Local Elections is hereby declared mayor
of the government. Unfortunately, and shall serve as such for the remaining
petitioner Labo turned out to be duration of the term July 1, 2004 to June
disqualified and cannot assume the 30, 2007. The petition in G.R. No. 170577
office. is DISMISSED for being moot.

Whether or not the candidate whom the This Decision is immediately executory.
majority voted for can or cannot be
installed, under no circumstances can SO ORDERED.
minority or defeated candidate be
deemed elected to the office. Surely, the
12,602 votes cast for petitioner Ortega is
not a larger number than the 27,471
votes cast for petitioner Labo (as certified
by the Election Registrar of Baguio City;
rollo, p. 109; GR No. 105111).
CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST G.R.
xxx No. 172103
CORRUPTION (CIBAC),
As a consequence of petitioner’s Petitioner, Present:
ineligibility, a permanent vacancy in the P
contested office has occurred. This U
should now be filled by the vice-mayor in N
accordance with Section 44 of the Local O
Government Code, to wit: ,

Sec. 44. Permanent vacancies in the C

Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, .
Mayor and Vice-Mayor. – (a) If a J
permanent vacancy occurs in the office .
of the governor or mayor, the vice- ,
governor or the vice-mayor concerned QUISUMBING,
shall become the governor or mayor. x x YNARES-SANTIAGO,
x SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA, NBC 04-004[3] promulgated on June 2,
CARPIO MORALES,
2004, which proclaimed petitioner CIBAC
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA, as one of those which qualified to occupy
TINGA, a seat in Congress having received the
CHICO-NAZARIO, required two percent (2%) of the total
COMMISSION ON
votes cast for the party-list
ELECTIONS GARCIA,
(COMELEC), represented representatives. Based on Party-List
by VELASCO, JR., and Canvass Report No. 19,[4]CIBAC received
CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN NACHURA, JJ. a total number of 493,546 votes out of
ABALOS, SR.,
the 12,627,852 votes cast for all the
Respondent. Promulgated:
April 13, 2007 party-list participants, which, by applying
x------------------------------------------------ the formula adopted by the Supreme
-----------------------------------------x Court in Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC,[5] resulted in a percentage of
DECISION
3.9084.[6] In the computation for
additional seats for the parties, the
VELASCO, JR., J.:
COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of
The Case
one additional seat per additional 2%,
thereby foreclosing the chances of CIBAC
Before us is a Petition for
to gain an additional seat under the
Certiorari[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of
party-list system for having received less
Court assailing the March 7, 2006
than what was prescribed by the poll
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
body.[7]
Resolution No. 06-0248,[2] which
rejected the Motion for Proclamation of
On June 22, 2004, petitioner CIBAC,
the Second Nominees of Citizens Battle
together with Luzon Farmers Party
Against Corruption (CIBAC), et al. under
(BUTIL) and Partido ng Manggagawa
the party-list system in connection with
(PM), filed a Joint Motion for Immediate
the May 2004 National and Local
Proclamation[8] entreating the
Elections.
COMELEC en banc to recognize their
entitlement to an additional seat and that
The Facts
their second nominees be immediately
proclaimed. They based their claim
The COMELEC, sitting en banc as the
on Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party
National Board of Canvassers for the
v. COMELEC (Ang Bagong
Party-List System, issued Resolution No.
Bayaniand Bayan Muna), applying the the [sic] 08 May
2004, the
following Veterans formula:
Commission en banc
promulgated
Resolution No. 6835
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for
(Annex A) the
Qualified Party x Allotted Seats
resolutory portion of
Votes Cast for First Party for First Party[9]
which
On March 7, 2006, the COMELEC en reads RESOLVES, to
banc issued the challenged Resolution adopt the simplified
No. 06-0248 contained in the Excerpt formula of one
additional seat per
from the Minutes of the Regular En
additional two
Banc Meeting of the COMELEC,[10] which percent (underscori
adopted the March 6, 2006 Memorandum ng supplied) of the
of the Supervisory Committee relative to total party-list votes
in the proclamation of
the Urgent Motion to Resolve the Motion
the party-list winners
for Proclamation of the Second Nominees in the coming 10 May
of CIBAC, BUTIL, and PM party-lists, in 2004 National and
connection with the May 2004 elections Local Elections.
for party-list representatives. The The Party List
Canvass Report No.
pertinent portion reads: 22 of the National
Board of Canvassers,
On 01 May (Annex B) shows that
2004, Commissioner CIBAC, BUTIL and PM
Mehol K. Sadain, then have the following
CIC on Party-List percentage of total
Concerns, acting on votes garnered:
queries from several CIBAC - 3.8638
party-list candidates BUTIL - 3.3479
regarding the formula PM - 3.4947
to be used by the Following the
Commission in simplified formula of
determining the the Commission, after
additional seats for the first 2% is
party list winners in deducted from the
the 10 May percentage of votes
2004 elections, of the above-named
issued a party-lists, they are
memorandum on the no longer entitled to
matter to the an additional seat. It
Commission en- is worth mentioning
banc. As a result, on
 that the Commission, OF ONE ADDITIONAL SEAT
consistent with its PER ADDITIONAL TWO
formula, denied the PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
petition for a seat of PARTY-LIST VOTES IN THE
ABA-AKO and ANAD PROCLAMATION OF THE
after garnering a PARTY-LIST WINNERS IN
percentage of votes THE MAY 10, 2004
of 1.9900 and 1.9099 NATIONAL AND LOCAL
respectively. ELECTION, THUS,
For consideration. ADJUDGING THE
PETITIONER HEREIN AS
Considering the foregoing, ENTITLED ONLY TO ONE
the (1) SEAT, ACTED WITH
Commission RESOLVED, GRAVE ABUSE OF
as it hereby RESOLVES, DISCRETION AMOUNTING
to adopt the TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
recommendation of the JURISDICTION.
Supervisory Committee
to deny the foregoing
B.
Motion of CIBAC, BUTIL
WHETHER OR NOT
and PM party-lists for
PETITIONER CIBAC, AND
proclamation of second
OTHER PARTY-LIST
nominees, following the
GROUPS SIMILARLY
simplified formula of the
SITUATED, ARE ENTITLED
Commission on the matter
TO ONE (1) ADDITIONAL
per Comelec Resolution No.
SEAT BASED ON THE
6835 promulgated 08 May
FORMULA CRAFTED BY
2004.
THE SUPREME COURT IN
THE CASES OF ANG
BAGONG
BAYANI AND BAYAN
MUNA.[12]
The Issues

In gist, the core issue is whether

Undeterred, CIBAC filed the
or not the COMELEC gravely abused its
instant Petition for Certiorari[11] before
discretion when it denied petitioner
this Court, raising two issues, viz:
CIBAC an additional seat in the House of
Representatives under the party-list
A.
system by using the simplified formula
WHETHER OR NOT THE
COMMISSION ON instead of the claimed Ang Bagong
ELECTIONS, IN ADOPTING Bayani and Bayan Muna formula.
THE SIMPLIFIED FORMULA
 The Courts Ruling
Petitioner CIBAC asseverates that
the COMELEC committed a serious Entitlement to an additional seat
departure from settled jurisprudence
amounting to grave abuse of discretion In deciding the controversy at hand, a
when it mistakenly relied on the second look at the enabling law, Republic
simplified formula as the basis for its Act No. (R.A.) 7941, An Act Providing for
resolution. Moreover, it stressed that the the Election of Party-List Representatives
COMELEC simplified formula runs counter through the Party-List System, and
to the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Appropriating Funds Therefor, is in
Muna formula which used the number of order. The objective of the law was made
allotted seats for the first party as clear in Section 2, thus:
multiplier. If the Ang Bagong Declaration of
Policy.The State shall
Bayani and Bayan Muna formula were
promote proportional
applied, CIBAC would be entitled to one representation in the
additional seat, thus: election of representatives
Additional to the House of
seats = 495,193 x 3 = 1.2345 Representatives through a
1,203,305 party-list system of
registered national,
Lastly, petitioner faults the regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or
COMELEC for its failure to act on and so
coalitions thereof, which
dismiss the petitions for disqualification will enable Filipino citizens
filed by the other party-list groups which belonging to the
could have enabled the COMELEC to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors,
make an accurate determination of the
organizations and parties,
votes that each party-list group has and who lack well-defined
actually obtained. It therefore asks the political constituencies but
Court to set aside the assailed COMELEC who could contribute to the
Resolution No. 06-0248; and direct the formulation and enactment
of appropriate legislation
COMELEC to declare CIBAC as entitled to that will benefit the nation
one (1) additional seat and to as a whole, to become
immediately proclaim Ma. Blanca Kim members of the House of
Bernardo-Lokin, its second nominee, as Representatives. Towards
this end, the State shall
member of the House of Representatives. develop and guarantee a
full, free and open party
 system in order to attain
the broadest possible First, the twenty percent
representation of party, allocationthe combined
sectoral or group interests number of all party-list
in the House of congressmen shall not
Representatives by exceed twenty percent of
enhancing their chances to the total membership of
compete for and win seats the House of
in the legislature, and shall Representatives, including
provide the simplest those elected under the
scheme possible. party list.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Second, the two percent
In determining the number of seats a thresholdonly those parties
party-list is entitled to, Sec. 11 prescribes garnering a minimum of
two percent of the total
that:
valid votes cast for the
The parties, organizations,
party-list system are
and coalitions receiving at
qualified to have a seat in
least two percent (2%) of
the House of
the total votes cast for the
Representatives.
party-list system shall be
entitled to one seat
Third, the three-seat
each: provided, that those
limiteach qualified party,
garnering more than two
regardless of the number of
percent (2%) of the votes
votes it actually obtained, is
shall be entitled to
entitled to a maximum of
additional seats
three seats; that is, one
in proportion to their
qualifying and two
total number of
additional seats.
votes: provided, finally,
that each party,
Fourth, proportional
organization, or coalition
representationthe
shall be entitled to not
additional seats which a
more than three (3) seats
qualified party is entitled to
(emphasis supplied).
shall be computed in
proportion to their total
The Court, in the leading case number of
of Veterans, listed the four (4) inviolable votes. [13] (Emphasis
supplied.)
parameters to determine the winners in
a Philippine-style party-list election
In determining the number of additional
mandated by the Constitution and R.A.
seats for each party-list that has met the
7941, as follows:
2% threshold, proportional for to
total
representation is the touchstone to
votes
ascertain entitlement to extra seats. for
party-
The correct formula in list
syste
ascertaining the entitlement to additional
m part
seats of the first party and other qualified y-list
party-list groups was clearly explicated syste
in Veterans: m
If the proportion of
[H]ow do we votes received by the first
determine the number of party without rounding it
seats the first party is off is equal to at least six
entitled to? The only basis percent of the total valid
given by the law is that a votes cast for all the party
party receiving at least two list groups, then the first
percent of the total votes party shall be entitled to
shall be entitled to one two additional seats or a
seat. Proportionally, if the total of three seats
first party were to receive overall. If the proportion of
twice the number of votes votes without a rounding
of the second party, it off is equal to or greater
should be entitled to twice than four percent, but less
the latters number of seats than six percent, then the
and so on. The formula, first party shall have one
therefore, for computing additional or a total of two
the number of seats to seats. And if the proportion
which the first party is is less than four percent,
entitled is as follows: then the first party shall not
be entitled to any
Number of additional seat.
votes
of first We adopted the six
party percent bench mark,
Propor because the first party is
tion of not always entitled to the
votes maximum number of
= of additional seats. Likewise,
first party it would prevent the
relative allotment of more than the
Total total number of available
votes seats, such as in an
extreme case wherein 18 or The above formula
more parties tie for the does not give an exact
highest rank and are thus mathematical
entitled to three seats representation of the
each. In such scenario, the number of additional seats
number of seats to which to be awarded since, in
all the parties are entitled order to be entitled to
may exceed the maximum one additional seat, an
number of party-list seats exact whole number is
reserved in the House of necessary. In fact, most
Representatives. of the actual mathematical
proportions are not whole
xxxx numbers and are not
rounded off for the reasons
Formula for Additional explained earlier. To
Seats of Other Qualified repeat, rounding off may
Parties result in the awarding of a
number of seats in excess
The next step is to solve for of that provided by the
the number of additional law. Furthermore,
seats that the other obtaining absolute
qualified parties are proportional representation
entitled to, based on is restricted by the three-
proportional seat-per-party limit to a
representation. x x x maximum of
xxxx two additional slots. An
In simplified increase in the maximum
form, it is number of additional
written as representatives a party
follows: may be entitled to would
result in a more accurate
Additional seats No. of proportional
votes of representation. But the law
for concerned = concerned itself has set the limit: only
party No. of additional two additional
party x seats allocated seats. Hence, we need to
to work within such extant
No. of votes of the first parameter.[14] (Emphasis
party supplied.)
first party (Emphasis
supplied.) On June 25, 2003, the formula was put
xxxx
to test in Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan
Muna. In determining the additional
seats for the other qualified dissimilarity in the multiplier used spells
partiesBUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, out a big difference in the outcome of the
PM, SANLAKAS, and ABANSE! PINAYthe equation. This divergence on the
following computation was made: multiplier was pointed out and stressed
by respondent COMELEC. Nevertheless,
Applying the
petitioner insists that the correct
relevant formula
in Veterans to BUHAY, we multiplier is the ALLOTTED seats for the
arrive at 0.51: first party referring to the three (3) seats
won by Bayan Muna which emerged as
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for
the winning first party, as allegedly
Qualified Party x Allotted Seats
for prescribed in Ang Bagong
Votes Cast for First Bayani and Bayan Muna. On this issue,
Party First Party petitioner ratiocinates this way:
= 290,760 x
3 It cannot be
1,708,253 emphasized enough that
= 0.51 the formula in the Ang
Bagong Bayani and Bayan
Since 0.51 is less Muna cases rendered in
than one, BUHAY is not 2003, effectively modified
entitled to any additional the earlier Veterans
seat.[15] formula, with the clear and
explicit use of the allotted
From a scrutiny of the Veterans and Ang seats for the first party.
Considering that the first
Bagong Bayani and Bayan
party, Bayan Muna, was
Muna formulae in determining the allotted to the maximum
additional seats for party-list three (3) seats under the
representatives, it is readily apparent law, it is therefore clear
that the multiplier to be
that the Veterans formula is materially
used is three (3), the
different from the one used in Ang allotted seats for the first
Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna. party.[16]
In Veterans, the multiplier used was
the [number] of additional However, this postulation is bereft
seats allocated to the first party, while in of merit and basis.
the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan
Muna formula, the multiplier allotted A careful perusal of the four
seats for first party was applied. The corners of Ang Bagong
Bayani and Bayan Muna betrays the multiplier allotted seats for the first
petitioners claim as it did not mention party in Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan
any revision or reshaping of Muna instead of the [number] of
the Veterans formula. As a matter of additional seats allocated to the first
fact, the Court had in mind the party prescribed in
application of the the Veterans formula. It is apparent that
original Veterans formula in Ang the phrase [number] of additional was
Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna. omitted, possibly by inadvertence from
This conclusion is based on the the phrase allotted seats for First Party.
aforequoted formula in Ang Bagong The disparity is material, substantial, and
Bayani and Bayan Muna, as follows: significant since the multiplier [number]
of additional seats allocated to the First
Applying the Party prescribed in the Veterans formula
relevant formula
pertains to a multiplier of two (2) seats,
in Veterans to BUHAY, we
arrive at 0.51: while the multiplier allotted seats for the
first party in Ang Bagong
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for Bayani and Bayan Muna formula can
Qualified Party x Allotted Seats
mean a multiplier of maximum three (3)
for
Votes Cast for First seats, since the first party can garner a
Party First Party maximum of three (3) seats.
= 290,760 x
3
Moreover, footnote 37 of Ang
1,708,253
= 0.51 Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna states
that for a discussion of how to
compute additional nominees for parties
The phrase applying the relevant other than the first, see Veterans x x x. It
formula in Veterans to BUHAY admits of clarifies the confusion created by the
no other conclusion than that the Court imprecise formula expressed in Ang
merely applied the Veterans formula Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna. Thus,
to Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan the Court rules that the claimed Ang
Muna in resolving the additional seats by Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula
the other qualified party-list has not modified
groups. However, it appears that there the Veteransformula. As a matter of fact,
was an inaccurate presentation of there was really no other formula
the Veterans formula as the Court used approved by the Court other than
the Veterans formula in fixing the
number of additional seats for the other x seats allocated
to = Seats for
qualified party-list groups. Also,
No. of votes of the first
in Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, party concerned
the Court found that the confusion in the first party (Emphasis
computation of additional seats for the supplied.) party
other qualified party-list groups arose
[from] the way the Veterans formula was
Applying this formula, the result is as
cited in the June 25, 2003 Resolution of
follows:
the Court in Ang Bagong Bayani. We
reiterated that the prevailing formula for 495,190
the computation of additional seats for x2=
party-list winners is the formula stated in 1,203,305
the landmark case of Veterans x x x.[17]
0.41152493 x 2 = 0.82304986
Applying the Veterans formula in
petitioners case, we reach the conclusion This is a far cry from the claimed Ang
that CIBAC is not entitled to an Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula
additional seat. Party-List Canvass which used the multiplier allotted seats
Report No. 20[18] contained in the for the first party, viz:
petition shows that the first party, Bayan
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for
Muna, garnered the highest number of
Qualified Party x Allotted Seats
votes, that is, a total of 1,203,305 votes. Votes Cast for First Party for First Party
Petitioner CIBAC, on the other hand,
received a total of 495,190 votes. It was Applying the Ang Bagong
proclaimed that the first party, Bayan Bayani and Bayan Muna formula to
Muna, was entitled to a maximum of CIBAC, it yields the following result:
three (3) seats[19] based on June 2, 2004
Resolution No. NBC 04-004 of the Additional
COMELEC. A computation using seats = 495,190 x 3 = 1.2345
the Veterans formula would therefore 1,203,305
lead us to the following result:
Unfortunately, it is the Veterans formula
No. of votes of that is sanctioned by the Court and not
concerned party No. of the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan
additional Additional Muna formula that petitioner alleges.
 Since petitioner CIBAC got a result having already been abandoned, the
of 0.82304986 only, which is less than COMELEC should have used and adhered
one (1), then it did not obtain or reach a to the Veterans formula.
whole number. Petitioner has not
convinced us to deviate from our ruling The Court has consistently
in Veteransthat in order to be entitled to reminded the COMELEC of its function to
one additional seat, an exact whole enforce and administer all laws and
number is necessary. Clearly, petitioner regulations relative to the conduct of an
is not entitled to an additional seat. election. As judicial decisions form part of
the law of the land, the COMELEC cannot
COMELECs application of Ang just ignore or be oblivious to the rulings
Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna is
issued by the Court. Basic is the rule that
incorrect
lower courts and quasi-judicial tribunals
must bow to the decisions and
The Court laments the fact that
resolutions of the highest court of the
the COMELEC insisted in using a
land. The COMELEC is not an exception.
simplified formula when it is fully aware
It cannot do otherwise.
of the ruling in the Veterans case. The
COMELEC explained that it merely based
WHEREFORE, the petition
its judgment on Comelec Resolution No.
is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
6835 which cited Supreme Court
March 7, 2006 COMELEC Resolution No.
Resolution[20] dated 20 November 2003
06-0248 is hereby AFFIRMED only
granting BUHAYs Motion for
insofar as it denied petitioner CIBACs
Reconsideration and entitling it to one
motion for the proclamation of its second
additional seat for having garnered more
nominee to an additional seat under the
than four percent (4%) of the total
2004 party-list elections. The portion
number of votes validly cast for the
of COMELEC Resolution No. 06-0248,
party-list system, thus recognizing once
which adopted and applied the simplified
again the simplified formula. However, in
formula of the Commission on the matter
said Resolution, the Court, in granting
per Comelec Resolution No. 6835
BUHAY an additional seat, meant to apply
promulgated 08 May 2004,
it on that specific case alone, not being a
is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
precedentpro hac vice (for this one
Respondent COMELEC is ORDERED to
particular occasion); thus, this Resolution
strictly apply the Veterans formula in
cannot be applied as a precedent to
determining the entitlement of qualified
future cases. The simplified formula
party-list groups to additional seats in the(BANAT), AHON VELASCO,
PINOY, JR., and
party-list system. No costs.
AGRICULTURAL
NACHURA, JJ.
SECTOR ALLIANCE
SO ORDERED. OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC.
Promulgated:
(AGAP), PUWERSA
NG BAYANING May 4, 2007
ATLETA (PBA),
BANTAY REPUBLIC G.R. No. ALYANSA NG MGA
ACT OR BA-RA 177271 GRUPONG HALIGI
7941, represented NG AGHAM AT
by MR. AMEURFINO TEKNOLOHIYA
E. CINCO, Present: PARA SA
Chairman, AND MAMAMAYAN, INC.
URBAN POOR FOR (AGHAM), BABAE
LEGAL REFORMS PUNO, C.J., PARA SA
(UP-LR), KAUNLARAN
QUISUMBING (BABAE KA),
represented by
, AKSYON
MRS. MYRNA P.
PORCARE, YNARES- SAMBAYANAN
Secretary- SANTIAGO, (AKSA), ALAY SA
General,Petitioners BAYAN NG
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
MALAYANG
,
CARPIO, PROPESYUNAL AT
REPORMANG
*AUSTRIA-
- versus - KALAKAL (ABAY-
MARTINEZ, PARAK), AGBIAG
COMMISSION ON *CORONA, TIMPUYOG
ELECTIONS, ILOCANO, INC.
BIYAHENG PINOY, CARPIO (AGBIAG!), ABANTE
KAPATIRAN NG MORALES, ILONGGO, INC.
MGA NAKAKULONG (ABA ILONGGO),
AZCUNA,
NA WALANG SALA AANGAT TAYO (AT),
(KAKUSA), TINGA, AANGAT ANG
BARANGAY KABUHAYAN
ASSOCIATION FOR CHICO-
NAZARIO, (ANAK), BAGO
NATIONAL NATIONAL
ADVANCEMENT GARCIA, CULTURAL
AND SOCIETY OF THE
TRANSPARENCY PHILIPPINES
(BAGO), ANGAT UNITED
ANTAS- TRANSPORT
KABUHAYAN KOALISYON (1-
PILIPINO UNTAK), ALLIANCE
MOVEMENT FOR BARANGAY
(AANGAT KA CONCERNS (ABC),
PILIPINO), ARTS BIYAYANG BUKID,
BUSINESS AND INC., ALLIANCE
SCIENCE FOR NATIONALISM
PROFESSIONAL AND DEMOCRACY
(ABS), (ANAD), AKBAY
ASSOSASYON NG PINOY OFW-
MGA MALILIIT NA NATIONAL INC.,
NEGOSYANTENG (APOI), ALLIANCE
GUMAGANAP INC. TRANSPORT
(AMANG), SULONG SECTOR (ATS),
BARANGAY KALAHI SECTORAL
MOVEMENT, PARTY
KASOSYO (ADVOCATES FOR
PRODUCERS OVERSEAS
CONSUMER FILIPINO) AND
EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION OF
ASSOCIATION, ADMINISTRATORS,
INC. (KASOSYO), PROFESSIONALS
UNITED AND SENIORS
MOVEMENT (AAPS),
AGAINST DRUGS
Respondents.
(UNI-MAD),
PARENTS x------------------------------------------------
ENABLING --x
PARENTS (PEP),
ALLIANCE OF NEO-
CONSERVATIVES
(ANC), FILIPINOS
FOR PEACE,
JUSTICE AND
PROGRESS
MOVEMENT
(FPJPM), BIGKIS
PINOY MOVEMENT
(BIGKIS), 1-
 REP. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, G.R. No.
participate in 177314
the party-list elections
KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION, on May 14, 2007.

BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION,

Petitioners, In the first petition, docketed as G.R. No.
177271, petitioners Bantay Republic Act
(BA-RA 7941, for short) and the Urban
Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short)
assail the various Comelec resolutions
- versus - accrediting private respondents Biyaheng
Pinoy et al., to participate in the
forthcoming party-list elections on May
14, 2007 without simultaneously
determining whether or not their
respective nominees possess the
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
requisite qualifications defined in
Respondent.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or
X ----------------------------------------------- the Party-List System Act and belong to
------------------------------------------------- the marginalized and underrepresented
-- x sector each seeks to represent. In the
second, docketed as G.R. No. 177314,
petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales,
Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay
Katarungan Foundation
impugn Comelec Resolution 07-
DECISION
0724 dated April 3, 2007 effectively
denying their request for the release or
GARCIA, J.: disclosure of the names of the
nominees of the fourteen (14) accredited
participating party-list
Before the Court are these two groups mentioned in petitioner Rosales
consolidated petitions for certiorari and previous letter-request.
mandamus to nullify and set aside certain
issuances of the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) respecting party-list groups While both petitions commonly seek to
which have manifested their intention to compel the Comelec to disclose or
publish the names of the nominees of the their respective nominees
various party-list groups named in the from participating in the May 14,
petitions,[1] the petitioners in G.R. No. 2007 party-list elections.
177271 have the following
additional prayers: 1) that the 33 private
respondents named therein The facts:
be declare[d] as unqualified to
participate in the party-list elections as
sectoral organizations, parties or On January 12, 2007, the Comelec
coalition for failure to comply with the issued Resolution No. 7804 prescribing
guidelines prescribed by the [Court] rules and regulations to govern the filing
in [Ang Bagong Bayani v. of manifestation of intent to participate
Comelec ] and, 2) correspondingly, tha
[2] and submission of names of nominees
t the Comelec be enjoined from under the party-list system of
allowing respondent groups representation in connection with
from participating in the May 2007 the May 14, 2007 elections. Pursuant
elections. thereto, a number of organized groups
filed the necessary manifestations.
Among these and ostensibly
In separate resolutions both dated April subsequently accredited by the Comelec
24, 2007, the Court en banc required the to participate in the 2007 elections - are
public and private respondents to file 14 party-list groups, namely: (1) BABAE
their respective comments on the KA; (2) ANG KASANGGA; (3) AKBAY
petitions within a non-extendible period PINOY; (4) AKSA; (5) KAKUSA;
of five (5) days from notice. Apart from (6) AHON PINOY; (7) OFW PARTY;
respondent Comelec, seven (7) private (8) BIYAHENG PINOY; (9) ANAD;
respondents[3] in G.R. No. 177271 and (10) AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN;
one party-list group[4] mentioned (11) AGBIAG; (12) BANAT; (13) BANTAY
in G.R. No. 177314 submitted their LIPAD; (14) AGING PINOY. Petitioners
separate comments. In the main, BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR presented a
theseparate comments longer, albeit an overlapping, list.
of the private respondents focused on Subsequent events saw BA-
the untenability and prematurity of the RA 7941 and UP-LR filing with the
plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP- Comelec an Urgent Petition to
LR to nullify their accreditation as party- Disqualify, thereunder seeking to
list groups and thus disqualify them and
disqualify the nominees of certain party- the following sub-heading: Abalos says
list organizations. Both petitioners party-list polls not personality oriented.
appear not to have the names of the
nominees sought to be
disqualified since they still asked for a On April 16, 2007, Atty. Emilio
copy of the list of nominees. Docketed in Capulong, Jr. and ex-Senator Jovito R.
the Comelec as SPA Case No 07-026, Salonga, in their own behalves and as
this urgent petition has yet to counsels of petitioner
be resolved. Rosales, forwarded a letter[8] to the
Comelec formally requesting action and
definitive decision on Rosales earlier plea
Meanwhile, reacting to the emerging for information regarding the names of
public perception that the individuals several party-list nominees. Invoking
behind the aforementioned 14 party-list their constitutionally-guaranteed right to
groups do not, as they should, actually information, Messrs. Capulong
represent the poor and marginalized and Salonga at the same time drew
sectors, petitioner Rosales, in G.R. No. attention to the banner headline
177314, addressed a adverted to earlier, with a request for the
letter[5] dated March 29, 2007 to Director Comelec, collectively or individually, to
Alioden Dalaig of the Comelecs Law issue a formal clarification, either
Department requesting a list of that confirming or denying the banner
groups nominees. Another letter[6] of the headline and the alleged statement of
same tenor dated March 31, Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr.
2007 followed, this time petitioner xxx Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms.
Rosales impressing upon Atty. Dalaig the Rosales, et al., was the issuance
particular urgency of the subject request. of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-
0724[9] under date April 3, 2007 virtually
declaring the nominees names
Neither the Comelec Proper nor its Law confidential and in net effect
Department officially responded to denying petitioner Rosales basic
petitioner disclosure request. In its relevant
Rosales requests. The April 13, part, Resolution 07-0724 reads as
2007 issue of the Manila follows:
Bulletin, however, carried the front-
page banner headline COMELEC WONT
BARE PARTY-LIST NOMINEES,[7] with
RESOLVED, moreover, that the The herein consolidated petitions are
Commission cast against the
will disclose/publicize th
foregoing factual setting, albeit
e names of party-list
nominees in connection petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR
with the May 14, appear not to be aware, when they filed
2007 Elections only their petition on April 18, 2007, of the
after 3:00 April 3, 2007 Comelec Resolution 07-
p.m. on election day. 0724.

Let the Law Department

To start off, petitioners BA-RA 7941 and
implement this resolution
and reply to all letters UP-LR would have the Court cancel the
addressed to the accreditation accorded by the Comelec to
Commission inquiring on
the respondent party-list groups named
the party-list
nominees. (Emphasis in their petition on the ground that these
added.) groups and their respective nominees do
not appear to be qualified. In the words
of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR,
According to petitioner Rosales, she
was able to obtain a copy of the April 3, Comelec -
2007 Resolution only on April 21,
2007. She would later state the xxx committed
observation that the last part of grave abuse of discretion
when it granted the
the Order empowering the Law
assailed
Department to implement this resolution accreditations even
and reply to all letters inquiring on the without simultaneously det
party-list nominees is apparently a fool- ermining whether the
proof bureaucratic way to distort and nominees of herein private
mangle the truth and give the impression respondents are qualified
or not, or whether or not
that the antedated Resolution of April 3,
the nominees are likewise
2007 is the final answer to the two formal
belonging to the
requests of Petitioners.[10] marginalized and
underrepresented sector
they claim to represent in
Congress, in accordance
 with No. 7 of the eight-
parties in question, particularly
point guidelines prescribed
by the Honorable whether or not they indeed represent
Supreme in the Ang marginalized/underrepresented
Bagong Bayani [11] case
groups. The exercise would require
which states that, not only
the candidate party or the Court to make a factual
organization must determination, a matter which is
represent marginalized and
outside the office of judicial review by
underrepresented sectors;
so also must its way of special civil action for certiorari.
nominees. In the case of In certiorari proceedings, the Court is
private respondents, public
not called upon to decide factual
respondent Comelec
granted accreditations issues and the case must be decided
without the on the undisputed facts on
required simultaneous dete
record.[13] The sole function of a writ
rmination of the
qualification of the of certiorari is to address issues of
nominees as part of the want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
accreditation process of the
discretion and does not include a
party-list organization
itself. (Words in bracket review of the tribunals evaluation of
added; italization in the the evidence.[14]
original)[12]

Not lost on the Court of course

is the pendency before the Comelec

The Court is unable to grant the of SPA Case No. 07-026 in which

desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR

and UP-LR for cancellation of themselves seek to disqualify the

accreditation on the nominees of the respondent party-list

grounds thus advanced in their groups named in their petition.

petition. For, such course of action

would Petitioners BA-RA 7941s and

entail going over and evaluating the q UP-LRs posture that the Comelec

ualities of the sectoral groups or committed grave abuse of discretion

 Comelec, by
when it granted the assailed
refusing to reveal
accreditations the names of the
without simultaneously determining nominees of the
various party-list
the qualifications of their nominees is
groups, has violated
without basis. Nowhere in R.A. No. the right to
7941 is there a requirement that the information and
free access
qualification of a party-list nominee be
to documents as
determined simultaneously with the guaranteed by the
accreditation of an organization. And Constitution; and
as aptly pointed out by private
respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran 2. Whether
(Babae Ka), Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941 respondent
Comelec is mandate
requires a petition for registration of a
d by the Constitution
party-list organization to be filed with to disclose to the
the Comelec not later than ninety (90) public the names of
said nominees.
days before the election whereas the
succeeding Section 8 requires the
submission not later than forty-five While the Comelec did not
(45) days before the election of the list explicitly say so, it based its refusal to
of names whence party-list disclose the names of the nominees of
representatives shall be chosen. subject party-list groups on Section 7
of R.A. 7941. This provision, while
Now to the other but core issues commanding the publication and the
of the case. The petition in G.R. No. posting in polling places of a certified
177314 formulates and captures the list of party-list system participating
main issues tendered by the petitioners groups, nonetheless tells the Comelec
in these consolidated cases and they may not to show or include the names of
be summarized as follows: the party-list nominees in
said certified list. Thus:
1. Whether
respondent
 SEC. 7. Certified List names of nominees of
of Registered Parties.- The
COMELEC shall, not later sectoral parties,
than sixty (60) days before
election, prepare a organizations, or coalitions
certified list of national,
accredited to participate in
regional, or sectoral
parties, organizations or
the party-list election which
coalitions which have
applied or who have will be held simultaneously
manifested their desire to
participate under the party- with the May 14 mid-term
list system and
distribute copies thereof to polls.
all precincts for posting in
the polling places on
election day. The names
of the party-list COMELEC Chairman
nominees shall not be
Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr.
shown on the certified
list. (Emphasis added.)
said he and [the other five

COMELEC] Commissioners
And doubtless part of Comelecs
--- believe that the party
reason for keeping the names of the
party list nominees away from the list elections must not

public is deducible from the following be personality oriented.

excerpts of the news report appearing
in the adverted April 13, 2007 issue of
the Manila Bulletin: Abalos said under

[R.A.] 7941 , the people

The Commission on
are to vote for
Elections (COMELEC)
sectoral parties,
firmed up yesterday its
organizations,
decision not to release the
 or coalitions, not for their transactions, or decisions,
as well to government
nominees. research data used as basis
for policy development,
shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such
He said there is limitations as may be
provided by law.
nothing in R.A. 7941 that

requires the Comelec to

disclose the names of Complementing and going hand in

hand with the right to information is
nominees. xxx (Words in another constitutional provision
enunciating the policy of full disclosure
brackets and emphasis
and transparency in Government. We
added) refer to Section 28, Article II of the
Constitution reading:

Insofar as the disclosure issue

Sec. 28. Subject to
is concerned, the petitions are reasonable conditions
impressed with merit. prescribed by law, the
State adopts and
implements a policy of full
Assayed against the non- public disclosure of all its
transactions involving
disclosure stance of the Comelec and
public interest.
the given rationale therefor is the right
to information enshrined in the self-
executory[15] Section 7, Article III of
The right to information is a public right
the Constitution, viz:
where the real parties in interest are
Sec.7. The right of
the people to information the public, or the citizens to be precise.
on matters of public And for every right of the people
concern shall be recognized as fundamental lies a
recognized. Access to corresponding duty on the part of those
official records, and to
documents, and papers who govern to respect and protect that
pertaining to official acts, right. This is the essence of the Bill of
Rights in a constitutional a measure of confidentiality on some
regime.[16] Without a governments matters, such as military, trade, banking
acceptance of the limitations upon it by and diplomatic secrets or those affecting
the Constitution in order to uphold national security.[19]
individual liberties, without an
acknowledgment on its part of those
duties exacted by the rights pertaining to The terms public
the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a concerns and public interest have eluded
sophistry. precise definition. But both terms
embrace, to borrow from Legaspi, a
broad spectrum of subjects which the
By weight of jurisprudence, any public may want to know, either because
citizen can challenge any attempt to these directly affect their lives, or simply
obstruct the exercise of his right to because such matters naturally whet the
information and may seek its interest of an ordinary citizen. At the end
enforcement by mandamus. [17] And since of the day, it is for the courts to
every citizen by the simple fact of his determine, on a case to case basis,
citizenship possesses the right to be whether or not at issue is of interest or
informed, objections on importance to the public.
ground of locus standi are ordinarily
unavailing.[18]
If, as in Legaspi, it was the
Like all constitutional
legitimate concern of a citizen to know
guarantees, however, the right to
if certain persons employed as
information and its companion right of
sanitarians of a health department of
access to official records are not
a city are civil service
absolute. As articulated
eligibles, surely the identity
in Legaspi, supra, the peoples right to
of candidates for a lofty elective public
know is limited to matters of public
office should be a matter of highest
concern and is further subject to such
public concern and interest.
limitation as may be provided by
law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure
is confined to transactions As may be noted, no national
involving public interest and is subject to security or like concerns is involved in the
reasonable conditions prescribed by law. disclosure of the names of the nominees
Too, there is also the need of preserving of the party-list groups in
question. Doubtless, the Comelec dimension on the last sentence of Section
committed grave abuse of discretion in 7 ofR.A. No. 7941.
refusing the legitimate demands of the
petitioners for a list of the nominees of
the party-list groups subject of their The Comelecs reasoning that a
respective petitions. Mandamus, party-list election is not an election of
therefore, lies. personalities is valid to a point. It cannot
be taken, however, to justify its assailed
The last sentence of Section 7 of
non-disclosure stance which comes, as it
R.A. 7941 reading: [T]he names of the
were, with a weighty presumption of
party-list nominees shall not be shown on
invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a
the certified
fundamental right to
list is certainly not a justifying card for
information.[20] While the vote cast in a
the Comelec to deny the requested
party-list elections is a vote for a
disclosure. To us, the prohibition
party, such vote, in the end, would be a
imposed on the Comelec under said
vote for its nominees, who, in
Section 7 is limited in scope and duration,
appropriate cases, would eventually sit in
meaning, that it extends only to
the House of Representatives.
the certified list which the same
provision requires to be posted in the
polling places on election day. To stretch
The Court is very much aware of
the coverage of the prohibition to the
newspaper reports detailing the
absolute is to read into the law
something that is not intended. As it purported reasons behind the Comelecs
were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. disinclination to release the
No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from names of party-list nominees. It is to be
disclosing or even publishing through stressed, however, that the Court is in
mediums other than the Certified List the
the business of dispensing justice on the
names of the party-list nominees. The
basis of hard facts and applicable
Comelec obviously misread the limited
non-disclosure aspect of the provision as statutory and decisional laws. And lest it
an absolute bar to public disclosure be overlooked, the Court always
before the May 2007 elections. The assumes, at the first instance, the
interpretation thus given by the Comelec presumptive validity and regularity of
virtually tacks an unconstitutional
official acts of government officials and respondents named therein. However,
insofar as it seeks to compel the Comelec
offices.
to disclose or publish the names of the
nominees of party-list groups, sectors or
It has been repeatedly said in organizations accredited to participate in
various contexts that the people have the the May 14, 2007 elections, the same
right to elect their representatives on the petition and the petition in G.R. No.
basis of an informed judgment. Hence 177314 are GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Comelec is hereby ORDERED to
the need for voters to be informed about
immediately disclose and release the
matters that have a bearing on their
names of the nominees of the party-list
choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a
groups, sectors or organizations
system of blind voting, as veritably accredited to participate in the May 14,
advocated in the assailed resolution of 2007 party-list elections. The Comelec is
the Comelec. The Court, since the 1914 further DIRECTED to submit to the
Court its compliance herewith within five
case of Gardiner v. Romulo,[21] has
(5) days from notice hereof.
consistently made it clear that it frowns
upon any interpretation of the law or
rules that would hinder in any way the This Decision is declared immediately
free and intelligent casting of the votes in executory upon its receipt by the
Comelec.
an election.[22] So it must be here for still
other reasons articulated earlier.
No pronouncement as to cost.
In all, we agree with the
petitioners that respondent Comelec has
a constitutional duty to disclose and SO ORDERED.
release the names of the nominees of the
party-list groups named in the herein
petitions.

FEDERICO T. MONTEBON G.R. No. 180444

and ELEANOR M. ONDOY,
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No.
177271 is partly DENIED insofar as it Petitioners, Present:
Puno, C.J.,
seeks to nullify the accreditation of the
Quisumbing, -
N
Ynares-Santiago,
a
Carpio, z
a
Austria-Martinez,
r
- versus - Corona, i
o
C
,
a
r V
p e
i l
o a
M s
o c
r o
a ,
l J
e r
s .
, ,

A N
z a
c c
u h
n u
a r
, a
,
T
i R
n e
g y
a e
, s
,
C
h L
i e
c o
o n
 YNARES-SANTIAGO,
a J.:
r
d
o
-
This petition[1] for certiorari assails the
D
June 2, 2007 Resolution[2] of the First
e
Division of the Commission on Elections
C
(COMELEC)
a in SPA No. 07-421, denying
the
s petition for disqualification filed by
petitioners
t Federico T. Montebon and
r
Eleanor M. Ondoy against respondent
o
Sesinando F. Potencioso, Jr., as well as
,
the September 28, 2007 Resolution[3] of
a
the COMELEC En Banc denying the
n
motion
d for reconsideration.

B
r
Petitioners Montebon and Ondy and
i
respondent
o Potencioso, Jr. were
candidates
n for municipal councilor of the
Municipality
, of Tuburan, Cebu for the
May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and
J
Local Elections.On April 30, 2007,
J
petitioners and other candidates[4] for
.
municipal councilor filed a petition for
COMMISSION ON ELECTION and disqualification against respondent with
SESINANDO F. POTENCIOSO, the COMELEC alleging that respondent
JR., Promulgated: had been elected and served three
Respondents. consecutive terms as municipal councilor
in 1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-
April 8, 2008
2007. Thus, he is proscribed from
x ----------------------------------------------- running for the same position in the 2007
----------------------------------------- x elections as it would be his fourth
consecutive term.

DECISION
In his answer, respondent admitted that disqualified from running for the fourth
he had been elected for three consecutive time to the same office if
consecutive terms as municipal there was an interruption in one of the
councilor. However, he claimed that the previous three terms.
service of his second term in 2001-2004
was interrupted on January 12,
2004 when he succeeded as vice mayor On June 2, 2007, the COMELEC First
of Tuburan due to the retirement of Vice Division denied the petition for
Mayor Petronilo L. disqualification ruling that respondents
Mendoza. Consequently, he is not assumption of office as vice-mayor
disqualified from vying for the position of should be considered an interruption in
municipal councilor in the 2007 elections. the continuity of his service. His second
term having been involuntarily
interrupted, respondent should thus not
In the hearing of May 10, 2007, the be disqualified to seek reelection as
parties were directed to file their municipal councilor.[5]
respective memoranda.

On appeal, the COMELEC En Banc upheld

In petitioners memorandum, they the ruling of the First Division, as follows:
maintained that respondents assumption
of office as vice-mayor in January 2004
should not be considered an interruption Respondents
assumption to the office of
in the service of his second term since it
the vice-mayor of Tuburan
was a voluntary renunciation of his office in January 2004 during his
as municipal councilor. They argued that, second term as councilor is
according to the law, voluntary not a voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length renunciation of the latter
of time shall not be considered an office. The same therefore
operated as an effective
interruption in the continuity of service
disruption in the full service
for the full term for which the official
of his second term as
concerned was elected. councilor. Thus, in running
for councilor again in
the May 14,
On the other hand, respondent alleged 2007 Elections, respondent
that a local elective official is not is deemed to be running
 only for a second The 1987 Constitution bars and
consecutive term as disqualifies local elective officials from
councilor of Tuburan, the
serving more than three consecutive
first consecutive term fully
served being his 2004-2007 terms in the same post. Section 8, Article
term. X thereof states:

Petitioner Sec. 8. The term of

Montebons and Ondoys office of elective local
June 9, 2007 manifestation officials, except barangay
and omnibus motion are officials, which shall be
hereby declared moot and determined by law shall be
academic with the instant three years and no such
disposition of their motion officials shall serve for
for reconsideration. more than three
consecutive
terms. Voluntary
WHEREFORE, renunciation of the office
premises considered, for any length of time shall
petitioners motion for not be considered as an
reconsideration is hereby interruption in the
DENIED for lack of merit. continuity of his service for
the full term for which he
was elected.
SO ORDERED.[6]

Petitioners filed the instant

Section 43 of the Local Government Code
petition for certiorari on the ground that
also provides:
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in ruling that respondents Sec. 43. Term of
assumption of office as vice-mayor in Office.
January 2004 interrupted his 2001-2004
term as municipal councilor.
(b) No local elective
official shall serve for more
than three consecutive
The petition lacks merit.
terms in the same
position. Voluntary
 renunciation of the office of his assumption of office as vice-mayor
for any length of time shall of Tuburan on January 12, 2004.
not be considered as an
interruption in the
continuity of service for the
full term for which the Succession in local government
elective official concerned offices is by operation of law.[11] Section
was elected. 44[12] of Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local
Government Code, provides that if a
In Lonzanida v. Commission on permanent vacancy occurs in the office
Elections,[7] the Court held that the two of the vice mayor, the highest ranking
conditions for the application of the sanggunian member shall become vice
disqualification must concur: 1) that the mayor. Thus:
official concerned has been elected for
three consecutive terms in the same local
government post; and 2) that he has fully SEC. 44. Permanent
Vacancies in the Offices of
served three consecutive
the Governor, Vice
terms. In Borja, Jr. v. Commission on
[8]
Governor, Mayor, and Vice
Elections,[9] the Court emphasized that Mayor. (a) If a permanent
the term limit for elective officials must vacancy occurs in the office
of the governor or mayor,
be taken to refer to the right to be
the vice governor or vice
elected as well as the right to serve in the mayor concerned shall
same elective position. Thus, for the become the governor or
disqualification to apply, it is not enough mayor. If a permanent
vacancy occurs in the
that the official has been elected three
offices of the governor, vice
consecutive times; he must also have governor, mayor or vice
served three consecutive terms in the mayor, the highest ranking
same position.[10] sanggunian member or, in
case of his permanent
inability, the second
highest ranking sanggunian
While it is undisputed that member, shall become the
respondent was elected municipal governor, vice governor,
councilor for three consecutive terms, the mayor or vice mayor, as the
case may be. Subsequent
issue lies on whether he is deemed to
vacancies in the said office
have fully served his second term in view shall be filled automatically
by the other sanggunian
 members according to their office and at the same time
ranking as defined herein. x respect the peoples choice
xx and grant their elected
official full service of a term
is evident in this
In this case, a permanent vacancy provision. Voluntary
occurred in the office of the vice mayor renunciation of a term does
due to the retirement of Vice Mayor not cancel the renounced
Mendoza. Respondent, being the highest term in the computation of
ranking municipal councilor, succeeded the three term limit;
conversely, involuntary
him in accordance with law. It is clear
severance from office
therefore that his assumption of office as
for any length of time
vice-mayor can in no way be considered short of the full term
a voluntary renunciation of his office as provided by law
municipal councilor. amounts to an
interruption of
continuity of
In Lonzanida v. Commission on service. [13] (Emphasis
added)
Elections, the Court explained the
concept of voluntary renunciation as
follows:
Thus, respondents assumption of
office as vice-mayor in January 2004 was
The second an involuntary severance from his office
sentence of the as municipal councilor, resulting in an
constitutional provision interruption in the service of his 2001-
under scrutiny states,
2004 term. It cannot be deemed to have
Voluntary renunciation of
been by reason of voluntary renunciation
office for any length of time
shall not be considered as because it was by operation of law. We
an interruption in the quote with approval the ruling of the
continuity of service for the COMELEC that
full term for which he was
elected. The clear intent of
the framers of the The legal successor
constitution to bar any is not given any option
attempt to circumvent the under the law on whether
three-term limit by a to accept the vacated post
voluntary renunciation of or not. Section 44 of the
Local Government Code neglect in the performance
makes no exception. Only if of public functions. It is
the highest-ranking therefore more compulsory
councilor is permanently and obligatory rather than
unable to succeed to the voluntary.[14]
post does the law speak of
alternate
succession. Under no
WHEREFORE, the petition
circumstances can simple
is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
refusal of the official
concerned be considered June 2, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC
as permanent inability First Division denying the petition for
within the contemplation of disqualification and the September 28,
law. Essentially therefore, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC en
the successor cannot banc denying the motion for
refuse to assume the office
reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
that he is mandated to
occupy by virtue of
succession. He can only do
so if for some reason he is
permanently unable to
succeed and occupy the SO ORDERED.
post vacated.

xxxx

Thus, succession by
law to a vacated
government office is
characteristically not
voluntary since it involves
the performance of a public
duty by a government
official, the non-
performance of which
exposes said official to
possible administrative and
criminal charges of
dereliction of duty and
SIMON B. G.R. No.
ALDOVINO, JR., 184836 BRION, J.:
DANILO B.
FALLER AND
PUNO, C J.,
FERDINAND N.
TALABONG, CARPIO,
Petitioners, Is the preventive
suspension of an elected public official
CORONA,
an interruption of his term of office for
CARPIO
purposes of the three-term limit rule
MORALES,
under Section 8, Article X of the
VELASCO,
- versus - Constitution and Section 43(b) of
JR.,
Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160, or the
NACHURA,
Local Government Code)?
LEONARDO-
DE CASTRO,
BRION,
The respondent Commission on
PERALTA, Elections (COMELEC) ruled that
BERSAMIN, preventive suspension is an effective
DEL interruption because it renders the
CASTILLO, suspended public official unable to
COMMISSION
ABAD, and provide complete service for the full
ON
ELECTIONS VILLARAMA, term; thus, such term should not be
AND JR., JJ. counted for the purpose of the three-
WILFREDO F.
ASILO, term limit rule.
Promulgated:
Respondents.

The present petition[1] seeks to

December 23, 2009
annul and set aside this COMELEC ruling
x ----------------------------------------
for having been issued with grave abuse
-------------------------------------------
-------------------- x of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
DECISION
 three-term limit rule under Section 8,
Article X of the Constitution and Section
THE ANTECEDENTS
43(b) of RA 7160.

The respondent Wilfredo F. Asilo

The COMELECs Second Division
(Asilo) was elected councilor
ruled against the petitioners and in Asilos
of Lucena City for three consecutive
favour in its Resolution of November 28,
terms: for the 1998-2001, 2001-2004,
2007. It reasoned out that the three-
and 2004-2007 terms, respectively. In
term limit rule did not apply, as Asilo
September 2005 or during his 2004-2007
failed to render complete service for the
term of office, the Sandiganbayan
2004-2007 term because of the
preventively suspended him for 90 days
suspension the Sandiganbayan had
in relation with a criminal case he then
ordered.
faced. This Court, however,
subsequently lifted the Sandiganbayans
suspension order; hence, he resumed
The COMELEC en banc refused to
performing the functions of his office and
reconsider the Second Divisions ruling in
finished his term.
its October 7, 2008 Resolution; hence,
the PRESENT PETITION raising the
following ISSUES:
In the 2007 election, Asilo filed his
certificate of candidacy for the same
position. The petitioners Simon B. 1. Whether preventive
Aldovino, Jr., Danilo B. Faller, and suspension of an elected
local official is an
Ferdinand N. Talabong (the petitioners)
interruption of the three-
sought to deny due course to Asilos term limit rule; and
certificate of candidacy or to cancel it on
the ground that he had been elected and
2. Whether preventive
had served for three terms; his candidacy suspension is considered
for a fourth term therefore violated the involuntary renunciation
 as contemplated in Section
term that an elective official acquired by
43(b) of RA 7160
succession.

Thus presented, the case raises the

direct issue of whether Asilos preventive
suspension constituted an interruption
that allowed him to run for a 4th term.
a. The Three-term Limit
Rule:
THE COURTS RULING
The Constitutional
Provision Analyzed

We find the petition meritorious.

General Considerations Section 8, Article X of the

Constitution states:

The present case is not the first Section 8. The

before this Court on the three-term limit term of office of elective
local officials,
provision of the Constitution, but is the
except barangay officials,
first on the effect of preventive which shall be determined
suspension on the continuity of an by law, shall be three years
and no such official shall
elective officials term. To be sure,
serve for more than
preventive suspension, as an interruption three consecutive
in the term of an elective public official, terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office
has been mentioned as an example
for any length of time shall
in Borja v. Commission on not be considered as an
Elections.[2] Doctrinally, however, Borja interruption in the
continuity of his service for
is not a controlling ruling; it did not deal
the full term for which he
with preventive suspension, but with the was elected.
application of the three-term rule on the
 Mechem, the term of office
is the period during which
Section 43 (b) of RA 7160 an office may be held.Upon
practically repeats the constitutional expiration of the officers
term, unless he is
provision, and any difference in wording authorized by law to
does not assume any significance in this holdover, his rights, duties
case. and authority as a public
officer must ipso
facto cease. In the law of
public officers, the most
As worded, the constitutional and natural frequent
provision fixes the term of a local elective method by which a public
officer ceases to be such is
office and limits an elective officials stay by the expiration of the
in office to no more than three terms for which he was
elected or appointed.
consecutive terms. This is the first
[Emphasis supplied].
branch of the rule embodied in Section
8, Article X.

A later case, Gaminde v. Commission on

Audit,[4] reiterated that [T]he term
Significantly, this provision refers
means the time during which the officer
to a term as a period of
may claim to hold office as of right, and
time three years during which an official
fixes the interval after which the several
has title to office and can serve. Appari v.
incumbents shall succeed one another.
Court of Appeals,[3] a Resolution
promulgated on November 28, 2007,
succinctly discusses what a term The limitation under this first
connotes, as follows: branch of the provision is expressed in
the negative no such official shall serve
The word term in a legal for more than three consecutive
sense means a fixed and
terms. This formulation no more than
definite period of time
which the law describes three consecutive termsis a clear
that an officer may hold command suggesting the existence of an
an office. According to
inflexible rule. While it gives no exact interruption of service for a full term, but
indication of what to serve. . . three the phrase voluntary renunciation, by
consecutive terms exactly connotes, the itself, is not without significance in
meaning is clear reference is to the term, determining constitutional intent.
not to the service that a public official
may render. In other words, the
limitation refers to the term. The word renunciation carries the
dictionary meaning of abandonment. To
renounce is to give up, abandon, decline,
The second branch relates to or resign.[5] It is an act that emanates
the provisions express initiative to from its author, as contrasted to an act
prevent any circumvention of the that operates from the outside. Read
limitation through voluntary severance of with the definition of a term in mind,
ties with the public office; it expressly renunciation, as mentioned under the
states that voluntary renunciation of second branch of the constitutional
office shall not be considered as an provision, cannot but mean an act that
interruption in the continuity of his results in cutting short the term, i.e., the
service for the full term for which he was loss of title to office. The descriptive
elected. This declaration complements word voluntary linked together with
the term limitation mandated by the first renunciation signifies an act of surrender
branch. based on the surenderees own freely
exercised will; in other words, a loss of
title to office by conscious choice. In the
A notable feature of the second context of the three-term limit rule, such
branch is that it does not textually state loss of title is not considered an
that voluntary renunciation is interruption because it is presumed to
the only actual interruption of service be purposely sought to avoid the
that does not affect continuity of service application of the term limitation.
for a full term for purposes of the three-
term limit rule. It is a pure declaratory
statement of what does not serve as an
 resigning at any given time
The following exchanges in the
on the second term.
deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission on the term voluntary
MR. MAAMBONG. Is the
renunciation shed further light on the
Committee saying that the
extent of the term voluntary term voluntary
renunciation: renunciation is more
general than abandonment
and resignation?
MR.
MAAMBONG. Could I
address the clarificatory MR. DAVIDE. It is more
question to the general, more
Committee? This term embracing.[6]

voluntary renunciation
does not appear in Section
3 [of Article VI]; it also
appears in Section 6 [of From this exchange and Commissioner
Article VI]. Davides expansive interpretation of the
term voluntary renunciation, the framers

MR DAVIDE. Yes. intent apparently was to close all gaps

that an elective official may seize to
defeat the three-term limit rule, in the
MR. MAAMBONG. It is also
a recurring phrase all over way that voluntary renunciation has been
the Constitution. Could the rendered unavailable as a mode of
Committee please
defeating the three-term limit rule.
enlighten us exactly what
voluntary renunciation Harking back to the text of the
mean? Is this akin to constitutional provision, we note further
abandonment?
that Commissioner Davides view is
consistent with the negative formulation
MR. DAVIDE. of the first branch of the provision and
Abandonment is
the inflexible interpretation that it
voluntary. In other words,
he cannot circumvent the suggests.
restriction by merely
This examination of the wording of the accurate, the proclamation as winner of
constitutional provision and of the the public official) for his supposedly
circumstances surrounding its third term had been declared invalid in a
formulation impresses upon us the clear final and executory judgment. We ruled
intent to make term limitation a high that the two requisites for the application
priority constitutional objective whose of the disqualification (viz., 1. that the
terms must be strictly construed and official concerned has been elected for
which cannot be defeated by, nor three consecutive terms in the same local
sacrificed for, values of less than equal government post; and 2. that he has fully
constitutional worth. We view preventive served three consecutive terms) were not
suspension vis--vis term limitation with present. In so ruling, we said:
this firm mindset.

The clear intent of

b. Relevant Jurisprudence the framers of the
on the constitution to bar any
attempt to circumvent the
Three-term Limit Rule three-term limit by a
voluntary renunciation of
office and at the same time
Other than the above-cited respect the peoples choice
and grant their elected
materials, jurisprudence best gives us a official full service of a term
lead into the concepts within the is evident in this
provisions contemplation, particularly on provision. Voluntary
renunciation of a term does
the interruption in the continuity of not cancel the renounced
service for the full term that it speaks of. term in the computation of
the three term
limit; conversely, involunt
Lonzanida v. Commission on ary severance from
office for any length of
Elections[7] presented the question of time short of the full term
whether the disqualification on the basis provided by law amounts to
an interruption of
of the three-term limit applies if the
continuity of service. The
election of the public official (to be strictly petitioner vacated his post
 a few months before the
Despite the ruling that Ong was
next mayoral elections, not
by voluntary renunciation never entitled to the office (and thus was
but in compliance with the never validly elected), the Court
legal process of writ of
concluded that there was nevertheless an
execution issued by the
COMELEC to that election and service for a full term in
effect. Such involuntary contemplation of the three-term rule
severance from office is an
based on the following premises: (1) the
interruption of continuity of
service and thus, the final decision that the third-termer lost
petitioner did not fully the election was without practical and
serve the 1995-1998
legal use and value, having been
mayoral term. [Emphasis
supplied] promulgated after the term of the
contested office had expired; and (2) the
official assumed and continuously
Our intended meaning under this ruling
exercised the functions of the office from
is clear: it is severance from office, or to
the start to the end of the term. The
be exact, loss of title, that renders the
Court noted in Ong the absurdity and the
three-term limit rule inapplicable.
deleterious effect of a contrary view
that the official (referring to the winner
in the election protest) would, under the
Ong v. Alegre[8] and Rivera v.
three-term rule, be considered to
COMELEC,[9] like Lonzanida, also
have served a term by virtue of a
involved the issue of whether there had
veritably meaningless electoral protest
been a completed term for purposes of
ruling, when another actually served the
the three-term limit disqualification.
term pursuant to a proclamation made in
These cases, however, presented an
due course after an election. This factual
interesting twist, as their final judgments
variation led the Court to rule differently
in the electoral contest came after the
from Lonzanida.
term of the contested office had expired
so that the elective officials in these cases
were never effectively unseated.
In the same vein, the Court
in Rivera rejected the theory that the
official who finally lost the election Adormeo v. Commission on
contest was merely a caretaker of the Elections[10] dealt with the effect of recall
office or a mere de facto officer. The on the three-term limit
Court obeserved that Section 8, Article X disqualification. The case presented the
of the Constitution is violated and its question of whether the disqualification
purpose defeated when an official applies if the official lost in the regular
fully served in the same position for three election for the supposed third term, but
consecutive terms. Whether as caretaker was elected in a recall election covering
or de facto officer, he exercised the that term. The Court upheld the
powers and enjoyed the perquisites of COMELECs ruling that the official was not
the office that enabled him to stay on elected for three (3) consecutive
indefinitely. terms.The Court reasoned out that for
nearly two years, the official was a
private citizen; hence, the continuity of
Ong and Rivera are important his mayorship was disrupted by his
rulings for purposes of the three-term defeat in the election for the third term.
limitation because of what they directly
imply. Although the election requisite
was not actually present, the Court still Socrates v. Commission on
gave full effect to the three-term Elections[11] also tackled recall vis--
limitation because of the constitutional vis the three-term limit
intent to strictly limit elective officials to disqualification. Edward Hagedorn
service for three terms. By so ruling, the served three full terms as mayor. As he
Court signalled how zealously it guards was disqualified to run for a fourth term,
the three-term limit rule.Effectively, he did not participate in the election that
these cases teach us to strictly interpret immediately followed his third term. In
the term limitation rule in favor of this election, the petitioner Victorino
limitation rather than its exception. Dennis M. Socrates was elected
mayor. Less than 1 years after Mayor
Socrates assumed the functions of the
office, recall proceedings were initiated
 interruption in the
against him, leading to the call for a recall
continuity of service.
election. Hagedorn filed his certificate of
candidacy for mayor in the recall election,
When the framers of
but Socrates sought his disqualification
the Constitution debated
on the ground that he (Hagedorn) had on the term limit of elective
fully served three terms prior to the recall local officials, the question
asked was whether there
election and was therefore disqualified to
would be no further
run because of the three-term limit election after three terms,
rule. We decided in Hagedorns favor, or whether there would
be no immediate
ruling that:
reelection after three
terms.
After three xxxx
consecutive terms, an
elective local official cannot
seek immediate Clearly, what the
reelection for a fourth Constitution prohibits is
term. The prohibited an immediate
election refers to the next reelection for a fourth
regular election for the term following three
same office following the consecutive terms. The
end of the third Constitution, however,
consecutive does not prohibit a
term. Any subsequent el subsequent reelection for a
ection, like a recall fourth term as long as the
election, is no longer reelection is not
covered by the prohibition immediately after the end
for two reasons. First, a of the third consecutive
subsequent election term. A recall election mid-
like a recall election is way in the term following
no longer an immediate the third consecutive term
reelection after three is a subsequent election
consecutive but not an immediate
terms. Second, the reelection after the third
intervening period term.
constitutes an
involuntary
 Neither does the
the same as that of the municipality; the
Constitution prohibit one
barred from seeking inhabitants were the same group of
immediate reelection to run voters who elected the municipal mayor
in any other subsequent
for 3 consecutive terms; and they were
election involving the same
term of office. What the the same inhabitants over whom the
Constitution prohibits is municipal mayor held power and
a consecutive fourth
authority as their chief executive for nine
term.[12]
years. The Court said:

This Court
Latasa v. Commission on reiterates that the
framers of the
Elections[13] presented the novel
Constitution specifically
question of whether a municipal included an exception
mayor who had fully served for three to the peoples freedom
to choose those who
consecutive terms could run as city
will govern them in
mayor in light of the intervening order to avoid the evil of
conversion of the municipality into a a single person
accumulating excessive
city. During the third term, the
power over a particular
municipality was converted into a city; territorial jurisdiction
the cityhood charter provided that the as a result of a
prolonged stay in the
elective officials of the municipality shall, same office. To allow
in a holdover capacity, continue to petitioner Latasa to vie for
exercise their powers and functions until the position of city mayor
after having served for
elections were held for the new city three consecutive terms as
officials. The Court ruled that the a municipal mayor would
conversion of the municipality into a city obviously defeat the very
intent of the framers when
did not convert the office of the municipal they wrote this
mayor into a local government post exception. Should he be
different from the office of the city mayor allowed another three
consecutive terms as
the territorial jurisdiction of the city was mayor of the City of Digos,
 petitioner would then be
by operation of law.The question posed
possibly holding office as
chief executive over the when he subsequently ran for councilor
same territorial jurisdiction was whether his assumption as vice-
and inhabitants for a total
mayor was an interruption of his term as
of
eighteen consecutive years councilor that would place him outside
. This is the very scenario the operation of the three-term limit
sought to be avoided by the
rule. We ruled that an interruption had
Constitution, if not
abhorred by it.[14] intervened so that he could again run as
councilor. This result seemingly deviates
from the results in the cases heretofore
Latasa instructively highlights,
after a review of Lonzanida, discussed since the elective official
Adormeo and Socrates, that no three- continued to hold public office and did
term limit violation results if a rest period
or break in the service between terms or not become a private citizen during the
tenure in a given elective post interim. The common thread that
intervened. In Lonzanida, the petitioner
identifies Montebon with the rest,
was a private citizen with no title to any
elective office for a few months before however, is that the elective
the next mayoral elections. Similarly, official vacated the office of councilor
in Adormeo and Socrates, the private
respondents lived as private citizens for and assumed the higher post of vice-
two years and fifteen months, mayor by operation of law. Thus, for a
respectively. Thus, these cases establish
time he ceased to be councilor an
that the law contemplates a complete
break from office during which the local interruption that effectively placed him
elective official steps down and ceases to outside the ambit of the three-term limit
exercise power or authority over the
inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of rule.
a particular local government unit.

c. Conclusion Based on
Seemingly differing from these Law
results is the case of Montebon v. and Jurisprudence
Commission on Elections,[15] where the
highest-ranking municipal councilor
succeeded to the position of vice-mayor
 From all the above, we conclude holder, while retaining title, is simply
that the interruption of a term exempting barred from exercising the functions of
an elective official from the three-term his office for a reason provided by law.
limit rule is one that involves no less than
the involuntary loss of title to office. The
elective official must have involuntarily An interruption occurs when the

left his office for a length of time, term is broken because the office holder

however short, for an effective lost the right to hold on to his office, and

interruption to occur. This has to be the cannot be equated with the failure to

case if the thrust of Section 8, Article X render service. The latter occurs during

and its strict intent are to be faithfully an office holders term when he retains

served, i.e., to limit an elective officials title to the office but cannot exercise his

continuous stay in office to no more than functions for reasons established by

three consecutive terms, using voluntary law. Of course, the term failure to serve

renunciation as an example and standard cannot be used once the right to office is

of what does not constitute an lost; without the right to hold office or to

interruption. serve, then no service can be rendered

so that none is really lost.

Thus, based on this standard, loss

To put it differently although at the risk
of office by operation of law, being
of repetition, Section 8, Article X both by
involuntary, is an effective interruption of
structure and substance fixes an elective
service within a term, as we held
officials term of office and limits his stay
in Montebon. On the other hand,
in office to three consecutive terms as an
temporary inability or disqualification to
inflexible rule that is stressed, no less, by
exercise the functions of an elective post,
citing voluntary renunciation as an
even if involuntary, should not be
example of a circumvention. The
considered an effective interruption of a
provision should be read in the context
term because it does not involve the loss
of interruption of term, not in the context
of title to office or at least an effective
of interrupting the full continuity of the
break from holding office; the office
exercise of the powers of the elective Preventive suspension whether under the
position. The voluntary renunciation it Local Government Code,[17] the Anti-
speaks of refers only to the elective Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,[18] or the
officials voluntary relinquishment of Ombudsman Act[19] is an interim
office and loss of title to this office. It remedial measure to address the
does not speak of the temporary situation of an official who have been
cessation of the exercise of power or charged administratively or criminally,
authority that may occur for various where the evidence preliminarily
reasons, with preventive suspension indicates the likelihood of or potential for
being only one of them. To quote Latasa eventual guilt or liability.
v. Comelec:[16]
Indeed, [T]he law
contemplates a rest period Preventive suspension is imposed
during which the local under the Local Government Code when
elective official steps down
the evidence of guilt is strong and given
from office and ceases to
exercise power or the gravity of the offense, there is a
authority over the possibility that the continuance in office
inhabitants of the territorial
jurisdiction of a particular of the respondent could influence the
local government unit. witnesses or pose a threat to the safety
[Emphasis supplied]. and integrity of the records and other
evidence. Under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, it is imposed after
Preventive Suspension and a valid information (that requires a

the Three-Term Limit Rule finding of probable cause) has been filed
in court, while under the Ombudsman
Act, it is imposed when, in the judgment
of the Ombudsman, the evidence of guilt
a. Nature of Preventive Suspension
is strong; and (a) the charge involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave
misconduct or neglect in the performance
of duty; or (b) the charges would warrant
removal from the service; or (c) the preventively suspended. This was what
respondents continued stay in office may exactly happened to Asilo.
prejudice the case filed against him.

That the imposition of preventive

Notably in all cases of preventive suspension can be abused is a reality that
suspension, the suspended official is is true in the exercise of all powers and
barred from performing the functions of prerogative under the Constitution and
his office and does not receive salary in the laws. The imposition of preventive
the meanwhile, but does not vacate and suspension, however, is not an unlimited
lose title to his office; loss of office is a power; there are limitations built into the
consequence that only results upon an laws[20] themselves that the courts can
eventual finding of guilt or liability. enforce when these limitations are
transgressed, particularly when grave
abuse of discretion is present. In light of
Preventive suspension is a remedial this well-defined parameters in the
measure that operates under closely- imposition of preventive suspension, we
controlled conditions and gives a should not view preventive suspension
premium to the protection of the service from the extreme situation that it can
rather than to the interests of the totally deprive an elective office holder of
individual office holder. Even then, the prerogative to serve and is thus an
protection of the service goes only as far effective interruption of an election
as a temporary prohibition on officials term.
the exercise of the functions of the
officials office; the official is reinstated to
the exercise of his position as soon as the Term limitation and preventive
preventive suspension is lifted. Thus, suspension are two vastly different
while a temporary incapacity in the aspects of an elective officials service in
exercise of power results, no position is office and they do not overlap. As already
vacated when a public official is mentioned above, preventive suspension
involves protection of the service and of
the people being served, and prevents preventive suspension should not be
the office holder from temporarily considered an interruption that allows an
exercising the power of his office. Term elective officials stay in office beyond
limitation, on the other hand, is triggered three terms. A preventive suspension
after an elective official has served his cannot simply be a term interruption
three terms in office without any break. because the suspended official continues
Its companion concept interruption of a to stay in office although he is barred
term on the other hand, requires loss of from exercising the functions and
title to office. If preventive suspension prerogatives of the office within the
and term limitation or interruption have suspension period. The best indicator of
any commonality at all, this common the suspended officials continuity in
point may be with respect to the office is the absence of a permanent
discontinuity of service that may occur in replacement and the lack of the
both. But even on this point, they merely authority to appoint one since no
run parallel to each other and never vacancy exists.
intersect; preventive suspension, by its
nature, is a temporary incapacity to
render service during an unbroken To allow a preventively suspended

term; in the context of term elective official to run for a fourth and

limitation, interruption of service occurs prohibited term is to close our eyes to

after there has been a break in the this reality and to allow a constitutional

term. violation through sophistry by equating

the temporary inability to discharge the
functions of office with the interruption of
b. Preventive Suspension and
term that the constitutional provision
the Intent of the Three-Term contemplates. To be sure, many reasons
Limit Rule exist, voluntary or involuntary some of
them personal and some of them by
operation of law that may temporarily
Strict adherence to the intent of
prevent an elective office holder from
the three-term limit rule demands that
exercising the functions of his office in
the way that preventive suspension does. Preventive suspension, because it
A serious extended illness, inability is imposed by operation of law, does not
through force majeure, or the involve a voluntary act on the part of the
enforcement of a suspension as a suspended official, except in the indirect
penalty, to cite some involuntary sense that he may have voluntarily
examples, may prevent an office holder committed the act that became the basis
from exercising the functions of his office of the charge against him. From this
for a time without forfeiting title to perspective, preventive suspension does
office. Preventive suspension is no not have the element of voluntariness
different because it disrupts actual that voluntary renunciation embodies.
delivery of service for a time within a Neither does it contain the element of
term. Adopting such interruption renunciation or loss of title to office as it
of actual service as the standard to merely involves the temporary incapacity
determine effective interruption of term to perform the service that an elective
under the three-term rule raises at least office demands. Thus viewed, preventive
the possibility of confusion in suspension is by its very nature the exact
implementing this rule, given the many opposite of voluntary renunciation; it is
modes and occasions when actual service involuntary and temporary, and involves
may be interrupted in the course of only the actual delivery of service, not the
serving a term of office. The standard title to the office. The easy conclusion
may reduce the enforcement of the therefore is that they are, by nature,
three-term limit rule to a case-to-case different and non-comparable.
and possibly see-sawing determination of
what an effective interruption is.
But beyond the obvious
comparison of their respective natures is
c. Preventive Suspension
the more important consideration of how
and
they affect the three-term limit rule.
Voluntary Renunciation
Voluntary renunciation, while
involving loss of office and the total
incapacity to render service, is disallowed Conclusion
by the Constitution as an effective
interruption of a term. It is therefore not
allowed as a mode of circumventing the To recapitulate, Asilos 2004-2007

three-term limit rule. term was not interrupted by the

Sandiganbayan-imposed preventive
suspension in 2005, as preventive
Preventive suspension, by its suspension does not interrupt an elective
nature, does not involve an effective officials term. Thus, the COMELEC
interruption of a term and should refused to apply the legal command of
therefore not be a reason to avoid the Section 8, Article X of the Constitution
three-term limitation. It can pose as a when it granted due course to Asilos
threat, however, if we shall disregard its certificate of candidacy for a prohibited
nature and consider it an effective fourth term. By so refusing, the
interruption of a term. Let it be noted COMELEC effectively committed grave
that a preventive suspension is easier to abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
undertake than voluntary renunciation, excess of jurisdiction; its action was a
as it does not require relinquishment or refusal to perform a positive duty
loss of office even for the briefest time. required by no less than the Constitution
It merely requires an easily fabricated and was one undertaken outside the
administrative charge that can be contemplation of law.[21]
dismissed soon after a preventive
suspension has been imposed. In this
sense, recognizing preventive suspension WHEREFORE, premises considered,

as an effective interruption of a term can we GRANT the petition and

serve as a circumvention more potent accordingly NULLIFY the assailed

than the voluntary renunciation that the COMELEC rulings. The private

Constitution expressly disallows as an respondent Wilfredo F. Asilo is

interruption. declared DISQUALIFIED to run, and

perforce to serve, as Councilor of Lucena
City for a prohibited fourth term. Costs
against private respondent Asilo. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Promulgated:
and MARINO P. MORALES,
Respondents. January 30, 2009
x------------------------------
SO ORDERED. -----------------------x

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:
ROBERTO L. DIZON, G.R. The Case
Petitioner, No. 182088
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,* This is a petition for certiorari and
QUISUMBING,** prohibition, with prayer for the issuance
YNARES-SANTIAGO, ***
of a temporary restraining order and writ
CARPIO, of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The
CARPI present petition seeks the reversal of the
O MORALES, Resolution dated 27 July 2007 of the
- versus - AZCUNA,**** Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
TINGA
, Second Division which dismissed the
CHICOpetition to disqualify and/or to cancel
- Marino P. Morales (Morales) certificate of
NAZA candidacy, as well as the Resolution
RIO,
dated 14 February 2008 of the
VELAS
CO, COMELEC En Banc which denied Roberto
JR., L. Dizons (Dizon) motion for
NACH reconsideration.
URA,
LEON
ARDO-The Facts
DE
CASTRThe COMELEC Second Division stated the
O,
facts as follows:
BRION
, and
PERAL Roberto L. Dizon,
TA, JJ. hereinafter referred to as
petitioner, is a resident and
taxpayer of the Municipality elections. He avers that the
of Mabalacat, Commission en banc in SPA
Pampanga. Marino P. Case No. A-04-058, entitled
Morales, hereinafter Atty. Venancio Q. Rivera III
referred to as respondent, and Normandick P. De
is the incumbent Mayor of Guzman vs. Mayor Marino
the Municipality of P. Morales, affirmed the
Mabalacat, Pampanga. decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Angeles City
Petitioner alleges declaring Anthony D. Dee
respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected Mayor
as the municipal mayor of of Mabalacat, Pampanga in
Mabalacat, Pampanga the 1998 elections.
during the 1995, 1998,
2001 and 2004 elections Respondent alleges that his
and has fully served the term should be reckoned
same. Respondent filed his from 2001 or when he was
Certificate of Candidacy on proclaimed as Mayor of
March 28, 2007 again for Mabalacat,
the same position and Pampanga. Respondent
same municipality. further asserts that his
election in 2004 is only for
Petitioner argues that his second term. Hence,
respondent is no longer the three term rule
eligible and qualified to run provided under the Local
for the same position for Government Code is not
the May 14, 2007 elections applicable to him.
under Section 43 of the
Local Government Code of Respondent further argues
1991. Under the said that the grounds stated in
provision, no local elective the instant petition are not
official is allowed to serve covered under Section 78
for more than three (3) of the Omnibus Election
consecutive terms for the Code. Respondent further
same position. contend [sic] that even if it
is covered under the
Respondent, on the other aforementioned provision,
hand, asserts that he is still the instant petition failed to
eligible and qualified to run allege any material
as Mayor of the misrepresentation in the
Municipality of Mabalacat, respondents Certificate of
Pampanga because he was Candidacy.[1]
not elected for the said
position in the 1998
The Ruling of the COMELEC Second considered not a candidate
in the 2004 Synchronized
Division
National and Local
Elections. Hence, his failure
In its Resolution dated 27 July 2007, the to qualify for the 2004
COMELEC Second Division took judicial elections is a gap and
allows him to run again for
notice of this Courts ruling in the
the same position in the
consolidated cases of Atty. Venancio Q. May 14, 2007 National and
Rivera III v. COMELEC and Marino Boking Local Elections.
Moralesin G.R. No. 167591 and Anthony
WHEREFORE, premises
Dee v. COMELEC and Marino Boking
considered, the
Morales in G.R. No. 170577 (Rivera case) Commission RESOLVED, as
promulgated on 9 May 2007. The it hereby RESOLVES to
pertinent portions of the COMELEC DENY the instant Petition to
Cancel the Certificate of
Second Divisions ruling read as follows:
Candidacy and/or Petition
for the Disqualification of
Respondent was elected as Marino P. Morales for lack
mayor of Mabalacat from of merit.[2]
July 1, 1995 to June 30,
1998. There was no
interruption of his second
term from 1998 to
Dizon filed a motion for reconsideration
2001. He was able to
exercise the powers and before the COMELEC En Banc.
enjoy the position of a
mayor as caretaker of the The Ruling of the COMELEC En Banc
office or a de facto officer
until June 30, 2001
notwithstanding the The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the
Decision of the RTC in an resolution of the COMELEC Second
electoral protest case. He Division.
was again elected as mayor
from July 1, 2001 to June
30, 2003 [sic]. The pertinent portions of the
COMELEC En Bancs Resolution read as
It is worthy to emphasize follows:
that the Supreme Court
ruled that respondent has
violated the three-term Respondents certificate of
limit under Section 43 of candidacy for the May 2004
the Local Government Synchronized National and
Code. Respondent was
Local Elections was Supreme Court in the case
cancelled pursuant to the of Latasa v. Comelec ruled:
above-mentioned Supreme
Court decision which was Indeed, the
promulgated on May 9, law
2007. As a result, contemplates
respondent was not only a rest period
disqualified but was also during which
not considered a candidate the local
in the May 2004 elections. elective
official steps
Another factor which is down from
worth mentioning is the office and
fact that respondent has ceases to
relinquished the disputed exercise
position on May 16, power or
2007. The vice-mayor elect authority over
then took his oath and has the
assumed office as mayor of inhabitants of
Mabalacat on May 17, 2007 the territorial
until the term ended on jurisdiction of
June 30, 2007. For failure a particular
to serve for the full term, local
such involuntary government
interruption in his term of unit.
office should be considered
a gap which renders the In sum, the three-term
three-term limit limit is not applicable in the
inapplicable. instant case for lack of the
two conditions: 1)
The three-term limit does respondent was not the
not apply whenever there is duly-elected mayor of
an involuntary break. The Mabalacat for the July 1,
Constitution does not 2004 to June 30, 2007 term
require that the primordially because he
interruption or hiatus to be was not even considered a
a full term of three candidate thereat; and 2)
years. What the law respondent has failed to
requires is for an serve the entire duration of
interruption, break or a rest the term of office because
period from a candidates he has already relinquished
term of office for any the disputed office on May
length of time. The 16, 2007 which is more
 than a month prior to the VIOLATE THE
end of his supposed term. THREE-YEAR TERM
LIMIT WHEN HE
xxx RAN AND WON AS
MAYOR OF
WHEREFORE, premises MABALACAT,
considered, the PAMPANGA DURING
Commission RESOLVED, as THE MAY 14, 2007
it hereby RESOLVES, to ELECTION.
DENY the instant Motion for
Reconsideration for LACK 2. THE COMELEC
OF MERIT. The Resolution GRAVELY ABUSED
of the Commission Second ITS DISCRETION
Division is hereby AMOUNTING TO
AFFIRMED. LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
SO ORDERED.[3] WHEN IT RULED
THAT DUE TO THIS
HONORABLE
The Issues COURTS RULING IN
THE AFORESAID
CONSOLIDATED
Dizon submits that the factual findings CASES,
made in the Rivera case should still be RESPONDENT
applied in the present case because MORALES FOURTH
TERM IS
Morales had, except for one month and CONSIDERED A GAP
14 days, served the full term of 2004- IN THE LATTERS
2007. Morales assumption of the SERVICE WHEN HE
mayoralty position on 1 July 2007 makes FILED HIS
CERTIFICATE OF
the 2007-2010 term Morales fifth term in CANDIDACY FOR
office. Dizon raises the following grounds THE 2007
before this Court: ELECTIONS.

1. THE COMELEC 3. THE COMELEC

GRAVELY ABUSED GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION ITS DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO WHEN IT RULED
LACK OR EXCESS OF THAT THE FOURTH
ITS JURISDICTION TERM OF MORALES
WHEN IT RULED WAS INTERRUPTED
THAT RESPONDENT WHEN HE
MORALES DID NOT RELINQUISHED HIS
 POSITION FOR ONE WHEREFORE, the petition
MONTH AND 14 in G.R. No. 167591 is
DAYS PRIOR TO THE GRANTED. Respondent
MAY 14, 2007 Morales Certificate of
ELECTION. [4] Candidacy dated December
30, 2003 is cancelled. In
view of the vacancy in the
Office of the Mayor of
The Ruling of the Court Mabalacat, Pampanga, the
vice-mayor elect of the said
municipality in the May 10,
The petition has no merit. 2004 Synchronized
National and Local
The present case covers a situation Elections is hereby declared
mayor and shall serve as
wherein we have previously ruled that
such for the remaining
Morales had been elected to the same duration of the term July 1,
office and had served three consecutive 2004 to June 30, 2007. The
terms, and wherein we disqualified and petition in G.R. No. 170577
is DISMISSED for being
removed Morales during his fourth
moot.
term. Dizon claims that Morales is
currently serving his fifth term as This Decision is
mayor. Is the 2007-2010 term really immediately executory.
Morales fifth term?
SO ORDERED.[5]

The Effect of our Ruling in the

Rivera Case

In our decision promulgated on 9 May

Article X, Section 8 of the 1987
2007, this Court unseated Morales during
Constitution reads:
his fourth term. We cancelled his
Certificate of Candidacy dated 30 The term of office of
December 2003. This cancellation elective local officials,
disqualified Morales from being a except barangay officials,
which shall be determined
candidate in the May 2004 elections. The
by law, shall be three years
votes cast for Morales were considered and no such official shall
stray votes. The dispositive portion in serve for more than three
the Rivera case reads: consecutive
terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office
 for any length of time shall consecutive terms in the same local
not be considered as an
government post and (2) that he has fully
interruption in the
continuity of his service for served three consecutive terms.[7]
the full term for which he
was elected. In the Rivera case, we found that
Morales was elected as mayor of
Mabalacat for four consecutive terms: 1
Section 43(b) of the Local Government July 1995 to 30 June 1998, 1 July 1998
Code restated Article X, Section 8 of the to 30 June 2001, 1 July 2001 to 30 June
1987 Constitution as follows: 2004, and 1 July 2004 to 30 June
2007. We disqualified Morales from his
candidacy in the May 2004 elections
No local elective official
because of the three-term limit. Although
shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms the trial court previously ruled that
in the same Morales proclamation for the 1998-2001
position. Voluntary term was void, there was no interruption
renunciation of the office
of the continuity of Morales service with
for any length of time shall
not be considered as an respect to the 1998-2001 term
interruption in the because the trial courts ruling was
continuity of service for the promulgated only on 4 July 2001, or after
full term for which the
the expiry of the 1998-2001 term.
elective official concerned
was elected.
Our ruling in the Rivera case served as
Morales involuntary severance from
office with respect to the 2004-2007
For purposes of determining the resulting
term. Involuntary severance from office
disqualification brought about by the
for any length of time short of the full
three-term limit, it is not enough that an
term provided by law amounts to an
individual has served three consecutive
interruption of continuity of
terms in an elective local office, he must
service.[8] Our decision in the Rivera case
also have been elected to the same
was promulgated on 9 May 2007 and was
position for the same number of
effective immediately. The next day,
times.[6] There should be a concurrence
Morales notified the vice mayors office of
of two conditions for the application of
our decision. The vice mayor assumed
the disqualification: (1) that the official
the office of the mayor from 17 May 2007
concerned has been elected for three
up to 30 June 2007. The assumption by
the vice mayor of the office of the mayor, a gap for purposes of the three-term limit
no matter how short it may seem to rule.Thus, the present 1 July 2007 to 30
Dizon, interrupted Morales continuity of June 2010 term is effectively Morales first
service. Thus, Morales did not hold office term for purposes of the three-term limit
for the full term of 1 July 2004 to 30 June rule.
2007.
Dizon alleges that Morales was able to
2007-2010: Morales Fifth Term? serve his fourth term as mayor through
lengthy litigations. x x x In other words,
Dizon claims that the 2007-2010 term is he was violating the rule on three-term
Morales fifth term in office. Dizon asserts limit with impunity by the sheer length of
that even after receipt of our decision on litigation and profit from it even more by
10 May 2007, Morales waited for the raising the technicalities arising
election to be held on 14 May 2007 to therefrom.[10] To this, we quote our
ensure his victory for a fifth term.[9] ruling in Lonzanida v. COMELEC:

We concede that Morales occupied the

The respondents harp on
position of mayor of Mabalacat for the the delay in resolving the
following periods: 1 July 1995 to 30 June election protest between
1998, 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001, 1 July petitioner and his then
opponent Alvez which took
2001 to 30 June 2004, and 1 July 2004 to
roughly about three years
16 May 2007. However, because of his and resultantly extended
disqualification, Morales was not the duly the petitioners incumbency
elected mayor for the 2004-2007 in an office to which he was
not lawfully elected. We
term. Neither did Morales hold the
note that such delay cannot
position of mayor of Mabalacat for the full be imputed to the
term. Morales cannot be deemed to have petitioner. There is no
served the full term of 2004-2007 specific allegation nor proof
that the delay was due to
because he was ordered to vacate his
any political maneuvering
post before the expiration of the on his part to prolong his
term. Morales occupancy of the position stay in office. Moreover,
of mayor of Mabalacat from 1 July 2004 protestant Alvez, was not
to 16 May 2007 cannot be counted as a without legal recourse to
move for the early
term for purposes of computing the resolution of the election
three-term limit. Indeed, the period from protest while it was
17 May 2007 to 30 June 2007 served as pending before the regional
 trial court or to file a motion (BANAT), Petitioner,
for the execution of the vs.
regional trial courts COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
decision declaring the (sitting as the National Board of
position of mayor vacant Canvassers), Respondent.
and ordering the vice- ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
mayor to assume office PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor.
while the appeal was AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor.
pending with the COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF
COMELEC. Such delay SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
which is not here shown to PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
have been intentionally CITIZENS),Intervenor.
sought by the petitioner to
prolong his stay in office x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
cannot serve as basis to bar
his right to be elected and G.R. No. 179295 April 21,
to serve his chosen local 2009
government post in the
succeeding mayoral BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR
election.[11] TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION
AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., and
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the
ABONO, Petitioners,
petition. We AFFIRM the Resolution of vs.
the Commission on Elections En COMMISSION ON
Banc dated 14 February 2008 as well as ELECTIONS, Respondent.
the Resolution of the Commission on
DECISION
Elections Second Division dated 27 July
2007. CARPIO, J.:

The Case
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 —
Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) — in a petition for certiorari and
mandamus,1 assails the
G.R. No. 179271 April 21,
Resolution promulgated on 3 August
2
2009
2007 by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR
COMELEC’s resolution in NBC No. 07-041
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND
(PL) approved the recommendation of
TRANSPARENCY
Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the The 14 May 2007 elections included the
National Board of Canvassers (NBC) elections for the party-list
Legal Group, to deny the petition of representatives. The COMELEC counted
BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties
before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as under the Party-List System.6
NBC, a Petition to Proclaim the Full
Number of Party-List Representatives On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition
Provided by the Constitution. to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List
Representatives Provided by the
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-
179271: Arts Business and Science 041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its
Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), petition because "[t]he Chairman and the
and Coalition of Associations of Senior Members of the [COMELEC] have
Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior recently been quoted in the national
Citizens). papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound
to and shall implement
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 — Bayan the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply
Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher the Panganiban formula in allocating
Empowerment Through Action, party-list seats."7 There were no
Cooperation and Harmony Towards intervenors in BANAT’s petition before
Educational Reforms (A Teacher) — in a the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on
petition for certiorari with mandamus and 19 July 2007.
prohibition,3 assails NBC Resolution No.
07-604 promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as
No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation of the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution
parties, organizations and coalitions that No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60
obtained at least two percent of the total proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as
votes cast under the Party-List System. winners in the party-list elections,
The COMELEC announced that, upon namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong
completion of the canvass of the party- (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens’ Battle
list results, it would determine the total Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabriela’s
number of seats of each winning party, Women Party (Gabriela), Association of
organization, or coalition in accordance Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A
with Veterans Federation Party v. Teacher, Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party
COMELEC5 (Veterans). (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party
(BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis,
President and First Nominee of the Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and
Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-
to intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 60 in its entirety below:
and 179295.
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections
The Facts sitting en banc as National Board of
Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for
Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had Maximum Total 16,723,121
officially canvassed, in open and public Party-List Votes
proceedings, a total of fifteen million
two hundred eighty three thousand
WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No.
six hundred fifty-nine
7941 (Party-List System Act) provides in
(15,283,659) votes under the Party-
part:
List System of Representation, in
connection with the National and Local The parties, organizations, and coalitions
Elections conducted last 14 May 2007; receiving at least two percent (2%) of the
total votes cast for the party-list system
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the
shall be entitled to one seat each:
Legal and Tabulation Groups of the
provided, that those garnering more than
National Board of Canvassers reveals that
two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
the projected/maximum total party-list
entitled to additional seats in proportion
votes cannot go any higher than sixteen
to their total number of votes: provided,
million seven hundred twenty three
finally, that each party, organization, or
thousand one hundred twenty-one
coalition shall be entitled to not more
(16,723,121) votes given the following
than three (3) seats.
statistical data:
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based
Projected/Maximum Party-List
on the above projected total of party-list
Votes for May 2007 Elections
votes, the presumptive two percent (2%)
threshold can be pegged at three
i. Total party-list votes 15,283,659 hundred thirty four thousand four
already hundred sixty-two (334,462)votes;
canvassed/tabulated
ii. Total party-list votes 1,337,032 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court,
remaining in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption
uncanvassed/ (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its
untabulated (i.e. ruling in Veterans Federation Party
canvass deferred) versus COMELEC adopting a formula for
the additional seats of each party,
iii. Maximum party-list 102,430
organization or coalition receving more
votes (based on
than the required two percent (2%)
100% outcome)
votes, stating that the same shall be
from areas not yet
determined only after all party-list ballots
submitted for
have been completely canvassed;
canvass (Bogo,
Cebu; Bais City;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations,
Pantar, Lanao del
and coalitions that have thus far
Norte; and
garnered at least three hundred thirty
Pagalungan,
four thousand four hundred sixty-
Maguindanao)
two (334,462) votes are as follows:
 RA PARTY/ORGANI VOTES NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance
NK ZATION/ RECEI of Restraining Order) has been filed
COALITION VED before the Commission, docketed as SPC
No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations
1 1,163,2 and coalitions included in the
BUHAY
18 aforementioned list are therefore entitled
2 972,73 to at least one seat under the party-list
BAYAN MUNA
0 system of representation in the
3 760,26 meantime.
CIBAC
0
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the
4 610,45 powers vested in it by the Constitution,
GABRIELA
1 the Omnibus Election Code, Executive
5 538,97 Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646,
APEC 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the
1
Commission on Elections, sitting en
6 476,03
A TEACHER banc as the National Board of
6
Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to
7 470,87 PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain
AKBAYAN
2 conditions set forth below, the following
8 423,07 parties, organizations and coalitions
ALAGAD participating under the Party-List
6
System:
9 405,05
BUTIL
2
1 Buhay Hayaan BUHAY
10 390,02 Yumabong
COOP-NATCO
9
2 Bayan Muna BAYAN
11 386,36 MUNA
BATAS
1
3 Citizens Battle CIBAC
12 376,03 Against
ANAK PAWIS
6 Corruption
13 338,19 4 Gabriela GABRIELA
ARC
4 Women’s
14 337,04 Party
ABONO
6 5 Association of APEC
Philippine
WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Electric
Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Cooperatives
Sambayanan (BATAS), against which
6 Advocacy for A TEACHER
an URGENT PETITION FOR
Teacher
CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF
Empowerment
REGISTRATION AND
Through
DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST
 Action, in order not to render the proceedings
Cooperation therein moot and academic.
and Harmony
Towards Finally, all proclamation of the nominees
Educational of concerned parties, organizations and
Reforms, Inc. coalitions with pending disputes shall
likewise be held in abeyance until final
7 Akbayan! AKBAYAN resolution of their respective cases.
Citizen’s
Action Party Let the Clerk of the Commission
8 Alagad ALAGAD implement this Resolution, furnishing a
9 Luzon BUTIL copy thereof to the Speaker of the House
Farmers Party of Representatives of the Philippines.

10 Cooperative- COOP- SO ORDERED.8 (Emphasis in the original)

Natco NATCCO
Network Party Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60,
11 Anak Pawis ANAKPAWIS the COMELEC, acting as NBC,
promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72,
12 Alliance of ARC
which declared the additional seats
Rural
allocated to the appropriate parties. We
Concerns
quote from the COMELEC’s interpretation
13 Abono ABONO of the Veterans formula as found in NBC
Resolution No. 07-72:
This is without prejudice to the
proclamation of other parties, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the
organizations, or coalitions which may Commission on Elections sitting en
later on be established to have obtained banc as the National Board of Canvassers
at least two percent (2%) of the total proclaimed thirteen (13) qualified
actual votes cast under the Party-List parties, organization[s] and coalitions
System. based on the presumptive two percent
(2%) threshold of 334,462 votes from
The total number of seats of each the projected maximum total number of
winning party, organization or coalition party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were
shall be determined pursuant to Veterans thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list
Federation Party versus seat each;
COMELEC formula upon completion of
the canvass of the party-list results. WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation
Group and Supervisory Committee of the
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang National Board of Canvassers, the
Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing projected maximum total party-list votes,
Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes
until final resolution of SPC No. 07-250, actually canvassed, votes canvassed but
not included in Report No. 29, votes
received but uncanvassed, and maximum WHEREAS, qualified parties,
votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del organizations and coalitions participating
Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the under the party-list system of
projected maximum total votes for the representation that have obtained one
thirteen (13) qualified parties, guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to
organizations and coalition[s] are as an additional seat or seats based on the
follows: formula prescribed by the Supreme Court
in Veterans;
Party-List Projected
total number WHEREAS, in determining the additional
of votes seats for the "first party", the correct
formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
1 BUHAY 1,178,747
2 BAYAN 977,476 Number of Proportion of
MUNA votes of first votes of first
3 CIBAC 755,964 party party relative
= to total votes
4 GABRIELA 621,718
Total votes for
5 APEC 622,489 for party-list party-list
6 A TEACHER 492,369 system system
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
wherein the proportion of votes received
8 ALAGAD 423,190 by the first party (without rounding off)
9 BUTIL 409,298 shall entitle it to additional seats:
10 COOP- 412,920
NATCO Proportion of Additional
votes received seats
11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165 by the first party
12 ARC 375,846 Equal to or at least Two (2)
13 ABONO 340,151 6% additional
seats
WHEREAS, based on the above Equal to or greater One (1)
Report, Buhay Hayaan than 4% but less additional
Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest than 6% seat
number of votes among the thirteen (13)
Less than 4% No additional
qualified parties, organizations and
seat
coalitions, making it the "first party" in
accordance with Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC, reiterated WHEREAS, applying the above formula,
in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption Buhay obtained the following
(CIBAC) versus COMELEC; percentage:

1,178,747 = 0.07248 or 7.2%

 ARC 0.63 0
16,261,369 ABONO 0.57 0

which entitles it to two (2) additional NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the

seats. powers vested in it by the Constitution,
Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order
WHEREAS, in determining the additional No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166,
seats for the other qualified parties, 7941 and other elections laws, the
organizations and coalitions, the correct Commission on Elections en bancsitting
formula as expressed in Veterans and as the National Board of Canvassers,
reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows: hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby
RESOLVES, to proclaim the following
No. of parties, organizations or coalitions as
No. of
votes of entitled to additional seats, to wit:
Addition addition
concern
al seats al
ed party Additional
for seats Party List
= x Seats
a allocate
No. of
concern d BUHAY 2
votes of
ed party to first
first BAYAN MUNA 1
party
party
CIBAC 1

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, GABRIELA 1

the results are as follows: APEC 1

Additional This is without prejudice to the

Party List Percentage
Seat proclamation of other parties,
BAYAN organizations or coalitions which may
1.65 1 later on be established to have obtained
MUNA
at least two per cent (2%) of the total
CIBAC 1.28 1 votes cast under the party-list system to
GABRIELA 1.05 1 entitle them to one (1) guaranteed seat,
or to the appropriate percentage of votes
APEC 1.05 1
to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.
A TEACHER 0.83 0
AKBAYAN 0.78 0 Finally, all proclamation of the nominees
of concerned parties, organizations and
ALAGAD 0.71 0
coalitions with pending disputes shall
BUTIL 0.69 0 likewise be held in abeyance until final
COOP- resolution of their respective cases.
0.69 0
NATCO
Let the National Board of Canvassers
ANAKPAWIS 0.62 0 Secretariat implement this Resolution,
furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker threshold votes, should be
of the House of Representatives of the harmonized with Section 5, Article
Philippines. VI of the Constitution and with
Section 12 of the same RA 7941 in
SO ORDERED.9 that it should be applicable only to
the first party-list representative
Acting on BANAT’s petition, the NBC seats to be allotted on the basis of
promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 their initial/first ranking.
on 3 August 2007, which reads as
follows: 3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by
RA 7941 shall be applied; and
This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim
the Full Number of Party-List 4. Initially, all party-list groups
Representatives Provided by the shall be given the number of seats
Constitution filed by the Barangay corresponding to every 2% of the
Association for National Advancement votes they received and the
and Transparency (BANAT). additional seats shall be allocated
in accordance with Section 12 of
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the RA 7941, that is, in proportion to
Barangay Association for National the percentage of votes obtained
Advancement and Transparency by each party-list group in relation
(BANAT) party-list, Atty. Alioden D. to the total nationwide votes cast
Dalaig, Head, National Board of in the party-list election, after
Canvassers Legal Group submitted his deducting the corresponding
comments/observations and votes of those which were allotted
recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 seats under the 2% threshold
(PL)], which reads: rule. In fine, the
formula/procedure prescribed in
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS: the "ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST
SEATS, ANNEX "A" of COMELEC
Petitioner Barangay Association for RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June
National Advancement and Transparency 1996, shall be used for [the]
(BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the purpose of determining how many
Full Number of Party-List Representatives seats shall be proclaimed, which
Provided by the Constitution prayed for party-list groups are entitled to
the following reliefs, to wit: representative seats and how
many of their nominees shall seat
1. That the full number -- twenty [sic].
percent (20%) -- of Party-List
representatives as mandated by 5. In the alternative, to declare as
Section 5, Article VI of the unconstitutional Section 11 of
Constitution shall be proclaimed. Republic Act No. 7941 and that
the procedure in allocating seats
2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA for party-list representative
7941 which prescribes the 2%
 prescribed by Section 12 of RA NBC, to reconsider its decision to use
7941 shall be followed. the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC
Resolution No. 07-60 because
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N: the Veterans formula is violative of the
Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941
The petition of BANAT is now moot and (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the
academic. COMELEC denied reconsideration during
the proceedings of the NBC.11
The Commission En Banc in NBC
Resolution No. 07-60 promulgated July 9, Aside from the thirteen party-list
2007 re "In the Matter of the Canvass of organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007,
Votes and Partial Proclamation of the the COMELEC proclaimed three other
Parties, Organizations and Coalitions party-list organizations as qualified
Participating Under the Party-List System parties entitled to one guaranteed seat
During the May 14, 2007 National and under the Party-List System: Agricultural
Local Elections" resolved among others Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc.
that the total number of seats of each (AGAP),12 Anak Mindanao (AMIN),13 and
winning party, organization or coalition An Waray.14 Per the certification15by
shall be determined pursuant to COMELEC, the following party-list
the Veterans Federation organizations have been proclaimed as of
Party versus COMELEC formula upon 19 May 2008:
completion of the canvass of the party-
list results."1awphi1 No. of
Party-List
Seat(s)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
1.1 Buhay 3
National Board of Canvassers RESOLVED,
as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve and 1.2 Bayan Muna 2
adopt the recommendation of Atty. 1.3 CIBAC 2
Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal 1.4 Gabriela 2
Group, to DENY the herein petition of
1.5 APEC 2
BANAT for being moot and academic.
1.6 A Teacher 1
Let the Supervisory Committee 1.7 Akbayan 1
implement this resolution. 1.8 Alagad 1
SO ORDERED.10 1.9 Butil 1
Coop-Natco
1.10 1
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and [sic]
mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC 1.11 Anak Pawis 1
Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file
1.12 ARC 1
a motion for reconsideration of NBC
Resolution No. 07-88. 1.13 Abono 1
1.14 AGAP 1
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and 1.15 AMIN 1
A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Party Rule in the allocation of
Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing seats to qualified party-list
Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an organizations as said rule:
Urgent Petition for Cancellation/Removal
of Registration and Disqualification of A. Violates the
Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the constitutional principle of
Issuance of Restraining Order) has been proportional
filed before the COMELEC, was deferred representation.
pending final resolution of SPC No. 07-
250. B. Violates the provisions of
RA 7941 particularly:
Issues
1. The 2-4-6
BANAT brought the following issues Formula used by the
before this Court: First Party Rule in
allocating additional
1. Is the twenty percent allocation seats for the "First
for party-list representatives Party" violates the
provided in Section 5(2), Article VI principle of
of the Constitution mandatory or proportional
is it merely a ceiling? representation
under RA 7941.
2. Is the three-seat limit provided
in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 2. The use of two
constitutional? formulas in the
allocation of
3. Is the two percent threshold additional seats, one
and "qualifier" votes prescribed by for the "First Party"
the same Section 11(b) of RA and another for the
7941 constitutional? qualifying parties,
violates Section
4. How shall the party-list 11(b) of RA 7941.
representatives be allocated?16
3. The proportional
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on relationships under
the other hand, raised the following the First Party Rule
issues in their petition: are different from
those required
I. Respondent Commission on under RA 7941;
Elections, acting as National Board
of Canvassers, committed grave C. Violates the "Four
abuse of discretion amounting to Inviolable Parameters" of
lack or excess of jurisdiction when the Philippine party-list
it promulgated NBC Resolution system as provided for
No. 07-60 to implement the First-
 under the same case qualify for one seat
of Veterans Federation constitutional?
Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
4. How shall the party-list
II. Presuming that the representative seats be
Commission on Elections did not allocated?
commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of 5. Does the Constitution
jurisdiction when it implemented prohibit the major political
the First-Party Rule in the parties from participating in
allocation of seats to qualified the party-list elections? If
party-list organizations, the same not, can the major political
being merely in consonance with parties be barred from
the ruling in Veterans Federations participating in the party-
Party, et al. v. COMELEC, the list elections?18
instant Petition is a justiciable case
as the issues involved herein are The Ruling of the Court
constitutional in nature, involving
the correct interpretation and The petitions have partial merit. We
implementation of RA 7941, and maintain that a Philippine-style party-list
are of transcendental importance election has at least four inviolable
to our nation.17 parameters as clearly stated in Veterans.
For easy reference, these are:
Considering the allegations in the
petitions and the comments of the First, the twenty percent
parties in these cases, we defined allocation — the combined
the following issues in our number of all party-list
advisory for the oral arguments congressmen shall not exceed
set on 22 April 2008: twenty percent of the total
membership of the House of
1. Is the twenty percent Representatives, including those
allocation for party-list elected under the party list;
representatives in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Second, the two percent threshold
Constitution mandatory or — only those parties garnering a
merely a ceiling? minimum of two percent of the
total valid votes cast for the party-
2. Is the three-seat limit in list system are "qualified" to have
Section 11(b) of RA 7941 a seat in the House of
constitutional? Representatives;

3. Is the two percent Third, the three-seat limit — each

threshold prescribed in qualified party, regardless of the
Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to number of votes it actually
 obtained, is entitled to a maximum (2) The party-list representatives shall
of three seats; that is, one constitute twenty per centum of the total
"qualifying" and two additional number of representatives including
seats; those under the party-list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of
Fourth, proportional this Constitution, one-half of the seats
representation— the additional allocated to party-list representatives
seats which a qualified party is shall be filled, as provided by law, by
entitled to shall be computed "in selection or election from the labor,
proportion to their total number of peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
votes."19 communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law,
However, because the formula except the religious sector.
in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical
interpretation of the term "proportional The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A.
representation," this Court is compelled No. 7941 reads:
to revisit the formula for the allocation of
additional seats to party-list Section 11. Number of Party-List
organizations. Representatives. — The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty
Number of Party-List per centum (20%) of the total number of
Representatives: the members of the House of
The Formula Mandated by the Representatives including those under
Constitution the party-list.

Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution xxx

provides:
Section 5(1), Article VI of the
Section 5. (1) The House of Constitution states that the "House of
Representatives shall be composed of not Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, members, unless otherwise fixed by law."
who shall be elected from legislative The House of Representatives shall be
districts apportioned among the composed of district representatives and
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan party-list representatives. The
Manila area in accordance with the Constitution allows the legislature to
number of their respective inhabitants, modify the number of the members of
and on the basis of a uniform and the House of
progressive ratio, and those who, as Representatives.1avvphi1.zw+
provided by law, shall be elected through
a party-list system of registered national, Section 5(2), Article VI of the
regional, and sectoral parties or Constitution, on the other hand, states
organizations. the ratio of party-list representatives to
the total number of representatives. We
compute the number of seats available to well as on the formula to determine the
party-list representatives from the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates
number of legislative districts. On this garnering at least two-percent of the
point, we do not deviate from the first total party-list votes. However, there are
formula in Veterans, thus: numerous interpretations of the
provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the
Number of allocation of "additional seats" under
seats the Party-List
Number of seats System. Veterans produced the First
available to
x available to Party Rule,20 and Justice Vicente V.
legislative
.20 party-list Mendoza’s dissent in Veterans presented
districts
= representatives Germany’s Niemeyer formula21 as an
.80 alternative.

This formula allows for the corresponding The Constitution left to Congress the
increase in the number of seats available determination of the manner of allocating
for party-list representatives whenever a the seats for party-list representatives.
legislative district is created by law. Since Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941,
the 14th Congress of the Philippines has paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and
220 district representatives, there are 55 Section 12 of which provide:
seats available to party-list
representatives. Section 11. Number of Party-List
Representatives. — x x x
220
x .20 = 55 In determining the allocation of seats for
.80 the second vote,22 the following
procedure shall be observed:
After prescribing the ratio of the number
(a) The parties, organizations, and
of party-list representatives to the total
coalitions shall be ranked from the
number of representatives, the
highest to the lowest based on the
Constitution left the manner of
number of votes they garnered
allocating the seats available to
during the elections.
party-list representatives to the
wisdom of the legislature.
(b) The parties, organizations, and
coalitions receiving at least two
Allocation of Seats for Party-List
percent (2%) of the total votes
Representatives:
cast for the party-list system shall
The Statutory Limits Presented by
be entitled to one seat
the Two Percent Threshold
each: Provided, That those
and the Three-Seat Cap
garnering more than two
percent (2%) of the votes
All parties agree on the formula to
shall be entitled to additional
determine the maximum number of seats
seats in proportion to their
reserved under the Party-List System, as
 total number of (b) All party-list groups shall
votes:Provided, finally, That each initially be allotted one (1) seat for
party, organization, or coalition every two per centum (2%) of the
shall be entitled to not more than total party-list votes they
three (3) seats. obtained; provided, that no party-
list groups shall have more than
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats three (3) seats (Section 11, RA
for Party-List Representatives. — The 7941).
COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the
parties, organizations, or coalitions on a (c) The remaining seats shall,
nationwide basis, rank them according to after deducting the seats obtained
the number of votes received and by the party-list groups under the
allocate party-list representatives immediately preceding paragraph
proportionately according to the and after deducting from their
percentage of votes obtained by each total the votes corresponding to
party, organization, or coalition as those seats, the remaining seats
against the total nationwide votes cast shall be allotted proportionately to
for the party-list system. (Emphasis all the party-list groups which
supplied) have not secured the maximum
three (3) seats under the 2%
In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two threshold rule, in accordance with
interpretations through three formulas to Section 12 of RA 7941.23
allocate party-list representative seats.
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be
The first interpretation allegedly awarded under BANAT’s first
harmonizes the provisions of Section interpretation.
11(b) on the 2% requirement with
Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT The second interpretation presented by
described this procedure as follows: BANAT assumes that the 2% vote
requirement is declared unconstitutional,
(a) The party-list representatives and apportions the seats for party-list
shall constitute twenty percent representatives by following Section 12
(20%) of the total Members of the of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the
House of Representatives COMELEC:
including those from the party-list
groups as prescribed by Section 5, (a) shall tally all the votes for the
Article VI of the Constitution, parties, organizations, or
Section 11 (1st par.) of RA 7941 coalitions on a nationwide basis;
and Comelec Resolution No. 2847
dated 25 June 1996. Since there (b) rank them according to the
are 220 District Representatives in number of votes received; and,
the 14th Congress, there shall be
55 Party-List Representatives. All (c) allocate party-list
seats shall have to be proclaimed. representatives proportionately
 according to the percentage of remainders, from the whole integers are
votes obtained by each party, ranked from highest to lowest and the
organization or coalition as remaining seats on the basis of this
against the total nationwide votes ranking are allocated until all the seats
cast for the party-list system.24 are filled up.26

BANAT used two formulas to obtain the We examine what R.A. No. 7941
same results: one is based on the prescribes to allocate seats for party-list
proportional percentage of the votes representatives.
received by each party as against the
total nationwide party-list votes, and the Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes
other is "by making the votes of a party- the ranking of the participating parties
list with a median percentage of votes as from the highest to the lowest based on
the divisor in computing the allocation of the number of votes they garnered
seats."25 Thirty-four (34) party-list seats during the elections.
will be awarded under BANAT’s second
interpretation. Table 1. Ranking of the participating
parties from the highest to the lowest
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, based on the number of votes garnered
and A Teacher criticize both the during the elections.27
COMELEC’s original 2-4-6 formula and
the Veterans formula for systematically Votes
preventing all the party-list seats from Rank Party Rank Party
Garnered
being filled up. They claim that both
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI
formulas do not factor in the total
number of seats alloted for the entire 2 BAYAN 979,039 49 APOI
Party-List System. Bayan Muna, Abono, MUNA
and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, 3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP
but accept the 2% threshold. After
determining the qualified parties, a 4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBA
second percentage is generated by 5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS
dividing the votes of a qualified party by 6 A TEACHER 490,379 53 PMAP
the total votes of all qualified parties
only. The number of seats allocated to a 7 AKBAYAN 466,112 54 AKAPIN
qualified party is computed by 8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA
multiplying the total party-list seats
9 COOP- 409,883 56 GRECON
available with the second percentage.
NATCCO
There will be a first round of seat
allocation, limited to using the whole 10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM
integers as the equivalent of the number 11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE
of seats allocated to the concerned party-
12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI
list. After all the qualified parties are
given their seats, a second round of seat 13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA
allocation is conducted. The fractions, or 14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO
15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA42 54,751
SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ
16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 43 54,522
ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD
17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722 FILIPINA

18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 44 50,837

DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD

19 FPJPM 300,923 66 SPI 45 50,478

ANC 99,636 92 AA-
KASOSYO
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 67 BAHANDI 46,612
46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI
21 ABS 235,086 68 ADD 45,624
47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL
22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062
23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY
The PARAK 42,282
first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A.
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 71 No. KA
BABAE 7941 36,512
states that "parties,
organizations, and coalitions receiving at
25 ALIF 217,822 72 SBleast two percent
34,835(2%) of the total votes
26 SENIOR 213,058 73 ASAP
cast for the34,098
party-list system shall be
CITIZENS entitled to one seat each." This clause
27 AT 197,872 74 guarantees a33,938
PEP seat to the two-percenters.
In Table 2 below, we use the first 20
28 VFP 196,266 75 ABA 33,903
party-list candidates for illustration
ILONGGO
purposes. The percentage of votes
29 ANAD 188,521 76 garnered by33,691
VENDORS each party is arrived at by
dividing the number of votes garnered by
30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896
each party by 15,950,900, the total
31 ANG 170,531 78 ALMANA
number of 32,255
votes cast for all party-list
KASANGGA candidates.
32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA 29,130
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates
PILIPINO
and their respective percentage of votes
33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS
garnered over 26,271
the total votes for the
34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI
party-list. 25,781
28

35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946

Votes
36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744
Garnered
37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916 over
38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING Rank16,729 Votes Total Gua
Party
PINOY Garnered Votes for Sea
Party-
39 ABANSE! 130,356 86 APO 16,421 List, in
PINAY
%
40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG 16,241
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1
BUKID
2 BAYAN 979,039 6.14% 1
41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161
MUNA
 3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% number
1 of votes." This is where
petitioners’ and intervenors’ problem
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% with1 the formula
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% in Veterans
1 lies. Veterans interprets the
6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% clause
1 "in proportion to their total
number of votes" to be in proportion to
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% the1 votes of the first party. This
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% interpretation
1 is contrary to the express
language of R.A. No. 7941.
9 COOP- 409,883 2.57% 1
NATCCO
We rule that, in computing the allocation
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% of additional
1 seats, the continued
11 BATAS29 385,810 2.42% operation
1 of the two percent threshold
for the distribution of the additional seats
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1
as found in the second clause of Section
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 11(b)
1 of R.A. No. 7941
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% is unconstitutional.
1 This Court finds
that the two percent threshold makes it
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% mathematically
1 impossible to achieve the
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% maximum
1 number of available party list
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% seats
1 when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued
Total 17
operation of the two percent threshold in
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% the0 distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0
permissive ceiling that 20% of the
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% members
0 of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list
From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 representatives.
party-list candidates received at least 2%
from the total number of votes cast for To illustrate: There are 55 available
party-list candidates. The 17 qualified party-list seats. Suppose there are 50
party-list candidates, or the two- million votes cast for the 100 participants
percenters, are the party-list candidates in the party list elections. A party that has
that are "entitled to one seat each," or two percent of the votes cast, or one
the guaranteed seat. In this first round of million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let
seat allocation, we distributed 17 us further assume that the first 50 parties
guaranteed seats. all get one million votes. Only 50 parties
get a seat despite the availability of 55
The second clause of Section 11(b) of seats. Because of the operation of the
R.A. No. 7941 provides that "those two percent threshold, this situation will
garnering more than two percent (2%) of repeat itself even if we increase the
the votes shall be entitled to additional available party-list seats to 60 seats and
seats in proportion to their total even if we increase the votes cast to 100
million. Thus, even if the maximum votes until all the additional seats
number of parties get two percent of the are allocated.
votes for every party, it is always
impossible for the number of occupied 4. Each party, organization, or
party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long coalition shall be entitled to not
as the two percent threshold is present. more than three (3) seats.

We therefore strike down the two In computing the additional seats, the
percent threshold only in relation to the guaranteed seats shall no longer be
distribution of the additional seats as included because they have already been
found in the second clause of Section allocated, at one seat each, to every two-
11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent percenter. Thus, the remaining available
threshold presents an unwarranted seats for allocation as "additional seats"
obstacle to the full implementation of are the maximum seats reserved under
Section 5(2), Article VI of the the Party List System less the guaranteed
Constitution and prevents the attainment seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in
of "the broadest possible representation the absence of a provision in R.A. No.
of party, sectoral or group interests in the 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
House of Representatives."30 fractional seats.

In determining the allocation of seats for In declaring the two percent threshold
party-list representatives under Section unconstitutional, we do not limit our
11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following allocation of additional seats in Table 3
procedure shall be observed: below to the two-percenters. The
percentage of votes garnered by each
1. The parties, organizations, and party-list candidate is arrived at by
coalitions shall be ranked from the dividing the number of votes garnered by
highest to the lowest based on the each party by 15,950,900, the total
number of votes they garnered number of votes cast for party-list
during the elections. candidates. There are two steps in the
second round of seat allocation. First, the
2. The parties, organizations, and percentage is multiplied by the remaining
coalitions receiving at least two available seats, 38, which is the
percent (2%) of the total votes difference between the 55 maximum
cast for the party-list system shall seats reserved under the Party-List
be entitled to one guaranteed seat System and the 17 guaranteed seats of
each. the two-percenters. The whole integer of
the product of the percentage and of the
3. Those garnering sufficient remaining available seats corresponds to
number of votes, according to the a party’s share in the remaining available
ranking in paragraph 1, shall be seats. Second, we assign one party-list
entitled to additional seats in seat to each of the parties next in rank
proportion to their total number of until all available seats are completely
distributed. We distributed all of the
remaining 38 seats in the second round 18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0
of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the
three-seat cap to determine the number 19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0
of seats each qualified party-list 20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0
candidate is entitled. Thus: 21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party- 22 KAKUSA 228,999 1.44% 0
List Seats 23 KABATAAN 228,637 1.43% 0
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 1.37% 0
Votes
Garnered 25 ALIF 217,822 1.37% 0
over SENIOR
Guaranteed Additional (B) plus Applying
26 213,058 1.34% 0
Total Seat CITIZENS
Seats (C), in the
Votes
Rank Party Votes for (First
27 AT (Second 197,872
whole 1.24%
three 0
Garnered
Party Round) Round) integers seat cap
List, in (B) 28 VFP(C) 196,266
(D) 1.23%
(E) 0
% 29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0
(A)
30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
ANG
BAYAN 31 170,531 1.07% 0
2 979,039 6.14% 1 KASANGGA
2.33 3 N.A.
MUNA
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
33 ABAKADA 166,747 1.05% 0
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
34 1-UTAK 164,980 1.03% 0
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0
6 A Teacher 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
36 COCOFED 155,920 0.98% 0
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
Total 17
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
COOP- Applying the procedure of seat allocation
931 409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
NATCCO as illustrated in Table 3 above, there are
55 party-list representatives from the 36
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
winning party-list organizations. All 55
11 BATAS 385,810 2.42% 1
available 1 seats are 2filled. TheN.A.
party-list
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% additional
1 seats allocated
1 to the
2 partiesN.A.
with sufficient number of votes for one
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
whole seat, in no case to exceed a total
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1
of three seats for1each party, 2are shownN.A.
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% in column
1 (D). 1 2 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% Participation
1 1
of Major 2 PoliticalN.A.
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% Parties
1 in Party-List
1 Elections
2 N.A.
The Constitutional Commission adopted a allocating under the party list
multi-party system that allowed all system.
political parties to participate in the
party-list elections. The deliberations MR. MONSOD. In other words, the
of the Constitutional Commission clearly Christian Democrats can field district
bear this out, thus: candidates and can also participate in the
party list system?
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just
want to say that we suggested or MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When
proposed the party list system because they come to the party list system,
we wanted to open up the political they will be fielding only sectoral
system to a pluralistic society through a candidates.
multiparty system. x x x We are for
opening up the system, and we MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that?
would like very much for the sectors Can UNIDO participate in the party list
to be there. That is why one of the system?
ways to do that is to put a ceiling on
the number of representatives from MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as
any single party that can sit within long as they field candidates who
the 50 allocated under the party list come from the different
system. x x x. marginalized sectors that we shall
designate in this Constitution.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Tañada
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the wants to run under BAYAN group and
candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited says that he represents the farmers,
to political parties. My question is this: would he qualify?
Are we going to classify for example
Christian Democrats and Social MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada
Democrats as political parties? Can they would not qualify.
run under the party list concept or must
they be under the district legislation side MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field
of it only? candidates under the party list system
and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, would pass on whether he is a farmer or
I think these parties that the not?
Commissioner mentioned can field
candidates for the Senate as well as for MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod,
the House of gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political
Representatives. Likewise, they can parties, particularly minority
also field sectoral candidates for the political parties, are not prohibited
20 percent or 30 percent, whichever to participate in the party list
is adopted, of the seats that we are election if they can prove that they
are also organized along sectoral
lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will
saying is that all political parties can also create the stimulus for political
participate because it is precisely the parties and mass organizations to seek
contention of political parties that they common ground. For example, we have
represent the broad base of citizens and the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no
that all sectors are represented in them. reason why they should not be able to
Would the Commissioner agree? make common goals with mass
organizations so that the very leadership
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, of these parties can be transformed
pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang through the participation of mass
political party, it will dominate the party organizations. And if this is true of the
list at mawawalang saysay din yung administration parties, this will be true of
sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political others like the Partido ng Bayan which is
parties ang party list system. Gusto ko now being formed. There is no question
lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." that they will be attractive to many mass
Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized organizations. In the opposition parties
sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 to which we belong, there will be a
seats, reserved din ito sa political parties. stimulus for us to contact mass
organizations so that with their
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon participation, the policies of such parties
kasi anybody can run there. But my can be radically transformed because this
question to Commissioner Villacorta and amendment will create conditions that
probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is will challenge both the mass
that under this system, would UNIDO be organizations and the political parties to
banned from running under the party list come together. And the party list system
system? is certainly available, although it is open
to all the parties. It is understood that the
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO parties will enter in the roll of the
may field sectoral candidates. On COMELEC the names of representatives
that condition alone, UNIDO may be of mass organizations affiliated with
allowed to register for the party list them. So that we may, in time, develop
system. this excellent system that they have in
Europe where labor organizations and
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from cooperatives, for example, distribute
Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that themselves either in the Social
answer? Democratic Party and the Christian
Democratic Party in Germany, and their
MR. TADEO. The same. very presence there has a transforming
effect upon the philosophies and the
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang leadership of those parties.
UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
It is also a fact well known to all that in
xxxx the United States, the AFL-CIO always
vote with the Democratic Party. But the
businessmen, most of them, always vote (b) A party means either a political
with the Republican Party, meaning that party or a sectoral party or a
there is no reason at all why political coalition of parties.
parties and mass organizations should
not combine, reenforce, influence and (c) A political party refers to an
interact with each other so that the very organized group of citizens
objectives that we set in this Constitution advocating an ideology or
for sectoral representation are achieved platform, principles and policies
in a wider, more lasting, and more for the general conduct of
institutionalized way. Therefore, I government and which, as the
support this [Monsod-Villacorta] most immediate means of
amendment. It installs sectoral securing their adoption, regularly
representation as a constitutional gift, nominates and supports certain of
but at the same time, it challenges the its leaders and members as
sector to rise to the majesty of being candidates for public office.
elected representatives later on through
a party list system; and even beyond It is a national party when its
that, to become actual political parties constituency is spread over the
capable of contesting political power in geographical territory of at least a
the wider constitutional arena for major majority of the regions. It is a
political parties. regional party when its
constituency is spread over the
xxx 32 (Emphasis supplied) geographical territory of at least a
majority of the cities and
R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the provinces comprising the region.
concepts put forward by the
Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of (d) A sectoral party refers to an
R.A. No. 7941 reads: organized group of citizens
belonging to any of the sectors
Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list enumerated in Section 5 hereof
system is a mechanism of proportional whose principal advocacy pertains
representation in the election of to the special interests and
representatives to the House of concerns of their sector,
Representatives from national, regional
and sectoral parties or organizations or (e) A sectoral organization refers
coalitions thereof registered with the to a group of citizens or a coalition
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). of groups of citizens who share
Component parties or organizations of a similar physical attributes or
coalition may participate independently characteristics, employment,
provided the coalition of which they form interests or concerns.
part does not participate in the party-list
system. (f) A coalition refers to an
aggrupation of duly registered
national, regional, sectoral parties
 or organizations for political list election through the Kabataang
and/or election purposes. Liberal ng Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral
youth wing. The other major political
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put parties can thus organize, or affiliate
the three-seat cap to prevent any party with, their chosen sector or sectors. To
from dominating the party-list elections. further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party
can establish a fisherfolk wing to
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. participate in the party-list election, and
7941 prohibits major political parties this fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk
from participating in the party-list nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino
system. On the contrary, the framers of (KAMPI) can do the same for the urban
the Constitution clearly intended the poor.
major political parties to participate in
party-list elections through their sectoral The qualifications of party-list nominees
wings. In fact, the members of the are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No.
Constitutional Commission voted down, 7941:
19-22, any permanent sectoral seats, and
in the alternative the reservation of the Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. —
party-list system to the sectoral No person shall be nominated as party-
groups.33In defining a "party" that list representative unless he is a natural
participates in party-list elections as born citizen of the Philippines, a
either "a political party or a sectoral registered voter, a resident of the
party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly Philippines for a period of not less than
intended that major political parties will one (1) year immediately preceding the
participate in the party-list elections. day of the elections, able to read and
Excluding the major political parties in write, bona fide member of the party or
party-list elections is manifestly against organization which he seeks to represent
the Constitution, the intent of the for at least ninety (90) days preceding
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. the day of the election, and is at least
7941. This Court cannot engage in socio- twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
political engineering and judicially of the election.
legislate the exclusion of major political
parties from the party-list elections in In case of a nominee of the youth sector,
patent violation of the Constitution and he must at least be twenty-five (25) but
the law. not more than thirty (30) years of age on
the day of the election. Any youth
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the sectoral representative who attains the
deliberations of the Constitutional age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
Commission state that major political allowed to continue until the expiration of
parties are allowed to establish, or form his term.
coalitions with, sectoral organizations for
electoral or political purposes. There Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not
should not be a problem if, for example, necessary that the party-list
the Liberal Party participates in the party- organization’s nominee "wallow in
poverty, destitution and infirmity"34 as parties from participating in the party-list
there is no financial status required in the elections, directly or indirectly. Those
law. It is enough that the nominee of the who voted to continue disallowing major
sectoral party/organization/coalition political parties from the party-list
belongs to the marginalized and elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S.
underrepresented sectors,35 that is, if the Puno in his separate opinion. On the
nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or formula to allocate party-list seats, the
she must be a fisherfolk, or if the Court is unanimous in concurring with
nominee represents the senior citizens, this ponencia.
he or she must be a senior citizen.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. GRANT the petition. We SET
7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC
20% allocation of party-list dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041
representatives found in the Constitution. (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9
The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare
5 of Article VI, left the determination of unconstitutional the two percent
the number of the members of the House threshold in the distribution of additional
of Representatives to Congress: "The party-list seats. The allocation of
House of Representatives shall be additional seats under the Party-List
composed of not more than two hundred System shall be in accordance with the
and fifty members, unless otherwise procedure used in Table 3 of this
fixed by law, x x x." The 20% allocation Decision. Major political parties are
of party-list representatives is merely a disallowed from participating in party-list
ceiling; party-list representatives cannot elections. This Decision is immediately
be more than 20% of the members of the executory. No pronouncement as to
House of Representatives. However, we costs.
cannot allow the continued existence of
a provision in the law which will SO ORDERED.
systematically prevent the
constitutionally allocated 20% party-list
representatives from being filled. The
three-seat cap, as a limitation to the
number of seats that a qualified party-list
organization may occupy, remains a valid G.R. No. 190529 March 22,
statutory device that prevents any party 2011
from dominating the party-list elections.
Seats for party-list representatives shall PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS
thus be allocated in accordance with the BROTHERHOOD, INC., represented
procedure used in Table 3 above. by its Secretary-General GEORGE
"FGBF GEORGE"
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court DULDULAO, Petitioner,
decided to continue the ruling vs.
in Veterans disallowing major political
COMMISSION ON 2010 elections pending the final
ELECTIONS, Respondent. determination of PGBI’s qualification to
be voted upon as a party-list
RESOLUTION organization.

BRION, J.: We issued the Status Quo Order on

February 2, 2010. It was served on the
We resolve in this Resolution all the Comelec on the same date,5 i.e., within
pending incidents in this case, the period that the Comelec itself gave
specifically: for the correction of any error or omission
in its published official list of party-list
(a) the contempt charge1 against participants in the May 10, 2010
the respondent Commission on elections. The Comelec itself declared:
Elections (Comelec) for its alleged
disobedience to this Court’s Status On January 30, 2010 at 3:00 o’clock (sic)
Quo Order2 dated February 2, in the afternoon, pursuant to Comelec
2010; and Minute Resolution No. 10-0042 dated
January 19, 2010, the Information
(b) the issue of whether the Technology Department of Comelec
petitioner, Philippine Guardians published a list of candidates with the
Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI), should instruction that "(s)hould there be any
be declared to have participated in misspelling, omission or other errors, the
the party-list elections of May 10, concerned candidate must call the Law
2010, in light of the Comelec’s Department’s attention within five (5)
failure to obey our Status Quo days from this publication for the purpose
Order and our subsequent of correction. Thereafter, Comelec shall
Resolution3 granting PGBI’s be relieved from liability"6 and the final
petition to annul its delisting from list shall then be prepared for printing.7
the roster of accredited party-list
groups or organizations.4 The Comelec responded the next day
(February 3, 2010) to our Status Quo
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS Order by asking for its reconsideration
and/or recall, based on the following
These incidents arose from our Status grounds/arguments:
Quo Order directing the Comelec to
restore and maintain the PGBI to its 1) There will be insurmountable
situation prior to the issuance of Comelec and tremendous operational
Resolution No. 8679, pending the constraints and costs implications
resolution of the petition for certiorari in complying with the status quo
that PGBI filed to challenge this Comelec order.
Resolution. Our Status Quo Order, in
short, directly ordered the Comelec to 2) To add the petitioner’s
include PGBI in the list of candidates party/acronym in the database of
under the party-list system in the May 10, the List of Candidates for sectoral
party/organization or coalition accurate names of
participating in the party-list candidates for the national
system of representation will have positions and acronyms of
a critical impact on the already sectoral party/organization
tight and overstretched election or coalition participating in
timelines of the Commission. Copy the party-list system of
of the Revised Automation representation and their
Implementation Calendar is corresponding assignments
hereto attached as Annex "1". to the correct districts,
provinces,
3) Printing of the ballots is an municipalities/cities, and
intricate and complicated process. clustered precincts. Since
It is not a simple process of the ballots are precinct-
encoding data in a computer and specific to ensure the
printing the ballots using a printer security of the voting and
attached to the computer. counting, this means
verification of seventy six
4) Prior to the printing of the thousand three hundred
ballots, several technical and forty (76,340) variations of
mechanical preparatory activities the one thousand six
have to be done which include hundred seventy-four
among other things: (1,674) ballot templates;
and
a. Generation and back-up
of database containing the f. Placing several security
candidates[’] information; markings in the ballots.

b. Configuration of Precinct 5) In fact, the installation of the

Count Optical Scan (PCOS) Election Management System,
machines and which is used to generate the
Consolidation and PCOS machines configuration and
Canvassing System (CCS); ballot templates production have
already been in place as of
c. Creation and design of January 25, 2010.
one thousand six hundred
seventy-four (1,674) ballot 6) To comply with the status quo
templates; order will not only affect the
printing of the ballots but also
d. Production of the ballot have serious implications on other
templates; activities of the Commission, such
as:
e. Verification of each and
every ballot template to
ensure that it contains the
 a. The setting of Even if the Commission will resort
configuration of the PCOS to contingency measures to
and CCS machines; configure and ship out the twelve
thousand (12,000) PCOS
b. Testing of PCOS machines on time, the printing of
machines in their actual the ballots cannot be completed
configuration with the before May 10, 2010. This means
ballots; that four million eight hundred
thousand (4,800,000) voters
c. Deployment of PCOS and might not be able to vote due to
CCS machines and lack of ballots, thus
transmission equipments; disenfranchising them.

d. Checking/testing, xxx xxx xxx

demos, and sealing of the
PCOS and CCS machines; 10) Hence, the Commission
and fervently requests the
understanding and forbearance of
e. Shipment of the ballots the Honorable Court which is the
to all parts of the country. bastion of our justice system,
protector of the democratic
7) Due to several re-scheduling of processes and our last resort in
the timelines of the Commission, ensuring a clean, peaceful, orderly
Smartmatic-TIM cautioned that it and credible May 10, 2010
is extremely risky to change the elections, to take a second look on
database containing the the status quo order issued on
candidates’ information at this February 2, 2010.8
point in time. Any change in the
database and other preparatory In its Comment to Comelec’s Motion for
activities would mean: Reconsideration with
Manifestation, PGBI essentially alleged
9

a. Twelve thousand that the Comelec posited seemingly

(12,000) PCOS might not misleading and innocuous reasons in
be configured and seeking reconsideration. Among other
dispatched to the field on arguments, it claimed that the Comelec
time; and had been less than candid in its
submissions: first, compliance with the
b. Four million eight Status Quo Order at that point would not
hundred thousand disrupt the timetable or entail additional
(4,800,000) ballots might and costly expenditures given that the
not be printed before the Comelec had yet to terminate all related
deadline and shipped out activities and preparations for the May
on time. 10, 2010 elections;10 second, the
Comelec had yet to promulgate, on
February 11, 2010, its decisions on excluded the nominees of PGBI in the
several pending disqualification cases official list of party-list/coalitions/sectoral
and recently accredited six other party- organizations participating in the May 10,
list organizations to add to the more than 2010 Automated National and Local
154 previously accredited sectoral parties Elections. Acting on this Manifestation,
and/or organizations. PGBI also we required the Comelec, via our
manifested that the ballot template that Resolution of May 7, 2010, to explain and
the Comelec published in its website on show cause, within a non-extendible
February 8, 2010 did not include the period of ten (10) days from receipt of
name or acronym of PGBI, in the Resolution, why it should not be held
contravention of the Status Quo Order; in CONTEMPT of COURT for its alleged
and third, the Comelec’s blatant defiance of our Status Quo Order.15
disregard of the Status Quo Order reeked
of official arrogance, given this Court’s In its Compliance16 to the Show Cause
determination that it should be included Order (submitted on May 21, 2010), the
in the ballot pending resolution of PGBI’s Comelec reiterated the arguments it
petition for certiorari.11 raised in its Extreme Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and To Lift Status Quo
In our Resolution of April 29, 2010,12 we Order. Specifically, it reiterated that there
granted PGBI’s petition and, accordingly, were "insurmountable and tremendous
annulled the assailed Comelec operational constraints and cost
Resolutions in SPP No. 09-004 implications in complying with the status
(MP)13 which delisted PGBI from the quo order," which order (referring to the
roster of duly registered national, Status Quo Order) is tantamount to
regional and sectoral parties, technical, legal, and physical impossibility
organizations or coalitions. We declared for respondents to comply.17 The
at the same time that PGBI is qualified to Comelec asked the Court to note the
be voted upon as a party-list group or explanation and accept it as sufficient
organization in the May 10, 2010 compliance with the Show Cause Order.
elections. Despite the Status Quo Order
and the Resolution, however, PGBI was Required to comment on the Comelec’s
never included in the ballot as one of the Compliance, PGBI filed a Manifestation
accredited party-list groups or Cum Comment,18 asserting that a careful
organizations eligible for election under reading of the Compliance reveals that
the party-list system. Hence, PGBI was the Comelec simply deftly skirted and,
never voted upon as a party-list ultimately, never obeyed the Status Quo
candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections. Order, and thus wantonly and
contumaciously disregarded the same.
Before the elections or on April 28, 2010, The PGBI additionally manifested that via
PGBI filed a Manifestation (of Continuing a letter to the Comelec on May 4, 2010,
Objection to Comelec’s Defiance of the it raised the following concerns:
Order of the Honorable Supreme
Court).14 It claimed that Comelec The preceding pronouncement [referring
Resolution No. 8815, dated April 5, 2007, to the Court’s Resolution granting PGBI’s
petition] may appear to be 2013 elections – i.e., whether its declared
inconsequential and a pyrrhic victory in eligibility for the 2010 elections and its
view of the error and omission to include eventual inability to participate thereto
the name of the petitioner in the ballots should be considered as a failure to
for the scheduled elections. How this participate in the last two (2) elections,
Honorable Commission will find the as defined in R.A. No. 7941 – is purely
means and/or alternative to comply with academic, and is purely an advisory
and/or implement the directive in said opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction
decision is a matter left to its judgment to grant. Judicial power, the Comelec
and discretion. claimed, is limited to the determination
and resolution of actual cases and
Be that as it may, it is the petitioner’s controversies involving existing conflicts
considered view that a definitive ruling, that are appropriate or ripe for judicial
including the grant of its Motion for determination; it does not extend to
Reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP), hypothetical, conjectural or anticipatory
be expressly made in order that the questions. It claimed additionally that as
limitation prescribed in Section 6(8) of the specialized constitutional body
R.A. No. 7941, replicated in COMELEC charged with the enforcement and
Resolution No. 2847, promulgated on administration of all laws and regulations
June 25, 1996, will not apply to herein relative to the conduct of an election,
petitioner for purposes of the May 2013 plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
elections. recall, PGBI’s question is a matter within
its competence and primary jurisdiction
While the implementation of the to decide once it becomes ripe for
dispositions in the said Resolution has adjudication.
become a physical impossibility, it is
petitioner’s respectful submittal that it OUR RULING
should not be penalized for not being
able to participate in the coming May 10, After due consideration of the
2010 party-list election. [parenthetical attendant facts and the law, we find
note at 1st paragraph supplied; the Comelec guilty of indirect
underscoring in the original]. contempt of this Court.

Based on its apprehension that it might The Comelec Chair and Members are
end up twice in jeopardy of not being guilty of indirect contempt of Court
able to participate in the party-list
elections of 2013 in view of Section 6(8) We explained in Ang Bagong Bayani-
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, PGBI OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC21 the
requested that the matter of its Court’s contempt power as follows:
participation in the May 2013 party-list
elections be given a categorical ruling.19 The power to punish contempt is
inherent in all courts, because it is
In its Reply,20 the Comelec asserted that essential to the preservation of order in
a discussion on PGBI’s eligibility for the judicial proceedings, and to the
enforcement of judgments, orders and (b) Disobedience of or resistance
mandates of the courts; and, to a lawful writ, process, order, or
consequently, to the due administration judgment of a court, including the
of justice. act of a person who, after being
dispossessed or ejected from any
Under our Rules of Court, contempt is real property by the judgment or
classified into direct and indirect. Direct process of any court of competent
contempt, which may be summary, is jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
committed "in the presence of or so near induces another to enter into or
a court as to obstruct or interrupt the upon such real property, for the
proceedings before the same, including purpose of executing acts of
disrespect toward the court, offensive ownership or possession, or in any
personalities toward others, or refusal to manner disturbs the possession
be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to given to the person adjudged to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when be entitled thereto;
lawfully required to do so."
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful
Indirect contempt, on the other hand, is interference with the processes or
not committed in the presence of the proceedings of a court not
court and can be punished only after constituting direct contempt under
notice and hearing. Disobedience or section 1 of this Rule;
resistance to a lawful writ, process, order
or judgment of a court or injunction (d) Any improper conduct tending,
granted by a court or judge constitutes directly or indirectly, to impede,
indirect contempt. We quote Section 3, obstruct, or degrade the
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, administration of justice;
enumerating the acts punishable as
indirect contempt, as follows: (e) Assuming to be an attorney or
an officer of a court, and acting as
"SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be such without authority;
punished after charge and hearing. —
After a charge in writing has been filed, (f) Failure to obey a subpoena
and an opportunity given to the duly served;
respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court (g) The rescue, or attempted
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a rescue, of a person or property in
person guilty of any of the following acts the custody of an officer by virtue
may be punished for indirect contempt: of an order or process of a court
held by him.
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a
court in the performance of his But nothing in this section shall be so
official duties or in his official construed as to prevent the court from
transactions; issuing process to bring the respondent
into court, or from holding him in custody the merits of PGBI’s motion for
pending such proceedings." reconsideration, only to receive the
Comelec’s response on February 3, 2010
Based on the recited antecedent facts, it manifesting that it could no longer
cannot be disputed that the Comelec did change the ballots because of the nature
not comply with our Status Quo Order; it of an automated election.
simply pleaded insurmountable and
tremendous operational constraints and In an exercise as important as an
costs implications as reasons for its election, the Comelec cannot make a
avoidance of our Order. It essentially declaration and impose a deadline, and,
posited that compliance with our Status thereafter, expect everyone to accept its
Quo Order was rendered impossible by excuses when it backtracks on its
the automation of the May 10, 2010 announced declaration. The Comelec
elections. knew very well that there were still cases
pending for judicial determination that
However, we find this explanation could have been decided before the
unacceptable, given the Comelec’s own deadline was set.
self-imposed deadline of February 4,
2010 for the correction of errors and Although the recent case of Liberal Party
omissions, prior to printing, of the v. Commission on Elections,22 involved
published list of participating party-list the registration of political parties, we
groups and organizations in the May 10, found that the Comelec gravely abused
2010 elections. its discretion in allowing the out of time
registration of the NP-NPC coalition
The Comelec deadline could only mean despite the mandatory deadline the
that the Comelec had determined that Comelec itself had set. In this case, we
changes in the official ballot could still be underscored the significance of the
made at any time prior to the deadline. Comelec’s compliance with its self-
In the context of the cases then pending imposed deadlines, particularly in the
involving the registration of party-list implementation of the first-ever
organizations, the deadline was a clear automated elections of May 10, 2010.
signal from the Comelec that the cases
would have to be resolved before the To be excused, the Comelec needed
deadline; otherwise, the Comelec could more than its generalized descriptions of
not be held liable for their non-inclusion. the process of ballot printing and the
alleged problems it faced. We needed
We fully read and respected the reasons on how and why the deadline
Comelec’s signal, fully aware that we was set, as well as detailed and specific
have to balance the interests the reasons why PGBI could no longer be
Comelec has to protect, with PGBI’s listed while other errors and omissions
intent to be voted as a party-list could still be remedied.
organization. Thus, on February 2, 2010,
we issued our Status Quo Order after a Unfortunately for the Comelec, we did
preliminary but judicious evaluation of not see that kind of justification in its
Compliance before us. Like the Comelec, The Appropriate Penalty
we expect obedience to and respect for
our Orders and Resolutions, and we Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
cannot be sidetracked based solely on provides the penalty for indirect
supposed operational constraints caused contempt. Section 7 of Rule 71 reads:
by the automated polls. Its treatment of
our Status Quo Order simply meant that SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect
even before the Comelec deadline, a contempt. - If the respondent is
definitive ruling that a party-list adjudged guilty of indirect contempt
organization should be included in the list committed against a Regional Trial Court
to be voted upon would have been for or a court of equivalent or higher rank,
naught as the Comelec would have he may be punished by a fine not
anyway pleaded automation constraints. exceeding thirty thousand pesos or
Even if its excuse had been meritorious, imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
the Comelec effectively would have been months, or both. x x x
guilty of misrepresentation on an election
matter and in dealing with this Court. In the past, we have found the Chairman
and members of the Comelec guilty of
Although we have recognized the validity indirect contempt in Ang Bagong Bayani-
of the automation of the May 10, 2010 OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.25 In that
elections in Roque, Jr. v. Comelec,23 we case, we held that the Chairman and
stress that automation is not the end-all members of the COMELEC guilty of
and be-all of an electoral process. An contempt and required them to pay a fine
equally important aspect of a democratic in the amount of ₱20, 000.00 for
electoral exercise is the right of free "degrading the dignity of th[e]
choice of the electorates on who shall Court;26 for brazen disobedience to its
govern them; the party-list system, in the lawful directives, in particular its
words of Ang Bagong Bayani–OFW Labor Temporary Restraining Order dated May
Party v. Comelec,24 affords them this 9, 2001; and for delaying the ultimate
choice, as it gives the marginalized and resolution of the many incidents of the
underrepresented sectors the case, to the prejudice of the litigants and
opportunity to participate in governance. of the country." We also warned the
Wittingly or unwittingly, the Comelec Comelec that a repetition of the same or
took this freedom of choice away and similar acts shall be dealt with more
effectively disenfranchised the members severely in the future.27
of the sector that PGBI sought to
represent when it did not include PGBI in Evidently, the Rule cited above does not
the list of qualified parties vying for a seat provide that reprimand may be imposed
under the party-list system of on one found guilty of indirect contempt.
representation. This is a consideration no However, we have in recent cases
less weighty than the automation of the imposed a penalty less than what is
election and cannot be simply provided under the Rules if the
disregarded on mere generalized circumstances merit such.28
allegations of automation difficulties.
In Alcantara v. Ponce,29 the Court, Therefore, instead of imposing the
instead of citing the respondent Atty. penalty of imprisonment and/or fine
Escareal-Sandejas for contempt, chose to provided under Section 7, Rule 71 of the
reprimand her (and warned her that her Revised Rules of Court, we deem it
commission of the same act would be proper to impose upon the Comelec,
more drastically dealt with) noting her particularly on its Chair and Members the
apparent inexperience in practice of the penalty of severe reprimand, with a stern
profession, especially in appellate warning that a repetition of the same
proceedings before the Court. Similarly, offense shall be dealt with more severely.
in Racines v. Judge Morallos,30 the Court,
after finding Jaime Racines guilty of At this juncture, we take judicial notice of
indirect contempt, merely reprimanded Comelec Chairperson Jose A.R. Melo’s
him because "he is not learned in the resignation effective January 15,
intricacies of the law." 201131 and Commissioners Nicodemo T.
Ferrer and Gregorio Y. Larrazabal’s
In the present case, special retirement on February 2, 2011.32 We
circumstances exist which call for our hasten to clarify that their departure from
leniency and compel us to impose the government service, however, do not
penalty of severe reprimand instead of of render moot and academic their liability
imprisonment and/or fine under Section for indirect contempt, since "contempt of
7, of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as we court applies to all persons, whether in or
have ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW out of government." Thus, in Curata v.
Labor Party. We emphasize that although Philippine Ports Authority,33 we held:
automation is a special circumstance that
should be considered in the present Contempt of court applies to all persons,
incidental matter, however, its effect on whether in or out of government. Thus,
the Comelec’s non-compliance is merely it covers government officials or
to mitigate, not to totally exculpate, the employees who retired during the
Comelec from liability for its failure to pendency of the petition for contempt.
comply with our Status Quo Order. In Otherwise, a civil servant may strategize
other words, even if we grant that to avail himself of an early retirement to
automation might have posed some escape the sanctions from a contempt
difficulty in including a new party in the citation, if he perceives that he would be
party-list listing, the Comelec still failed made responsible for a contumacious act.
to prove to our satisfaction that the The higher interest of effective and
PGBI’s inclusion was technically efficient administration of justice dictates
impossible and could not have been done that a petition for contempt must
even if the Comelec had wanted to. Thus, proceed to its final conclusion despite the
at the most, we can give the Comelec the retirement of the government official or
benefit of the doubt to the extent of employee, more so if it involves a former
recognizing its excuse as a mitigating member of the bench.
factor.
PGBI’s Participation in the May 10, 2010
Party-List Elections
We partly agree with the Comelec that recognize the ineffectiveness of our
we cannot recognize PGBI to be a party- Status Quo Order, of our April 29, 2010
list organization fully qualified to run Decision, and of this Court.
under the party-list system in the coming
2013 party-list elections. The question of As a final note, the subject of the Court’s
full and total qualification is not ripe for action is the COMELEC’s disobedience to
judicial determination as this is not our Status Quo Order of February 2, 2010
before us for resolution. Participation in a in the case in caption. The composition of
previous election and the level of votes in the COMELEC has since then changed.
favor of a participating organization are We therefore clarify that this Resolution
not the only qualification issues that can affects and reflects on the COMELEC and
arise in a party-list election, and we its membership as then constituted as
cannot assume that PGBI shall meet all they were the ones directly responsible
other legal standards to qualify as a for the disobedience.
party-list organization in the 2013
elections.34 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Comelec Chair35 and Members36 are
But separate from the question of PGBI’s hereby found GUILTY of CONTEMPT of
overall qualification is the narrower the Supreme Court for their disobedience
question of its participation in the May to our lawful directive, specifically the
10, 2010 elections – an issue that is Status Quo Order dated February 2,
subsumed by the issues in the main 2010. They are accordingly SEVERELY
certiorari case. As shown above, PGBI REPRIMANDED for this disobedience.
intended to participate in the May 10, They are further WARNED that a
2010 elections but it was not able to do repetition of the same or similar acts shall
so because the Comelec did not – be dealt with more severely in the future.
contrary to our express directive –
include it in the list of party-list The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood,
organizations to be voted upon in the Inc. shall be deemed not to have
May 10, 2010 elections. As it was the transgressed the participation and level
Comelec itself which prevented PGBI of votes requirements under Section 6(8)
from participating in the May 10, 2010 of Republic Act No. 7941 with respect to
party-list elections when it deleted PGBI, the May 10, 2010 elections.
with grave abuse of discretion, from the
list of accredited party-list groups or SO ORDERED.
organizations and, thereafter, refused to
return it to the list despite our directive,
PGBI should, at the very least, be
deemed to have participated in the May ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, G.R. No
10, 2010 elections, and cannot be Petitioner,
disqualified for non-participation or for Present:
failure to garner the votes required under CORONA
Section 6(8) of R.A. No. 7941. To CARPIO,
conclude otherwise is to effectively CARPIO
 VELASCO, JR., is not estopped from
2. He
NACHURA,
assailing the constitution of the PET
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
simply by virtue of his appearance as
BRION,
- versus - counsel of former president Gloria
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
Macapagal-Arroyo before respondent
DEL CASTILLO,
tribunal.
ABAD,
3. Section
VILLARAMA, JR., 4, Article VII of the
Constitution does not provide for the
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
creation ofand
the PET.
SERENO, JJ.
4. The PET violates Section 12,
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL Article VIII of the Constitution.
Promulgated:
TRIBUNAL,
Respondent. June 7, 2011
To bolster his arguments that the
x------------------------------------------------ PET is an illegal and unauthorized
-----------------------------------------x
progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution, petitioner invokes our ruling
RESOLUTION on the constitutionality of the Philippine
Truth Commission (PTC).[2] Petitioner
NACHURA, J.:
cites the concurring opinion of Justice
Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro that the
Before us is a Motion for PTC is a public office which cannot be
Reconsideration filed by petitioner Atty. created by the President, the power to do
Romulo B. Macalintal of our Decision[1] in so being lodged exclusively with
G.R. No. 191618 dated November 23, Congress. Thus, petitioner submits that if
2010, dismissing his petition and the President, as head of the Executive
declaring the establishment of Department, cannot create the PTC, the
respondent Presidential Electoral Supreme Court, likewise, cannot create
Tribunal (PET) as constitutional. the PET in the absence of an act of
Petitioner reiterates his arguments legislature.
on the alleged unconstitutional creation
of the PET: On the other hand, in its Comment
to the Motion for Reconsideration, the
1. He has standing to file the Office of the Solicitor General maintains
petition as a taxpayer and a concerned that:
citizen.
 1. Petitioner is without standing to promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
file the petition.
2. Petitioner is estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the PET.
We mapped out the discussions of the
3. The constitution of the PET is
Constitutional Commission on the
on firm footing on the basis of the grant
foregoing provision and concluded
of authority to the [Supreme] Court to be
therefrom that:
the sole judge of all election contests for
the President or Vice-President under The mirabile dictu of the
paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII of the grant of jurisdiction to this
1987 Constitution. Court, albeit found in the
Article on the executive
branch of government, and
Except for the invocation of our the constitution of the PET,
decision in Louis ‟Barok C. Biraogo v. is evident in the discussions
The Philippine Truth Commission of of the Constitutional
Commission. On the
2010,[3] petitioner does not allege new
exercise of this Courts
arguments to warrant reconsideration of judicial power as sole judge
our Decision. of presidential and vice-
presidential election
We cannot agree with his insistence that contests, and to
promulgate its rules for this
the creation of the PET is purpose, we find the
unconstitutional. We reiterate that the proceedings in the
abstraction of the Supreme Court acting Constitutional Commission
as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal from most instructive:
the unequivocal grant of jurisdiction in MR. DAVIDE.
the last paragraph of Section 4, Article On line 25,
VII of the Constitution is sound and after the
tenable. The provision reads: words "Vice-
President," I
Sec. 4. x x x. propose to
add AND MAY
The Supreme Court, PROMULGAT
sitting en banc, shall be the
E ITS RULES
sole judge of all contests
FOR THE
relating to the election, PURPOSE.
returns, and qualifications This refers to
of the President or Vice-
the Supreme
President, and may Court
sitting en Judiciary;
banc. This is considering
also to , however,
confer on that
the according
Supreme to the
Court Commissio
exclusive ner, the
authority to purpose of
enact the this is to
necessary indicate the
rules while sole power
acting as of the
sole judge Supreme
of all Court
contests without
relating to interventio
the n by the
election, legislature
returns and in the
qualificatio promulgati
ns of the on of its
President rules on
or Vice- this
President. particular
MR. point, I
REGALADO. think I will
My personal personally
position is recommend
that the its
rule- acceptance
making to the
power of Committee.
the
Supreme xxxx
Court with
respect to MR.
its internal NOLLEDO x x
procedure x.
is already
implicit With respect
under the to Sections
Article on 10 and 11 on
the page 8, I
understand Tribunal
that the itself will
Committee establish
has also and
created an promulgate
Electoral its rules
Tribunal in because it
the Senate is a body
and a distinct and
Commission independen
on t already
Appointment from the
s which may House, and
cover so with the
membership Commissio
from both n on
Houses. But Appointme
my question nts also. It
is: It seems will have
to me that the
the authority to
committee promulgate
report does its own
not indicate rules.
which body
should On another point of
promulgate discussion relative to the
the rules that grant of judicial power, but
shall govern equally cogent, we listen to
the Electoral former Chief Justice
Tribunal and Roberto Concepcion:
the
Commission MR. SUAREZ.
on Thank you.
Appointment
s. Who shall Would the
then Commissione
promulgate r not consider
the rules of that violative
these bodies? of the
doctrine of
MR. separation of
DAVIDE. The powers?
Electoral
MR. MR.
CONCEPCIO SUAREZ. If
N. I think the election
Commissio contest
ner Bernas proved to
explained be long,
that this is a burdensom
contest e and
between tedious,
two parties. practically
This is a all the time
judicial of the
power. Supreme
Court
MR. SUAREZ. sitting en
We know, but banc would
practically be occupied
the with it
Committee is considering
giving to the that they
judiciary the will be
right to going over
declare who millions and
will be the millions of
President of ballots or
our country, election
which to me returns,
is a political Madam
action. President.

MR. Echoing the same

CONCEPCIO sentiment and affirming
N. There are the grant of judicial power
legal rights to the Supreme Court,
which are Justice Florenz D. Regalado
enforceable and Fr. Joaquin Bernas
under the both opined:
law, and
these are MR.
essentially VILLACORTA.
justiciable Thank you
questions. very much,
Madam
President.
 ns of the
I am not sure President
whether or Vice-
Commissione President is
r Suarez has purely a
expressed his political
point. On matter and,
page 2, the therefore,
fourth should not
paragraph of be left
Section 4 entirely to
provides: the
judiciary.
The Supreme Will the
Court, above-
sitting en quoted
banc, shall be provision
the sole not impinge
judge of all on the
contests doctrine of
relating to separation
the election, of powers
returns and between
qualifications the
of the executive
President or and the
Vice- judicial
President. department
s of the
May I seek governmen
clarification t?
as to
whether or MR.
not the REGALADO.
matter of No, I really
determinin do not feel
g the that would
outcome of be a
the problem.
contests This is a
relating to new
the election provision
returns and incidentally
qualificatio . It was not
in the 1935 Tribunal?
Constitutio
n nor in the FR. BERNAS.
1973 Precisely, thi
Constitutio s is
n. necessary.
Election
MR. contests
VILLACORTA. are, by their
That is right. nature,
judicial.
MR. Therefore,
REGALADO. they are
We feel that cognizable
it will not only by
be an courts. If,
intrusion for
into the instance,
separation we did not
of powers have a
guaranteed constitutio
to the nal
judiciary provision
because on an
this is electoral
strictly an tribunal for
adversarial the Senate
and judicial or an
proceeding. electoral
tribunal for
MR. the House,
VILLACORTA. normally,
May I know as
the rationale composed,
of the that cannot
Committee be given
because this jurisdiction
supersedes over
Republic Act contests.
7950 which
provides for So, the
the background
Presidential of this is
Electoral really the
case "No, this did
of Roxas v. not involve
Lopez. The the creation
Gentleman of two
will Supreme
remember Courts, but
that in that precisely we
election, are giving
Lopez was new
declared jurisdiction to
winner. He the Supreme
filed a protest Court, as it is
before the allowed by
Supreme the
Court Constitution.
because Congress
there was a may allocate
republic act various
which jurisdictions."
created the
Supreme Before the
Court as the passage of
Presidential that republic
Electoral act, in case
Tribunal. The there was
question in any contest
this case was between two
whether new presidential
powers could candidates or
be given the two vice-
Supreme presidential
Court by law. candidates,
In effect, the no one had
conflict was jurisdiction
actually over it. So, it
whether became
there was an necessary
attempt to to create a
create two Presidential
Supreme Electoral
Courts and Tribunal.
the answer of What we
the Supreme have done
Court was: is to
 constitutio legislature cannot limit the
nalize what judicial power to resolve
was presidential and vice-
statutory presidential election
but it is not contests and our rule-
an making power connected
infringeme thereto.
nt on the
separation To foreclose all arguments
of powers of petitioner, we reiterate
because the that the establishment of
power the PET simply
being given constitutionalized what was
to the statutory before the 1987
Supreme Constitution. The
Court is a experiential context of
judicial the PET in our country
power. cannot be denied.[4]

Unmistakable from the

foregoing is that the Stubbornly, despite the explicit reference
exercise of our power to
of the Members of the Constitutional
judge presidential and vice-
presidential election Commission to a Presidential Electoral
contests, as well as the Tribunal, with Fr. Joaquin Bernas
rule-making power adjunct categorically declaring that in crafting the
thereto, is plenary; it is not
last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of
as restrictive as petitioner
would interpret it. In fact, the Constitution, they constitutionalize[d]
former Chief Justice Hilario what was statutory, petitioner continues
G. Davide, Jr., who to insist that the last paragraph of
proposed the insertion of
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution
the phrase, intended the
Supreme Court to exercise does not provide for the creation of the
exclusive authority to PET. Petitioner is adamant that the fact
promulgate its rules of that [the provision] does not expressly
procedure for that purpose. prohibit [the] creation [of the PET] is not
To this, Justice Regalado
forthwith assented and an authority for the Supreme Court to
then emphasized that the create the same.
sole power ought to be
without intervention by the Petitioner is going to town under the
legislative department.
Evidently, even the misplaced assumption that the text of the
provision itself was the only basis for this 1986 Constitutional
Commission should provide
Court to sustain the PETs
enlightenment:
constitutionality.
MR. SUAREZ.
We reiterate that the PET is authorized Thank you.
Let me
by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article proceed to
VII of the Constitution and as supported line 23, page
by the discussions of the Members of the 2, wherein it
Constitutional Commission, which drafted is provided,
and I quote:
the present Constitution.
The Supreme
The explicit reference by the framers of Court,
our Constitution to constitutionalizing sitting en
banc[,] shall
what was merely statutory before is not
be the sole
diluted by the absence of a phrase, line judge of all
or word, mandating the Supreme Court contests
to create a Presidential Electoral relating to
the election,
Tribunal.
returns and
qualifications
Suffice it to state that the Constitution, of the
verbose as it already is, cannot contain President or
Vice-
the specific wording required by
President.
petitioner in order for him to accept the
constitutionality of the PET. Are we not
giving
enormous
In our Decision, we clarified the structure
work to the
of the PET: Supreme
Court
Be that as it may, we especially
hasten to clarify the when it is
structure of the PET as a directed to
legitimate progeny of sit en
Section 4, Article VII of the banc as the
Constitution, composed of sole judge
members of the Supreme of all
Court, sitting en banc. The presidential
following exchange in the and vice-
presidential to such
election circumstan
contests? ces, but
there is also
MR. the
SUMULONG. question of
That question who else
will be would hear
referred to the election
Commissione protests.
r Concepcion.
MR. SUAREZ.
MR. We are
CONCEPCIO asking this
N. This question
function because
was between lines
discharged 23 to 25,
by the there are no
Supreme rules
Court twice provided for
and the the hearings
Supreme and there is
Court was not time limit
able to or duration
dispose of for the
each case in election
a period of contest to be
one year as decided by
provided by the Supreme
law. Of Court. Also,
course, that we will have
was to consider
probably the historical
during the background
late 1960s that when
and early R.A. 1793,
1970s. I do which
not know organized the
how the Presidential
present Electoral
Supreme Tribunal, was
Court promulgated
would react on June 21,
1957, at least Fernando
three famous Lopez in
election 1965.
contests
were MR.
presented CONCEPCIO
and two of N. I cannot
them ended answer for
up in what the
withdrawal protestants
by the had in mind.
protestants But when
out of sheer that protest
frustration of Senator
because of Roxas was
the delay in withdrawn,
the resolution the results
of the cases. were already
I am referring available.
to the Senator
electoral Roxas did not
protest that want to have
was lodged a decision
by former adverse to
President him. The
Carlos P. votes were
Garcia being
against our counted
"kabalen" already, and
former he did not get
President what he
Diosdado expected so
Macapagal in rather than
1961 and the have a
vice- decision
presidential adverse to his
election protest, he
contest filed withdrew the
by the late case.
Senator
Gerardo xxxx
Roxas
against Vice- MR.
President SUAREZ. I
see. So the between two
Commissio parties. This
n would not is a judicial
have any power.
objection to
vesting in MR. SUAREZ.
the We know, but
Supreme practically
Court this the
matter of Committee is
resolving giving to the
presidential judiciary the
and vice- right to
presidential declare who
contests? will be the
President of
MR. our country,
CONCEPCI which to me
ON. is a political
Personally, action.
I would not
have any MR.
objection. CONCEPCIO
N. There are
MR. SUAREZ. legal rights
Thank you. which are
enforceable
Would the under the
Commissione law, and
r not consider these are
that violative essentially
of the justiciable
doctrine of questions.
separation of
powers? MR.
SUAREZ. If
MR. the election
CONCEPCIO contest
N. I think proved to
Commissione be long,
r Bernas burdensom
explained e and
that this is a tedious,
contest practically
all the time requirement
of the here that the
Supreme Supreme
Court Court is
sitting en mandated to
banc would sit en banc?
be occupied
with it MR.
considering CONCEPCIO
that they N. Yes.
will be
going over MR. SUAREZ.
millions and I see.
millions of
ballots or MR.
election CONCEPCIO
returns, N. The steps
Madam involved in
President. this contest
are: First,
MR. the ballot
CONCEPCIO boxes are
N. The time opened
consumed or before
to be teams of
consumed in three,
this contest generally, a
for President representat
is dependent ive each of
upon they the court,
key number of the
of teams of protestant
revisors. I and of the
have no "protestee.
experience " It is all a
insofar as questions
contests in of how
other offices many
are teams are
concerned. organized.
Of course,
MR. SUAREZ. that can be
Although expensive,
there is a but it would
be because
expensive each party
whatever would have
court one to appoint
would one
choose. representat
There were ive for
times that every team,
the and that
Supreme may take
Court, with quite a big
sometimes amount.
50 teams at
the same MR. SUAREZ.
time If we draw
working, from the
would Commissione
classify the r's experience
objections, which he is
the kind of sharing with
problems, us, what
and the would be the
court would reasonable
only go period for the
over the election
objected contest to be
votes on decided?
which the MR.
parties CONCEPCIO
could not N. Insofar as
agree. So it the Supreme
is not as Court is
awesome concerned,
as it would the Supreme
appear Court always
insofar as manages to
the Court is dispose of
concerned. the case in
What is one year.
awesome is
the cost of MR. SUAREZ.
the revision In one year.
of the Thank you for
ballots the
 clarification.[5 additional jurisdiction to
] the Supreme Court, with
the duty characterized as
an "awesome" task,
Judicial power granted to the Supreme includes the means
necessary to carry it into
Court by the same Constitution is
effect under the doctrine of
plenary. And under the doctrine of necessary implication. We
necessary implication, the additional cannot overemphasize that
jurisdiction bestowed by the last the abstraction of the PET
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the from the explicit grant of
power to the Supreme
Constitution to decide presidential and Court, given our abundant
vice-presidential elections contests experience, is not
includes the means necessary to carry it unwarranted.
into effect. Thus:
A plain reading of Article
VII, Section 4, paragraph 7,
Obvious from the foregoing readily reveals a grant of
is the intent to bestow authority to the Supreme
independence to the Court sitting en banc. In
Supreme Court as the PET, the same vein, although
to undertake the Herculean the method by which the
task of deciding election Supreme Court exercises
protests involving this authority is not
presidential and vice- specified in the provision,
presidential candidates in the grant of power does not
accordance with the contain any limitation on
process outlined by former the Supreme Court's
Chief Justice Roberto exercise thereof. The
Concepcion. It was made in Supreme
response to the concern Court's method of deciding
aired by delegate Jose E. presidential and vice-
Suarez that the additional presidential election
duty may prove too contests, through the PET,
burdensome for the is actually a derivative of
Supreme Court. This the exercise of the
explicit grant of prerogative conferred by
independence and of the the aforequoted
plenary powers needed to constitutional provision.
discharge this burden Thus, the subsequent
justifies the budget directive in the provision
allocation of the PET. for the Supreme Court to
The conferment of
 "promulgate its rules for vested in one Supreme
the purpose." Court and in such lower
courts as may be
The conferment of full established by law."
authority to the Supreme Consistent with our
Court, as a PET, is presidential system of
equivalent to the full government, the function
authority conferred upon of "dealing with the
the electoral tribunals of settlement of disputes,
the Senate and the House controversies or conflicts
of involving rights, duties or
Representatives, i.e., the prerogatives that are
Senate Electoral Tribunal legally demandable and
(SET) and the House of enforceable" is apportioned
Representatives Electoral to courts of justice. With
Tribunal (HRET), which we the advent of the 1987
have affirmed on numerous Constitution, judicial power
occasions.[6] was expanded to include
"the duty of the courts of
Next, petitioner still claims that the PET justice to settle actual
controversies involving
exercises quasi-judicial power and, thus,
rights which are legally
its members violate the proscription in demandable and
Section 12, Article VIII of the enforceable, and to
Constitution, which reads: determine whether or not
there has been a grave
abuse of discretion
SEC. 12. The Members of
amounting to lack or
the Supreme Court and of
excess of jurisdiction on the
other courts established by
part of any branch or
law shall not be designated
instrumentality of the
to any agency performing
Government." The power
quasi-judicial or
was expanded, but it
administrative functions.
remained absolute.

The set up embodied in the

We dispose of this argument as we have
Constitution and
done in our Decision, viz.:
statutes characterizes
the resolution of
electoral contests as
The traditional grant of
essentially an exercise
judicial power is found in
of judicial power.
Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution which provides
At the barangay and
that the power "shall be
municipal levels, original grave abuse of discretion
and exclusive jurisdiction tantamount to lack or
over election contests is excess of jurisdiction.
vested in the municipal or It is also beyond cavil that
metropolitan trial courts when the Supreme Court,
and the regional trial as PET, resolves a
courts, respectively. presidential or vice-
presidential election
At the higher levels - city, contest, it performs what is
provincial, and regional, as essentially a judicial power.
well as congressional and In the landmark case
senatorial - exclusive and of Angara v. Electoral
original jurisdiction is Commission, Justice Jose
lodged in the COMELEC P. Laurel enucleated that "it
and in the House of would be inconceivable if
Representatives and the Constitution had not
Senate Electoral provided for a mechanism
Tribunals, which are not, by which to direct the
strictly and literally course of government
speaking, courts of law. along constitutional
Although not courts of law, channels." In
they are, nonetheless, fact, Angara pointed out
empowered to resolve that "[t]he Constitution is a
election contests which definition of the powers of
involve, in essence, an government." And yet, at
exercise of judicial power, that time, the 1935
because of the explicit Constitution did not contain
constitutional the expanded definition of
empowerment found in judicial power found in
Section 2(2), Article IX-C Article VIII, Section 1,
(for the COMELEC) and paragraph 2 of the present
Section 17, Article VI (for Constitution.
the Senate and House
Electoral Tribunals) of the With the explicit provision,
Constitution. Besides, the present Constitution
when the COMELEC, the has allocated to the
HRET, and the SET decide Supreme Court, in
election contests, their conjunction with latter's
decisions are still subject to exercise of judicial power
judicial review - via a inherent in all courts, the
petition for certiorari filed task of deciding
by the proper party - if presidential and vice-
there is a showing that the presidential election
decision was rendered with contests, with full authority
in the exercise thereof. The simply an agency to which
power wielded by PET is a Members of the Court were
derivative of the plenary designated. Once again,
judicial power allocated to the PET, as intended by the
courts of law, expressly framers of the Constitution,
provided in the is to be an
Constitution. On the whole, institution independent, bu
the Constitution draws a t not separate, from the
thin, but, nevertheless, judicial department, i.e.,
distinct line between the Supreme
the PET and the Supreme Court. McCulloch v. State
Court. of Maryland proclaimed
that "[a] power without the
If the logic of petitioner is means to use it, is a
to be followed, all Members nullity." The vehicle for the
of the Court, sitting in the exercise of this power, as
Senate and House Electoral intended by the
Tribunals would violate the Constitution and
constitutional proscription specifically mentioned by
found in Section 12, Article the Constitutional
VIII. Surely, the petitioner Commissioners during the
will be among the first to discussions on the grant of
acknowledge that this is power to this Court, is the
not so. The Constitution PET. Thus, a microscopic
which, in Section 17, Article view, like the petitioner's,
VI, explicitly provides that should not constrict an
three Supreme Court absolute and constitutional
Justices shall sit in the grant of judicial power.[7]
Senate and House Electoral
Tribunals, respectively,
effectively exempts the
Finally, petitioners application of our
Justices-Members thereof
from the prohibition in decision in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Section 12, Article VIII. In Commission[8] to the present case is an
the same vein, it is the unmitigated quantum leap.
Constitution itself, in
Section 4, Article VII, which
exempts the Members of The decision therein held that the PTC
the Court, constituting the finds justification under Section 17,
PET, from the same Article VII of the Constitution. A plain
prohibition.
reading of the constitutional
We have previously provisions, i.e., last paragraph of Section
declared that the PET is not 4 and Section 17, both of Article VII on
the Executive Branch, reveals that the G.R. No. 203922
two are differently worded and deal with
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE
separate powers of the Executive and the ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
Judicial Branches of government. And as (APEC),represented by its President
previously adverted to, the basis for the Congressman Ponciano D.
Payuyo, Petitioner,
constitution of the PET was, in fact,
vs.
mentioned in the deliberations of the COMMISSION ON
Members of the Constitutional ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Commission during the drafting of the
x-----------------------x
present Constitution.
G.R. No. 203936
WHEREFORE, the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED. Our AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO
TINIG NG MASA, represented by its
Decision in G.R. No. 191618 STANDS.
President Michael Abas
SO ORDERED.
Kida,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent.

x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203766 April 2,
2013
G.R. No. 203958
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC.,
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA
represented by its President, Mr.
WALANG SALA, INC.
Alan Igot, Petitioner,
(KAKUSA), Petitioner,
vs.
vs.
COMMISSION ON
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. Nos. 203818-19
G.R. No. 203960
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY
1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR
(AKB), Petitioner,
RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-
vs.
CARE), Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
vs.
BANC, Respondent.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203976 G.R. No. 204100

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND 1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS

AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, BROTHERHOOD, INC., (1BRO-PGBI)
INC. (ARARO), Petitioner, formerly PGBI, Petitioner,
vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
ELECTIONS, Respondent. BANC, Respondent.

x-----------------------x x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203981 G.R. No. 204122

ASSOCIATION FOR 1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST

RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON PHILIPPINES, INC.,
LEADERSHIP (ARAL) PARTY-LIST, (1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner,
represented herein by Ms. Lourdes vs.
L. Agustin, the party’s Secretary COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
General, Petitioner, BANC composed of SIXTO S.
vs. BRILLANTES, JR., Chairman, RENE
COMMISSION ON V. SARMIENTO,
ELECTIONS, Respondent. Commissioner,LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
Commissioner,ARMANDO C.
x-----------------------x VELASCO, Commissioner,ELIAS R.
YUSOPH, Commissioner,
G.R. No. 204002 andCHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM,
Commissioner,Respondents.
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL
CONCERNS, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON G.R. No. 204125
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
x-----------------------x RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC. (A-IPRA),
represented by its Secretary
G.R. No. 204094 General,Ronald D.
Macaraig, Petitioner,
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND vs.
DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
vs. BANC, Respondent.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204126 COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondents.
KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG
AGILANG PILIPINONG MAGSASAKA x-----------------------x
(KAP), formerly known as AKO
AGILA NG NAGKAKAISANG G.R. No. 204158
MAGSASAKA (AKO AGILA),
represented by its Secretary ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,
General, Leo R. San vs.
Buenaventura, Petitioner, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
vs. CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES,
COMMISSION ON JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V.
ELECTIONS, Respondent. SARMIENTO, ARMANDO C.
VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH,
x-----------------------x CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, MARIA
GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA,
G.R. No. 204139 LUCENITO TAGLE, AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS ACTING ON THEIR
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), BEHALF,Respondents.
represented by Atty. Berteni
Cataluña Causing, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON G.R. No. 204174
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY,
x-----------------------x represented by its President Simeon
T. Silva, Jr., Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204141 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented BANC, Respondent.
by Maria Evangelina F. Palparan,
President, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON G.R. No. 204216
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT
x-----------------------x PRODUCERS FEDERATION,
INC., Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204153 vs.
COMMISSION ON
PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE ELECTIONS, Respondent.
PARTY by its President Roberto "Ka
Obet" Martin, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204220
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY- its Secretary General, Michael Ryan
LIST, Petitioner, A. Enriquez, Petitioner,
vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent. BANC, Respondent.

x-----------------------x x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204236 G.R. No. 204263

FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A.

INC., Petitioner, BLESSEDFEDERATION OF FARMERS
vs. AND FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL,
COMMISSION ON INC., Petitioner,
ELECTIONS, Respondent. vs.
COMMISSION ON
x-----------------------x ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204238 x-----------------------x

ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY G.R. No. 204318

(ABP), Petitioner,
vs. UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN DRUGS FOUNDATION (UNIMAD)
BANC, Respondent. PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204239
x-----------------------x
GREEN FORCE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT SONS AND G.R. No. 204321
DAUGHTERS OF MOTHER EARTH
(GREENFORCE),Petitioner, ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN
vs. ISULONG (AANI), represented by its
COMMISSION ON Secretary General Jose C.
ELECTIONS, Respondent. Policarpio, Jr.,Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204240
x-----------------------x
AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA
MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS G.R. No. 204323
MOVEMENT (AGRI), represented by
BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin BANC, Respondent.
Dalhani,Israel de Castro, Dante
Navarroand Guiling x-----------------------x
Mamondiong, Petitioner,
vs. G.R. No. 204359
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR
JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V. ACTIVEREFORM AND
SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, TRANSPARENCY (SMART),
ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. represented by its Chairman, Carlito
YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. B. Cubelo, Petitioner,
LIM, and MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. vs.
PADACA, Respondents. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204341
G.R. No. 204364
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS
MASSES(ALIM) PARTY-LIST, ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG
represented herein by its President ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA
Fatani S. Abdul Malik, Petitioner, LUPA, PABAHAY, HANAPBUHAY AT
vs. KAUNLARAN (AKO
COMMISSION ON BUHAY), Petitioner,
ELECTIONS, Respondent. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
x-----------------------x BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N.
G.R. No. 204356 TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner, ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA
vs. CIELO M. PADACA, in their
COMMISSION ON capacities as Commissioners
ELECTIONS, Respondent. thereof, Respondents.

x-----------------------x x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204358 G.R. No. 204367

ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN AKBAY KALUSUGAN

MININGADVANCEMENT FOR INCORPORATION(AKIN), Petitioner,
NATIONAL PROGRESS vs.
(AAMA), Petitioner, COMMISSION ON
vs. ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204370
x-----------------------x
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), represented
by itsSecretary General, Rodolfo T. G.R. No. 204402
Tuazon, Petitioner,
vs. KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST,
COMMISSION ON represented by its President,
ELECTIONS, Respondent. Clemente G. Bautista, Jr., and
Secretary General, Frances Q.
x-----------------------x Quimpo, Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204374 COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent.
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA
MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA x-----------------------x
MAGSASAKA, Petitioner,
vs. G.R. No. 204408
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent. PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR
COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH
x-----------------------x ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE
(PACYAW),Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204379 vs.
COMMISSION ON
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) ELECTIONS, Respondent.
represented by its President, Faye
Maybelle Lorenz, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON G.R. No. 204410
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON
x-----------------------x (1-UTAK), Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204394 COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY
HELPER, AIDER, RIDER, x-----------------------x
DRIVER/DOMESTIC HELPER,
JANITOR, AGENT AND NANNY OF G.R. No. 204421
THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(GUARDJAN), Petitioner, COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF
vs. SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. SENIOR
CITIZEN PARTY-LIST, represented G.R. No. 204428
herein by its 1st nominee and
Chairman, Francisco G. Datol, ANG GALING PINOY (AG),
Jr., Petitioner, represented by its Secretary
vs. General, Bernardo R. Corella,
COMMISSION ON Jr., Petitioner,
ELECTIONS, Respondent. vs.
COMMISSION ON
x-----------------------x ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204425 x-----------------------x

COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF G.R. No. 204435

SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, 1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING
vs. AUTONOMY PARTY
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and (1AAAP), Petitioner,
ANY OF ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, vs.
ACTING FOR AND IN ITS BEHALF, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
INCLUDING THE CHAIR AND BANC, Respondent.
MEMBERSOF THE
COMMISSION, Respondents. x-----------------------x

x-----------------------x G.R. No. 204436

G.R. No. 204426 ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI),

represented byits Party President,
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL Rolex T. Suplico, Petitioner,
ATHLETICS ENTREPRENEURS AND vs.
HOBBYISTS, INC. (ALA- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
EH), Petitioner, BANC, Respondent.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN x-----------------------x
BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. G.R. No. 204455
TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND
ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA LOAN ASSOCIATION,
CIELO M. PADACA, in their INC., Petitioner,
respective capacities as COMELEC vs.
Chairperson and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
Commissioners, Respondents. BANC, Respondent.

x-----------------------x x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204484 DECISION

PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA CARPIO, J.:

(PBB), represented by its Secretary
General, Roger M. The Cases
Federazo, Petitioner,
vs. These cases constitute 54 Petitions
COMMISSION ON for Certiorari and Petitions
ELECTIONS, Respondent. for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52
1

party-list groups and organizations

x-----------------------x assailing the Resolutions issued by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
G.R. No. 204485 disqualifying them from participating in
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections,
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, either by denial of their petitions for
NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF registration under the party-list system,
THE PHILIPPINES, INC. or cancellation of their registration and
(ALONA),Petitioner, accreditation as party-list organizations.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN This Court resolved to consolidate the 54
BANC, Respondent. petitions in the Resolutions dated 13
November 2012,2 20 November
x-----------------------x 3 4
2012, 27 November 2012, 4 December
2012,5 11 December 2012,6 and 19
G.R. No. 204486 February 2013.7

1st KABALIKAT NG BAYAN The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of

GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN (1st Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941)
KABAGIS), Petitioner, and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and
vs. 9531, approximately 280 groups and
COMMISSION ON organizations registered and manifested
ELECTIONS, Respondent. their desire to participate in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections.
x-----------------------x
G.R. SPP Group Grounds for
G.R. No. 204490 No. No. Denial
A. Via the COMELEC En Banc’s automatic
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY
review of the COMELEC
(PPP), Petitioner,
Division’s resolutions approving registration
vs.
of groups/organizations
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, Respondent. Resolution dated 23 November 20128

PERLAS-BERNABE,*
1 204379 12- Alagad ng - The "artists" political party,
099 Sining (ASIN) sector is not two of the
(PLM) considered nominees are not
marginalized and residents of the
underrepresented; region; and
- Failure to prove four of the five
track nominees do
record; and not belong to the
- Failure of the marginalized and
nominees to underrepresented.
qualify underResolution
RA dated 27 November 201211
7941 and
5 204367 12- Akbay - Failure of the
Ang Bagong
104 Kalusugan group to show
Bayani.
(PL) (AKIN), Inc. that its nominees
Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November belong to
20129 the urban poor
2 204455 12- Manila - A non-stock sector.
041 Teachers savings and
Resolution dated 29 November 201212
(PLM) Savings and loan association
6 204370 12- Ako An Bisaya - Failure to
Loan cannot be
011 (AAB) represent a
Association, considered
(PP) marginalized
Inc. marginalized and
sector of
(Manila underrepresented;
society, despite
Teachers) and
the formation
- The first and
of a sectoral wing
second
for the
nominees are not
benefit of farmers
teachers by
of Region
profession.
8;
3 204426 12- Association of - Failure to show - Constituency has
011 Local Athletics that its district
(PLM) Entrepreneurs members belong representatives;
and Hobbyists, to the - Lack of track
Inc. (ALA-EH) marginalized; and record in
- Failure of the representing
nominees to peasants and
qualify. farmers; and
Resolution dated 27 November 201210 - Nominees are
4 204435 12- 1 Alliance - Failure of the neither
057 Advocating nominees to farmers nor
(PLM) Autonomy qualify: although peasants.
Party registering Resolution dated 4 December 201213
(1AAAP) as a regional
7 204436 12- Abyan Ilonggo - Failure to show
9 204139 12- Alab ng - Failure to prove
009 Party (AI) that the 127 Mamamahayag track
(PP), party represents a (PL) (ALAM) record as an
12- marginalized and organization;
165 underrepresented - Failure to show
(PLM) sector, as that the
the Province of group actually
Iloilo has represents the
district marginalized and
representatives; underrepresented;
- Untruthful and
statements in the - Failure to
memorandum; establish that the
and group can
- Withdrawal of represent all
three of its sectors it seeks to
five nominees. represent.
Resolution dated 4 December 201214 Resolution dated 7 November 201216
8 204485 12- Alliance of - Failure 10 to
204402 12- Kalikasan - The group
175 Organizations, establish that the 061 Party-List reflects an
(PL) Networks and group can (PP) (KALIKASAN) advocacy for the
Associations of represent 14 environment, and
the Philippines, sectors; - The is not
Inc. (ALONA) sectors of representative of
homeowners’ the
associations, marginalized and
entrepreneurs underrepresented;
and cooperatives - There is no proof
are not that
marginalized and majority of its
underrepresented; members
and belong to the
- The nominees do marginalized
not belong and
to the underrepresented;
marginalized and - The group
underrepresented. represents
B. Via the COMELEC En Banc’s review on sectors with
motion for reconsideration conflicting
of the COMELEC Division’s resolutions denying interests; and
registration of groups - The nominees do
and organizations not belong
to the sector
Resolution dated 7 November 201215
 which the group In a Resolution dated 5 December
claims to 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc affirmed
represent. the COMELEC Second Division’s
Resolution dated 14 November 201217 resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng
Bida’s (PBB) registration and
11 204394 12- Association of - Failure to prove accreditation as a political party in the
145 Guard, Utility membership base National Capital Region. However, PBB
(PL) Helper, Aider, and track was denied participation in the 13 May
Rider, Driver/ record; 2013 party-list elections because PBB
Domestic - Failure to does not represent any "marginalized
Helper, present activities and underrepresented" sector; PBB failed
Janitor, Agent that sufficiently to apply for registration as a party-list
and benefited its group; and PBB failed to establish its
Nanny of the intended track record as an organization that
Philippines, constituency; and seeks to uplift the lives of the
Inc. - The nominees do "marginalized and underrepresented."20
(GUARDJAN) not belong These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila
to any of the Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB,
sectors which AI, ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN,
the group seeks to GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able
represent. to secure a mandatory injunction from
Resolution dated 5 December 201218 this Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January
12 204490 12- Pilipinas Para - Failure to show 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604, and
21

073 sa that the excluded the names of these 13

(PLM) Pinoy (PPP) group represents petitioners in the printing of the official
a ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list
marginalized and elections.
underrepresented Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Resolution
22

sector, as No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc

Region 12 has scheduled summary evidentiary hearings
district to determine whether the groups and
representatives; organizations that filed manifestations of
and intent to participate in the 13 May 2013
- Failure to show a party-list elections have continually
track complied with the requirements of R.A.
record of No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
undertaking Labor Party v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong
programs for the Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the
welfare of following groups and organizations from
the sector the participating in the 13 May 2013 party-
group seeks to list elections:
represent.
G.R. SPP Group Grounds for
No. No. Denial
Resolution dated 10 October 201224 Leadership - Failure to
1 203818- 12- AKO Bicol Retained (ARAL) comply, and for
19 154 Political Party registration and violation of
(PLM) (AKB) accreditation as a election laws;
12- political - The nominees do
177 party, but denied not
(PLM) participation represent the
in the May 2013 sectors which
party-list the party
elections represents; and
- Failure to - There is doubt
represent any that the party
marginalized and is organized for
underrepresented religious
sector; purposes.
- The Bicol 4region
204002 12- Alliance for Cancelled
already 188 Rural Concerns registration and
has (PLM) (ARC) accreditation
representatives in - Failure of the
Congress; and nominees to
- The nominees qualify; and
are not - Failure of the
marginalized and party to prove
underrepresented. that majority of its
Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225 members
belong to the
2 203766 12- Atong Cancelled
sectors it seeks
161 Paglaum, registration and
to represent.
(PLM) Inc. (Atong accreditation
Paglaum) 5 204318
- The nominees do 12- United Cancelled
not belong 220 Movement registration and
to the sectors (PLM) Against Drugs accreditation
which the party Foundation - The sectors of
represents; and (UNIMAD) drug
- The party failed counsellors and
to file its lecturers,
Statement of veterans and the
Contributions youth, are
and Expenditures not marginalized
for the and
2010 Elections. underrepresented;
- Failure to
3 203981 12- Association for Cancelled
establish track
187 Righteousness registration and
record; and
(PLM) Advocacy on accreditation
 - Failure of the Fishermen seven
nominees to International, nominees do not
qualify as Inc. (A belong to
representatives of BLESSED the sector of
the youth and Party-List) farmers and
young urban fishermen, the
professionals. sector sought
Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226 to be represented;
and
6 204100 12- 1-Bro PhilippineCancelled
- None of the
196 Guardians registration
nominees are
(PLM) Brotherhood, - Failure to define
registered voters
Inc. (1BRO- the sector
of Region
PGBI) it seeks to
XI, the region
represent; and
sought to be
- The nominees do
represented.
not belong
Resolution dated 16 October 201227
to a marginalized
and 9 203960 12- 1st Cancelled
underrepresented 260 Consumers registration
sector. (PLM) Alliance for - The sector of
7 204122 12- 1 Guardians Cancelled Rural Energy, rural energy
223 Nationalist registration Inc. (1-CARE) consumers is not
(PLM) Philippines, - The party is a marginalized and
Inc. military underrepresented;
(1GANAP/ fraternity; - The party’s track
GUARDIANS) - The sector of record is
community related to electric
volunteer workers cooperatives and
is too not rural
broad to allow for energy
meaningful consumers; and
representation; - The nominees do
and not belong
- The nominees do to the sector of
not appear rural energy
to belong to the consumers.
sector Resolution
of dated 16 October 201228
community 10 203922 12- Association of Cancelled
volunteer 201 Philippine registration and
workers. (PLM) Electric accreditation
8 20426 12- Blessed Cancelled Cooperatives - Failure to
257 Federation of registration (APEC) represent a
(PLM) Farmers and - Three of the marginalized and
 underrepresented - The nominees do
sector; and not belong
- The nominees do to the sectors that
not belong the party
to the sector that seeks to
the party represent;
claims to - Failure to show
represent. that three of
Resolution dated 23 October 201229 the nominees are
bona fide
11 204174 12- Aangat Tayo Cancelled
party members;
232 Party-List Party registration and
and
(PLM) ( AT ) accreditation
- Lack of a Board
- The incumbent
resolution
representative in
to participate in
Congress
the party-list
failed to author or
elections.
sponsor
bills that Omnibus
are Resolution dated 24 October 201231
beneficial to13 204240
the 12- Agri-Agra na Cancelled
sectors that the 279 Reporma Para registration
party (PLM) sa - The party ceased
represents Magsasaka ng to exist for
(women, elderly, Pilipinas more than a year
youth, urban Movement immediately
poor); and (AGRI) after the May 2010
- The nominees do elections;
not belong - The nominees do
to the not belong
marginalized to the sector of
sectors peasants and
that the party farmers that the
seeks to party seeks to
represent. represent;
Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 2012 30 - Only four
nominees were
12 203976 12- Alliance for Cancelled
submitted to the
288 Rural and registration and
COMELEC;
(PLM) Agrarian accreditation
and
Reconstruction, - The interests of
- Failure to show
Inc. (ARARO) the peasant
meaningful
and urban poor
activities for its
sectors that
constituency.
the party
represents differ;
14 203936 12- Aksyon Cancelled the sector, or that
248 Magsasaka- registration they have
(PLM) Partido Tinig ng - Failure to show undertaken
Masa (AKMA- that meaningful
PTM) majority of its activities for the
members are sector.
marginalized16 and
204364 12- Adhikain at Cancelled
underrepresented; 180 Kilusan ng registration
- Failure to prove (PLM) Ordinaryong - Failure to show
that four of Tao Para sa that
its nine nominees Lupa, Pabahay, nominees actually
actually Hanapbuhay at belong to
belong to the Kaunlaran the sector, or that
farmers sector; (AKO-BAHAY) they have
and undertaken
- Failure to show meaningful
that five of activities for the
its nine nominees sector.
work on
17 204141 12- The True Cancelled
uplifting the lives
229 Marcos Loyalist registration
of the
(PLM) (for God, - Failure to show
members of the
Country and that
sector.
People) majority of its
15 204126 12- Kaagapay ng Cancelled Association of members are
263 Nagkakaisang registration the Philippines, marginalized and
(PLM) Agilang - The Inc. (BANTAY) underrepresented;
Pilipinong Manifestation of and
Magsasaka Intent - Failure to prove
(KAP) and Certificate of that two of
Nomination its nominees
were not signed actually belong
by an to the
appropriate officer marginalized and
of the underrepresented.
party;
18 204408 12- Pilipino Cancelled
- Failure to show
217 Association for registration
track record
(PLM) Country – - Change of sector
for the farmers
Urban (from
and peasants
Poor Youth urban poor youth
sector; and
Advancement to urban
- Failure to show
and Welfare poor) necessitates
that
( PA C YAW ) a new
nominees actually
application;
belong to
 - Failure to show Congress
track record failed to author or
for the sponsor
marginalized and bills that are
underrepresented; beneficial to the
- Failure to prove sector that the
that party
majority of its represents
members and (persons
officers are from imprisoned
the urban without proof of
poor sector; and guilt beyond
- The nominees reasonable
are not doubt);
members of the - Failure to show
urban poor track record
sector. for the
19 204153 12- Pasang Masda Cancelled marginalized and
277 Nationwide registration underrepresented;
(PLM) Party (PASANG - The party and
MASDA) represents drivers - The nominees
and operators, did not
who may have appear to be
conflicting marginalized and
interests; and underrepresented.
- Nominees Resolution
are dated 30 October 201232
either 21 204428 12- Ang Galing Cancelled
operators or 256 Pinoy (AG) registration and
former operators. (PLM) accreditation
20 203958 12- Kapatiran ng Cancelled - Failure to attend
015 mga Nakulong registration the
(PLM) na Walang - Failure to prove summary hearing;
Sala, that - Failure to show
Inc. (KAKUSA) na Walang Sala, track record
Inc. (KAKUSA) for the
majority of its marginalized and
officers and underrepresented;
members belong and
to the - The nominees
marginalized and did not
underrepresented; appear to be
- The incumbent marginalized and
representative in underrepresented.
Resolution dated 7 November 201233 - The nominees
22 204094 12- Alliance for Cancelled are not
185 Nationalism registration and marginalized
(PLM) and accreditation citizens.
Democracy - Failure24 204236
to 12- Firm 24-K Cancelled
(ANAD) represent an 254 Association, registration and
identifiable (PLM) Inc. accreditation
marginalized and (FIRM 24-K) - The nominees do
underrepresented not
sector; belong to the
- Only three sector that the
nominees were party seeks to
submitted to the represent
COMELEC; (urban poor and
- The nominees do peasants of
not the National
belong to the Capital Region);
marginalized - Only two of its
and nominees
underrepresented; reside in the
and National Capital
- Failure to submit Region; and
its - Failure to comply
Statement of with the
Contribution track record
and Expenditures requirement.
for the
25 204341 12- Action League Cancelled
2007 Elections. 269 of Indigenous registration and
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234 (PLM) Masses (ALIM) accreditation
23 204239 12- Green Force for Cancelled - Failure to
060 the registration and establish that its
(PLM) Environment accreditation nominees are
Sons and - The party is an members of the
Daughters of advocacy indigenous people
Mother Earth group and does in the
(GREENFORCE) not represent Mindanao and
the marginalized Cordilleras
and sector that the
underrepresented; party seeks to
- Failure to comply represent;
with the - Only two of the
track record party’s
requirement; and nominees reside in
 the members are
Mindanao and marginalized and
Cordilleras; underrepresented.
and Resolution dated 7 November 201237
- Three of the
28 204238 12- Alliance of Cancelled
nominees do
173 Bicolnon Party registration and
not appear to
(PLM) (ABP) accreditation
belong to the
- Defective
marginalized.
registration and
Resolution dated 7 November 201235 accreditation
26 204358 12- Alliance of Cancelled dating back to
204 Advocates in registration 2010;
(PLM) Mining - The sector it - Failure to
Advancement represents is a represent any
for National specifically sector; and
Progress defined group - Failure to
(AAMA) which may not be establish that the
allowed nominees are
registration under employed in the
the party-list construction
system; and industry, the
- Failure to sector it claims to
establish that the represent.
nominees actually
Resolution dated 7 November 201238
belong to
29 204323 12- Bayani Party Cancelled
the sector.
210 List (BAYANI) registration and
Resolution dated 7 November 201236 (PLM) accreditation
27 204359 12- Social Cancelled - Failure to prove a
272 Movement for registration track
(PLM) Active Reform - The nominees record of trying to
and are uplift the
Transparency disqualified from marginalized and
(SMART) representing the underrepresented
sectors that sector of
the party professionals; and
represents; - One nominee
- Failure to comply was declared
with the unqualified to
track record represent the
requirement; and sector of
- There is doubt as professionals.
to whether
Resolution dated 7 November 201239
majority of its
30 204321 12- Ang Agrikultura Cancelled 32 204216 12- Philippine Cancelled
252 Natin Isulong registration and 202 Coconut registration and
(PLM) (AANI) accreditation (PLM) Producers accreditation
- Failure to Federation, - The party is
establish a track Inc. affiliated with
record of (COCOFED) private and
enhancing the government
lives agencies and is
of the not
marginalized and marginalized;
underrepresented - The party is
farmers assisted by the
which it claims to government in
represent; various
and projects; and
- More than a - The nominees
majority of the are not
party’s nominees members of the
do not marginalized
belong to the sector of coconut
farmers sector. farmers and
Resolution dated 7 November 201240 producers.
Cancelled Resolution dated 7 November 2012
42
31 204125 12- Agapay ng
292 Indigenous registration 33 and
204220 12- Abang Lingkod Cancelled
(PLM) Peoples Rights
accreditation 238 Party-List registration
Alliance, Inc.
- Failure to prove (PLM) (ABANG - Failure to
(A-IPRA) that its five LINGKOD) establish a track
nominees are record of
members of the continuously
indigenous people representing the
sector; peasant
- Failure to prove farmers sector;
that its five - Failure to show
nominees actively that its
participated in the members actually
undertakings of belong to
the party; and the peasant
- Failure to prove farmers sector;
that its five and
nominees are - Failure to show
bona fide that its
members. nominees are
Resolution dated 7 November 201241 marginalized
 and through the
underrepresented, Department of
have Agriculture;
actively and
participated in - Failure to prove
programs for the that the
advancement of group is
farmers, and marginalized and
adhere to its underrepresented.
advocacies. Resolution dated 28 November 201245
Resolution dated 14 November 201243 36 204356 12- Butil Farmers Cancelled
34 204158 12- Action Cancelled 136 Party (BUTIL) registration and
158 Brotherhood registration and (PLM) accreditation
(PLM) for Active accreditation - - Failure to
Dreamers, Inc. Failure to show establish that the
(ABROAD) that the agriculture and
party is actually cooperative
able to sectors are
represent all of the marginalized and
sectors it underrepresented;
claims to and
represent; - The party’s
- Failure to show a nominees
complete neither appear to
track record of its belong to
activities the sectors they
since its seek to
registration; and represent, nor to
- The nominees have
are not part actively
of any of the participated in the
sectors which undertakings of
the party seeks to the party.
represent. Resolution dated 3 December 201246
Resolution dated 28 November 201244 37 204486 12- 1st Cancelled
35 204374 12- Binhi-Partido Cancelled 194 Kabalikat ng registration and
228 ng registration and (PLM) Bayan accreditation
(PLM) mga accreditation Ginhawang - Declaration of
Magsasaka - The party Sangkatauhan untruthful
Para sa mga receives (1st statements;
Magsasaka assistance from KABAGIS) - Failure to exist
(BINHI) the for at least
government one year; and
 - None of itsAGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKO-BAHAY,
nominees BANTAY, PACYAW, PASANG MASDA,
belong to theKAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM
labor, 24-K, ALIM, AAMA, SMART, ABP,
fisherfolk, andBAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED,
urban poorABANG LINGKOD, ABROAD, BINHI,
indigenous BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS, 1-UTAK, SENIOR
cultural CITIZENS) were able to secure a
communities mandatory injunction from this Court,
sectors which itdirecting the COMELEC to include the
seeks tonames of these 39 petitioners in the
represent. printing of the official ballot for the 13
Resolution dated 4 December 201247 May 2013 party-list elections.
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a
38 204410 12- 1-United Cancelled temporary restraining order and/or writ
198 Transport accreditation of preliminary injunction. This Court
(PLM) Koalisyon (1- - The partyissued Status Quo Ante Orders in all
UTAK) represents driverspetitions. This Decision governs only the
and operators,54 consolidated petitions that were
who may havegranted Status Quo Ante Orders, namely:
conflicting
interests; and
G.R. SPP Group
- The party’s
No. No.
nominees do not
belong to anyResolution dated 13 November 2012
marginalized 203818- 12- AKO Bicol Political Party
and 19 154 (AKB)
underrepresented (PLM)
sector. 12-
Resolution dated 4 December 2012 48 177
(PLM)
39 204421, 12- Coalition of Cancelled
204425 157 Senior Citizens registration 203981 12- Association for
(PLM), in the - The party 187 Righteousness Advocacy
12- Philippines, violated election (PLM) on
191 Inc. laws because its Leadership (ARAL)
(PLM) (SENIOR nominees 204002 12- Alliance for Rural
CITIZENS) had a term- 188 Concerns (ARC)
sharing (PLM)
agreement. 203922 12- Association of Philippine
201 Electric Cooperatives
These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong (PLM) (APEC)
Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-
PGBI, 1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED
Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO,
203960 12- 1st 204158 12- Action Brotherhood for
260 Consumers Alliance for 158 Active Dreamer, Inc.
(PLM) Rural Energy, Inc. (PLM) (ABROAD)
(1-CARE) Resolutions dated 4 December 2012
203936 12- Aksyon Magsasaka- 204122 12- 1 Guardians Nationalist
248 Partido Tinig ng Masa 223 Philippines, Inc.
(PLM) (AKMA-PTM) (PLM) (1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
203958 12- Kapatiran ng mga 203766 12- Atong Paglaum, Inc.
015 Nakulong na Walang 161 (Atong Paglaum)
(PLM) Sala, (PLM)
Inc. (KAKUSA)
204318 12- United Movement Against
203976 12- Alliance for Rural and 220 Drugs Foundation
288 Agrarian Reconstruction, (PLM) (UNIMAD)
(PLM) Inc. (ARARO)
204263 12- Blessed Federation of
Resolution dated 20 November 2012 257 Farmers and Fishermen
204094 12- Alliance for Nationalism (PLM) International, Inc. (A
185 and Democracy BLESSED Party-List)
(PLM) (ANAD) 204174 12- Aangat Tayo Party-List
204125 12- Agapay ng Indigenous 232 Party (AT)
292 Peoples Rights Alliance, (PLM)
(PLM) Inc. (A-IPRA) 204126 12- Kaagapay ng
204100 12- 1-Bro Philippine 263 Nagkakaisang Agilang
196 Guardians Brotherhood, (PLM) Pilipinong
(PLM) Inc. Magsasaka (KAP)
(1BRO-PGBI) 204364 12- Adhikain at Kilusan ng
Resolution dated 27 November 2012 180 Ordinaryong Tao Para sa
204141 12- The True Marcos Loyalist (PLM) Lupa, Pabahay,
229 (for God, Country Hanapbuhay at
(PLM) and People) Association Kaunlaran
of the Philippines, Inc. (AKO-BAHAY)
(BANTAY) 204139 12- Alab ng Mamamahayag
204240 12- Agri-Agra na Reporma 127 (ALAM)
279 Para sa Magsasaka ng (PL)
(PLM) Pilipinas Movement 204220 12- Abang Lingkod Party-List
(AGRI) 238 (ABANG
204216 12- Philippine Coconut (PLM) LINGKOD)
202 Producers Federation, 204236 12- Firm 24-K Association,
(PLM) Inc. 254 Inc. (FIRM 24-K)
(COCOFED) (PLM)
204238 12- Alliance of Bicolnon Party 204428 12- Ang Galing Pinoy (AG)
173 (ABP) 256
(PLM) (PLM)
204239 12- Green Force for the 204490 12- Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy
060 Environment Sons and 073 (PPP)
(PLM) Daughters of Mother (PLM)
Earth (GREENFORCE) 204379 12- Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)
204321 12- Ang Agrikultura Natin 099
252 Isulong (AANI) (PLM)
(PLM) 204367 12- Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)
204323 12- Bayani Party List 104
210 (BAYANI) (PL)
(PLM) 204426 12- Association of Local
204341 12- Action League of 011 Athletics Entrepreneurs
269 Indigenous Masses (PLM) and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-
(PLM) (ALIM) EH)
204358 12- Alliance of Advocates in 204455 12- Manila Teachers Savings
204 Mining Advancement 041 and Loan Association,
(PLM) for National Progress (PLM) Inc. (Manila Teachers)
(AAMA) 204374 12- Binhi-Partido ng mga
204359 12- Social Movement for 228 Magsasaka Para sa mga
272 Active Reform and (PLM) Magsasaka (BINHI)
(PLM) Transparency (SMART) 204370 12- Ako An Bisaya (AAB)
204356 12- Butil Farmers Party 011
136 (BUTIL) (PP)
(PLM) 204435 12- 1 Alliance Advocating
Resolution dated 11 December 2012 057 Autonomy Party
204402 12- Kalikasan Party-List (PLM) (1AAAP)
061 (KALIKASAN) 204486 12- 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan
(PL) 194 Ginhawang
204394 12- Association of Guard, (PLM) Sangkatauhan (1st
145 Utility Helper, Aider, KABAGIS)
(PL) Rider, Driver/Domestic 204410 12- 1-United Transport
Helper, Janitor, Agent 198 Koalisyon (1-UTAK)
and Nanny of the (PLM)
Philippines, Inc. 204421, 12- Coalition of Senior
(GUARDJAN) 204425 157 Citizens in the
204408 12- Pilipino Association for (PLM) Philippines,
217 Country – Urban Poor 12- Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)
(PLM) Youth Advancement and 191
Welfare (PACYAW) (PLM)
204436 12- Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI) following prevailing decisions of this
009 Court in disqualifying petitioners from
(PP), participating in the coming 13 May 2013
12- party-list elections. However, since the
165 Court adopts in this Decision new
(PLM) parameters in the qualification of
204485 12- Alliance of Organizations, national, regional, and sectoral parties
175 Networks and under the party-list system, thereby
(PL) Associations of the abandoning the rulings in the decisions
Philippines, Inc. (ALONA) applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying
petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC
204484 11- Partido ng Bayan ng Bida all the present petitions for the COMELEC
002 (PBB) to determine who are qualified to register
Resolution dated 11 December 2012 under the party-list system, and to
204153 12- Pasang Masda participate in the coming 13 May 2013
277 Nationwide Party party-list elections, under the new
(PLM) (PASANG parameters prescribed in this Decision.
MASDA)
The Party-List System
The Issues
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis
We rule upon two issues: first, whether for the party-list system of
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of representation. Simply put, the party-list
discretion amounting to lack or excess of system is intended to democratize
jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners political power by giving political parties
from participating in the 13 May 2013 that cannot win in legislative district
party-list elections, either by denial of elections a chance to win seats in the
their new petitions for registration under House of Representatives.50 The voter
the party-list system, or by cancellation elects two representatives in the House
of their existing registration and of Representatives: one for his or her
accreditation as party-list organizations; legislative district, and another for his or
and second, whether the criteria for her party-list group or organization of
participating in the party-list system laid choice. The 1987 Constitution provides:
down in Ang Bagong Bayani and
Barangay Association for National Section 5, Article VI
Advancement and Transparency v.
Commission on Elections49 (BANAT) (1) The House of Representatives
should be applied by the COMELEC in the shall be composed of not more
coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed
The Court’s Ruling by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned
We hold that the COMELEC did not among the provinces, cities, and
commit grave abuse of discretion in the Metropolitan Manila area in
 accordance with the number of Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the
their respective inhabitants, and main sponsor of the party-list system,
on the basis of a uniform and stressed that "the party-list system is
progressive ratio, and those who, not synonymous with that of the
as provided by law, shall be sectoral representation."51 The
elected through a party-list constitutional provisions on the party-list
system of registered national, system should be read in light of the
regional, and sectoral parties or following discussion among its framers:
organizations.
MR. MONSOD: x x x.
(2) The party-list representatives
shall constitute twenty per centum I would like to make a distinction from
of the total number of the beginning that the proposal for the
representatives including those party list system is not synonymous with
under the party list. For three that of the sectoral representation.
consecutive terms after the Precisely, the party list system seeks to
ratification of this Constitution, avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors
one-half of the seats allocated to and who constitute the members of the
party-list representatives shall be sectors. In making the proposal on the
filled, as provided by law, by party list system, we were made aware
selection or election from the of the problems precisely cited by
labor, peasant, urban poor, Commissioner Bacani of which sectors
indigenous cultural communities, will have reserved seats. In effect, a
women, youth, and such other sectoral representation in the Assembly
sectors as may be provided by would mean that certain sectors would
law, except the religious sector. have reserved seats; that they will
choose among themselves who would sit
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C in those reserved seats. And then, we
have the problem of which sector
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political because as we will notice in Proclamation
party, organization, or coalition shall be No. 9, the sectors cited were the farmers,
valid, except for those registered under fishermen, workers, students,
the party-list system as provided in this professionals, business, military,
Constitution. academic, ethnic and other similar
groups. So these are the nine sectors that
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations were identified here as "sectoral
or coalitions registered under the party- representatives" to be represented in this
list system, shall not be represented in Commission. The problem we had in
the voters’ registration boards, boards of trying to approach sectoral
election inspectors, boards of representation in the Assembly was
canvassers, or other similar bodies. whether to stop at these nine sectors or
However, they shall be entitled to appoint include other sectors. And we went
poll watchers in accordance with law. through the exercise in a caucus of which
sector should be included which went up
to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the farmers' party to be represented in the
longer we make our enumeration, the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any
more limiting the law become because party. At the end of the day, the
when we make an enumeration we COMELEC will then tabulate the votes
exclude those who are not in the that had been garnered by each party or
enumeration. Second, we had the each organization — one does not have
problem of who comprise the farmers. to be a political party and register in
Let us just say the farmers and the order to participate as a party — and
laborers. These days, there are many count the votes and from there derive the
citizens who are called "hyphenated percentage of the votes that had been
citizens." A doctor may be a farmer; a cast in favor of a party, organization or
lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it is coalition.
up to the discretion of the person to say
"I am a farmer" so he would be included When such parties register with the
in that sector. COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of
the 250 seats will be for the party list
The third problem is that when we go into system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent
a reserved seat system of sectoral of 50. That means that the maximum
representation in the Assembly, we are, that any party can get out of these 50
in effect, giving some people two votes seats is 15. When the parties register
and other people one vote. We sought to they then submit a list of 15 names. They
avoid these problems by presenting a have to submit these names because
party list system. Under the party list these nominees have to meet the
system, there are no reserved seats for minimum qualifications of a Member of
sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers the National Assembly. At the end of the
can form a sectoral party or a sectoral day, when the votes are tabulated, one
organization that will then register and gets the percentages. Let us say, UNIDO
present candidates of their party. How do gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the
the mechanics go? Essentially, under the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a women’s
party list system, every voter has two party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody
votes, so there is no discrimination. First, who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote
he will vote for the representative of his qualifies and the 50 seats are
legislative district. That is one vote. In apportioned among all of these parties
that same ballot, he will be asked: What who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the
party or organization or coalition do you vote.
wish to be represented in the Assembly?
And here will be attached a list of the What does that mean? It means that any
parties, organizations or coalitions that group or party who has a constituency of,
have been registered with the COMELEC say, 500,000 nationwide gets a seat in
and are entitled to be put in that list. This the National Assembly. What is the
can be a regional party, a sectoral party, justification for that? When we allocate
a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a legislative districts, we are saying that
regional party in Mindanao. One need not any district that has 200,000 votes gets a
be a farmer to say that he wants the seat. There is no reason why a group that
has a national constituency, even if it is a BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I
sectoral or special interest group, should right in interpreting that when we speak
not have a voice in the National now of party list system though we refer
Assembly. It also means that, let us say, to sectors, we would be referring to
there are three or four labor groups, they sectoral party list rather than sectors and
all register as a party or as a group. If party list?
each of them gets only one percent or
five of them get one percent, they are not MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this
entitled to any representative. So, they body accepts the party list system, we do
will begin to think that if they really have not even have to mention sectors
a common interest, they should band because the sectors would be included in
together, form a coalition and get five the party list system. They can be
percent of the vote and, therefore, have sectoral parties within the party list
two seats in the Assembly. Those are the system.
dynamics of a party list system.
xxxx
We feel that this approach gets around
the mechanics of sectoral representation MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just
while at the same time making sure that want to say that we suggested or
those who really have a national proposed the party list system because
constituency or sectoral constituency will we wanted to open up the political
get a chance to have a seat in the system to a pluralistic society through a
National Assembly. These sectors or multiparty system. x x x We are for
these groups may not have the opening up the system, and we
constituency to win a seat on a legislative would like very much for the sectors
district basis. They may not be able to to be there. That is why one of the
win a seat on a district basis but surely, ways to do that is to put a ceiling on
they will have votes on a nationwide the number of representatives from
basis. any single party that can sit within
the 50 allocated under the party list
The purpose of this is to open the system. x x x.
system. In the past elections, we found
out that there were certain groups or xxx
parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the
1,500,000 votes. But they were always candidacy for the 198 seats is not
third place or fourth place in each of the limited to political parties. My
districts. So, they have no voice in the question is this: Are we going to
Assembly. But this way, they would have classify for example Christian
five or six representatives in the Democrats and Social Democrats as
Assembly even if they would not win political parties? Can they run under
individually in legislative districts. So, that the party list concept or must they
is essentially the mechanics, the purpose be under the district legislation side
and objectives of the party list system. of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod,
query, I think these parties that the gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political
Commissioner mentioned can field parties, particularly minority
candidates for the Senate as well as political parties, are not prohibited
for the House of Representatives. to participate in the party list
Likewise, they can also field sectoral election if they can prove that they
candidates for the 20 percent or 30 are also organized along sectoral
percent, whichever is adopted, of lines.
the seats that we are allocating
under the party list system. MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is
saying is that all political parties can
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the participate because it is precisely the
Christian Democrats can field contention of political parties that they
district candidates and can also represent the broad base of citizens and
participate in the party list system? that all sectors are represented in them.
Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When
they come to the party list system, MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin,
they will be fielding only sectoral pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang
candidates. political party, it will dominate the party
list at mawawalang saysay din yung
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political
that? Can UNIDO participate in the parties ang party list system. Gusto ko
party list system? lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve."
Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198
as long as they field candidates who seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
come from the different
marginalized sectors that we shall MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon
designate in this Constitution. kasi anybody can run there. But my
question to Commissioner Villacorta and
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Tañada probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is
wants to run under BAYAN group and that under this system, would UNIDO be
says that he represents the farmers, banned from running under the party list
would he qualify? system?

MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said,

would not qualify. UNIDO may field sectoral
candidates. On that condition alone,
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field UNIDO may be allowed to register
candidates under the party list system for the party list system.
and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who
would pass on whether he is a farmer or
not?
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from are final and
Commissioner Tadeo if he shares unappealable. (Emphasis supplied)
52

that answer?
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987
MR. TADEO. The same. Constitution intended the party-list
system to include not only sectoral
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang parties but also non-sectoral parties. The
UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines. framers intended the sectoral parties to
constitute a part, but not the entirety, of
MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi the party-list system. As explained by
kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay hindi Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta,
talagang labor leader or isang laborer? political parties can participate in
Halimbawa, abogado ito. the party-list system "For as long as
they field candidates who come
MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics. from the different marginalized
sectors that we shall designate in
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon this Constitution."53
because we are trying to solve an
inherent problem of sectoral In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22,
representation. My question is: Suppose a proposal to reserve permanent seats to
UNIDO fields a labor leader, would he sectoral parties in the House of
qualify? Representatives, or alternatively, to
reserve the party-list system exclusively
MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look to sectoral parties. As clearly explained
into the truth of whether or not a by Justice Jose C. Vitug in his Dissenting
political party is really organized Opinion in Ang Bagong Bayani:
along a specific sectoral line. If such
is verified or confirmed, the political The draft provisions on what was to
party may submit a list of become Article VI, Section 5, subsection
individuals who are actually (2), of the 1987 Constitution took off
members of such sectors. The lists from two staunch positions — the first
are to be published to give headed by Commissioner Villacorta,
individuals or organizations advocating that of the 20 per centum of
belonging to such sector the chance the total seats in Congress to be allocated
to present evidence contradicting to party-list representatives half were to
claims of membership in the said be reserved to appointees from the
sector or to question the claims of marginalized and underrepresented
the existence of such sectoral sectors. The proposal was opposed by
organizations or parties. This some Commissioners. Mr. Monsod
proceeding shall be conducted by expressed the difficulty in delimiting the
the COMELEC and shall be summary sectors that needed representation. He
in character. In other words, was of the view that reserving seats for
COMELEC decisions on this matter the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors would stunt their development
into full-pledged parties equipped with Thus, in the end, the proposal to give
electoral machinery potent enough to permanent reserved seats to certain
further the sectoral interests to be sectors was outvoted. Instead, the
represented. The Villacorta group, on the reservation of seats to sectoral
other hand, was apprehensive that representatives was only allowed for the
pitting the unorganized and less- first three consecutive terms.55 There can
moneyed sectoral groups in an electoral be no doubt whatsoever that the framers
contest would be like placing babes in the of the 1987 Constitution expressly
lion's den, so to speak, with the bigger rejected the proposal to make the party-
and more established political parties list system exclusively for sectoral parties
ultimately gobbling them up. R.A. 7941 only, and that they clearly intended the
recognized this concern when it banned party-list system to include both sectoral
the first five major political parties on the and non-sectoral parties.
basis of party representation in the
House of Representatives from The common denominator between
participating in the party-list system for sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that
the first party-list elections held in 1998 they cannot expect to win in legislative
(and to be automatically lifted starting district elections but they can garner, in
with the 2001 elections). The advocates nationwide elections, at least the same
for permanent seats for sectoral number of votes that winning candidates
representatives made an effort towards a can garner in legislative district elections.
compromise — that the party-list system The party-list system will be the entry
be open only to underrepresented and point to membership in the House of
marginalized sectors. This proposal was Representatives for both these non-
further whittled down by allocating only traditional parties that could not compete
half of the seats under the party-list in legislative district elections.
system to candidates from the sectors
which would garner the required number The indisputable intent of the framers of
of votes. The majority was unyielding. the 1987 Constitution to include in the
Voting 19-22, the proposal for permanent party-list system both sectoral and non-
seats, and in the alternative the sectoral parties is clearly written in
reservation of the party-list system to the Section 5(1), Article VI of the
sectoral groups, was voted down. The Constitution, which states:
only concession the Villacorta group was
able to muster was an assurance of Section 5. (1) The House of
reserved seats for selected sectors for Representative shall be composed of not
three consecutive terms after the more that two hundred and fifty
enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
which time they would be expected to who shall be elected from legislative
gather and solidify their electoral base districts apportioned among the
and brace themselves in the multi-party provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
electoral contest with the more veteran Manila area in accordance with the
political groups.54 (Emphasis supplied) number of their respective inhabitants,
and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as organized along sectoral lines and need
provided by law, shall be elected not represent any particular sector.
through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the
sectoral parties or organizations. 1987 Constitution mandates that, during
(Emphasis supplied) the first three consecutive terms of
Congress after the ratification of the
Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, "one-half of the seats
Constitution is crystal-clear that there allocated to party-list representatives
shall be "a party-list system of shall be filled, as provided by law, by
registered national, regional, and selection or election from the labor,
sectoral parties or peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
organizations." The commas after the communities, women, youth, and such
words "national," and "regional," other sectors as may be provided by law,
separate national and regional parties except the religious sector." This
from sectoral parties. Had the framers of provision clearly shows again that the
the 1987 Constitution intended national party-list system is not exclusively for
and regional parties to be at the same sectoral parties for two obvious reasons.
time sectoral, they would have stated
"national and regional sectoral parties." First, the other one-half of the seats
They did not, precisely because it was allocated to party-list representatives
never their intention to make the party- would naturally be open to non-sectoral
list system exclusively sectoral. party-list representatives, clearly
negating the idea that the party-list
What the framers intended, and what system is exclusively for sectoral parties
they expressly wrote in Section 5(1), representing the "marginalized and
could not be any clearer: the party-list underrepresented." Second, the
system is composed of three different reservation of one-half of the party-list
groups, and the sectoral parties belong seats to sectoral parties applies only for
to only one of the three groups. The text the first "three consecutive terms after
of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any the ratification of this Constitution,"
doubt that national and regional parties clearly making the party-list system fully
are separate from sectoral parties. open after the end of the first three
congressional terms. This means that,
Thus, the party-list system is composed after this period, there will be no seats
of three different groups: (1) national reserved for any class or type of party
parties or organizations; (2) regional that qualifies under the three groups
parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral constituting the party-list system.
parties or organizations. National and
regional parties or organizations Hence, the clear intent, express
are different from sectoral parties or wording, and party-list structure
organizations. National and regional ordained in Section 5(1) and (2),
parties or organizations need not be Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
cannot be disputed: the party-list
system is not for sectoral parties regional party when its
only, but also for non-sectoral constituency is spread over the
parties. geographical territory of at least a
majority of the cities and
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List provinces comprising the region.
System Act, which is the law that
implements the party-list system (d) A sectoral party refers to
prescribed in the Constitution, provides: an organized group of citizens
belonging to any of the
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The sectors enumerated in
party-list system is a mechanism of Section 5 hereof whose
proportional representation in the principal advocacy pertains to
election of representatives to the House the special interest and
of Representatives from national, concerns of their sector.
regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof (e) A sectoral organization refers
registered with the Commission on to a group of citizens or a coalition
Elections (COMELEC). Component parties of groups of citizens who share
or organizations of a coalition may similar physical attributes or
participate independently provided the characteristics, employment,
coalition of which they form part does not interests or concerns.
participate in the party-list system.
(f) A coalition refers to an
(b) A party means either a aggrupation of duly registered
political party or a sectoral national, regional, sectoral parties
party or a coalition of parties. or organizations for political
and/or election purposes.
(c) A political party refers to (Emphasis supplied)
an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a
platform, principles and "party" as "either a political party or
policies for the general a sectoral party or a coalition of
conduct of government and parties." Clearly, a political party is
which, as the most immediate different from a sectoral party. Section
means of securing their 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941 further provides
adoption, regularly nominates that a "political party refers to
and supports certain of its an organized group of citizens
leaders and members as advocating an ideology or platform,
candidates for public office. principles and policies for the
general conduct of government." On
It is a national party when its the other hand, Section 3(d) of R.A. No.
constituency is spread over the 7941 provides that a "sectoral
geographical territory of at least a party refers to an organized group of
majority of the regions. It is a citizens belonging to any of the sectors
enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose that the political party consists of citizens
principal advocacy pertains to the who advocate the same ideology or
special interest and concerns of platform, or the same governance
their sector." R.A. No. 7941 provides principles and policies, regardless of
different definitions for a political and a their economic status as citizens.
sectoral party. Obviously, they are
separate and distinct from each other. Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that
"the sectors shall include labor, peasant,
R.A. No. 7941 does not require fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
national and regional parties or cultural
organizations to represent the communities, elderly, handicapped, wo
"marginalized and men, youth, veterans, overseas
underrepresented" sectors. To workers, and professionals."56The
require all national and regional parties sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all
under the party-list system to represent necessarily "marginalized and
the "marginalized and underrepresented" underrepresented." For sure,
is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, "professionals" are not by definition
ideology-based and cause-oriented "marginalized and underrepresented,"
parties from the party-list system. How not even the elderly, women, and the
will these ideology-based and cause- youth. However, professionals, the
oriented parties, who cannot win in elderly, women, and the youth may "lack
legislative district elections, participate in well-defined political constituencies," and
the electoral process if they are excluded can thus organize themselves into
from the party-list system? To exclude sectoral parties in advocacy of the special
them from the party-list system is to interests and concerns of their respective
prevent them from joining the sectors.
parliamentary struggle, leaving as their
only option the armed struggle. To Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides
exclude them from the party-list system another compelling reason for holding
is, apart from being obviously senseless, that the law does not require national or
patently contrary to the clear intent and regional parties, as well as certain
express wording of the 1987 Constitution sectoral parties in Section 5 of R.A. No.
and R.A. No. 7941. 7941, to represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented." Section 6 provides
Under the party-list system, an ideology- the grounds for the COMELEC to refuse
based or cause-oriented political party is or cancel the registration of parties or
clearly different from a sectoral party. A organizations after due notice and
political party need not be organized as a hearing.
sectoral party and need not represent
any particular sector. There is no Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of
requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a Registration. — The COMELEC may,
national or regional political party must motu proprio or upon verified complaint
represent a "marginalized and of any interested party, refuse or cancel,
underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or of the "marginalized and
sectoral party, organization or coalition underrepresented."
on any of the following grounds:
The phrase "marginalized and
(1) It is a religious sect or underrepresented" appears only once
denomination, organization or in R.A. No. 7941, in Section 2 on
association organized for religious Declaration of Policy.57 Section 2 seeks
purposes; "to promote proportional representation
in the election of representatives to the
(2) It advocates violence or House of Representatives through the
unlawful means to seek its goal; party-list system," which will enable
Filipinos belonging to
(3) It is a foreign party or the "marginalized and
organization; underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who
(4) It is receiving support from lack well-defined political
any foreign government, foreign constituencies," to become members
political party, foundation, of the House of Representatives. While
organization, whether directly or the policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A.
through any of its officers or No. 7941 broadly refers to "marginalized
members or indirectly through and underrepresented sectors,
third parties for partisan election organizations and parties," the specific
purposes; implementing provisions of R.A. No. 7941
do not define or require that the sectors,
(5) It violates or fails to comply organizations or parties must be
with laws, rules or regulations "marginalized and underrepresented."
relating to elections; On the contrary, to even interpret that all
the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are
(6) It declares untruthful "marginalized and underrepresented"
statements in its petition; would lead to absurdities.

(7) It has ceased to exist for at How then should we harmonize the
least one (1) year; or broad policy declaration in Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7941 with its specific
(8) It fails to participate in the last implementing provisions, bearing in mind
two (2) preceding elections or fails the applicable provisions of the 1987
to obtain at least two per centum Constitution on the matter?
(2%) of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two (2) The phrase "marginalized and
preceding elections for the underrepresented" should refer only
constituency in which it has to the sectors in Section 5 that
registered. are, by their nature, economically
"marginalized and
None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel underrepresented." These sectors
registration refers to non-representation
are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban This interpretation will harmonize the
poor, indigenous cultural communities, 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 and
handicapped, veterans, overseas will give rise to a multi-party system
workers, and other similar sectors. For where those "marginalized and
these sectors, a majority of the underrepresented," both in economic
members of the sectoral party must and ideological status, will have the
belong to the "marginalized and opportunity to send their own members
underrepresented." The nominees to the House of Representatives. This
of the sectoral party either must interpretation will also make the party-list
belong to the sector, or must have a system honest and transparent,
track record of advocacy for the eliminating the need for relatively well-off
sector represented. Belonging to the party-list representatives to masquerade
"marginalized and underrepresented" as "wallowing in poverty, destitution and
sector does not mean one must "wallow infirmity," even as they attend sessions in
in poverty, destitution or infirmity." It is Congress riding in SUVs.
sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is
below the middle class. More specifically, The major political parties are those that
the economically "marginalized and field candidates in the legislative district
underrepresented" are those who fall in elections. Major political parties cannot
the low income group as classified by the participate in the party-list elections since
National Statistical Coordination Board.58 they neither lack "well-defined political
constituencies" nor represent
The recognition that national and "marginalized and underrepresented"
regional parties, as well as sectoral sectors. Thus, the national or
parties of professionals, the elderly, regional parties under the party-list
women and the youth, need not be system are necessarily those that do
"marginalized and underrepresented" will not belong to major political
allow small ideology-based and cause- parties. This automatically reserves the
oriented parties who lack "well-defined national and regional parties under the
political constituencies" a chance to win party-list system to those who "lack well-
seats in the House of Representatives. defined political constituencies," giving
On the other hand, limiting to the them the opportunity to have members
"marginalized and underrepresented" in the House of Representatives.
the sectoral parties for labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly
cultural communities, handicapped, declared, in its second guideline for the
veterans, overseas workers, and other accreditation of parties under the party-
sectors that by their nature are list system, that "while even major
economically at the margins of society, political parties are expressly allowed by
will give the "marginalized and RA 7941 and the Constitution to
underrepresented" an opportunity to participate in the party-list system, they
likewise win seats in the House of must comply with the declared statutory
Representatives. policy of enabling ‘Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors xxx to be The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941
elected to the House of Representatives.’ allow major political parties to participate
"However, the requirement in Ang in party-list elections so as to encourage
Bagong Bayani, in its second guideline, them to work assiduously in extending
that "the political party xxx must their constituencies to the "marginalized
represent the marginalized and and underrepresented" and to those who
underrepresented," automatically "lack well-defined political
disqualified major political parties from constituencies." The participation of
participating in the party-list system. major political parties in party-list
This inherent inconsistency in Ang elections must be geared towards the
Bagong Bayani has been compounded by entry, as members of the House of
the COMELEC’s refusal to register Representatives, of the "marginalized
sectoral wings officially organized by and underrepresented" and those who
major political parties. BANAT merely "lack well-defined political
formalized the prevailing practice when constituencies," giving them a voice in
it expressly prohibited major political law-making. Thus,to participate in party-
parties from participating in the party-list list elections, a major political party that
system, even through their sectoral fields candidates in the legislative district
wings. elections must organize a sectoral wing,
like a labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly poor, professional, women or youth
prohibited the "first five (5) major wing, that can register under the party-
political parties on the basis of party list system.
representation in the House of
Representatives at the start of the Tenth Such sectoral wing of a major political
Congress" from participating in the May party must have its own constitution, by-
1988 party-list elections.59 Thus, major laws, platform or program of
political parties can participate in government, officers and members, a
subsequent party-list elections majority of whom must belong to the
since the prohibition is expressly sector represented. The sectoral wing is
limited only to the 1988 party-list in itself an independent sectoral party,
elections. However, major political and is linked to a major political party
parties should participate in party-list through a coalition. This linkage is
elections only through their sectoral allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941,
wings. The participation of major political which provides that "component parties
parties through their sectoral wings, a or organizations of a coalition may
majority of whose members are participate independently (in party-list
"marginalized and underrepresented" or elections) provided the coalition of which
lacking in "well-defined political they form part does not participate in the
constituencies," will facilitate the entry of party-list system."
the "marginalized and underrepresented"
and those who "lack well-defined political Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the
constituencies" as members of the House qualifications of party-list nominees. This
of Representatives. provision prescribes a special
qualification only for the nominee from First, the political party, sector,
the youth sector. organization or coalition must
represent the marginalized and
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List underrepresented groups identified
Nominees. No person shall be nominated in Section 5 of RA 7941. x x x
as party-list representative unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a Second, while even major political parties
registered voter, a resident of the are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
Philippines for a period of not less than Constitution to participate in the party-list
one (1) year immediately preceding the system, they must comply with the
day of the election, able to read and declared statutory policy of enabling
write, a bona fide member of the party or "Filipino citizens belonging to
organization which he seeks to represent marginalized and underrepresented
for at least ninety (90) days preceding sectors x x x to be elected to the House
the day of the election, and is at least of Representatives." x x x.
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
of the election. xxxx

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, Third, x x x the religious sector may not
he must at least be twenty-five (25) but be represented in the party-list system. x
not more than thirty (30) years of age on x x.
the day of the election.
xxxx
Any youth sectoral representative who
attains the age of thirty (30) during his Fourth, a party or an organization must
term shall be allowed to continue in office not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA
until the expiration of his term.1âwphi1 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
disqualification as follows:
A party-list nominee must be a bona fide
member of the party or organization "(1) It is a religious sect or
which he or she seeks to represent. In denomination, organization or
the case of sectoral parties, to be a association, organized for
bona fide party-list nominee one religious purposes;
must either belong to the sector
represented, or have a track record (2) It advocates violence or
of advocacy for such sector. unlawful means to seek its goal;

In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC (3) It is a foreign party or

used the criteria prescribed in Ang organization;
Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong
Bayani laid down the guidelines for (4) It is receiving support from
qualifying those who desire to participate any foreign government, foreign
in the party-list system: political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or
 members or indirectly through for at least ninety (90) days preceding
third parties for partisan election the day of the election, and is at least
purposes; twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
of the election.
(5) It violates or fails to comply
with laws, rules or regulations In case of a nominee of the youth sector,
relating to elections; he must at least be twenty-five (25) but
not more than thirty (30) years of age on
(6) It declares untruthful the day of the election. Any youth
statements in its petition; sectoral representative who attains the
age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
(7) It has ceased to exist for at allowed to continue in office until the
least one (1) year; or expiration of his term."

(8) It fails to participate in the last Seventh, not only the candidate
two (2) preceding elections or fails party or organization must
to obtain at least two per centum represent marginalized and
(2%) of the votes cast under the underrepresented sectors; so also
party-list system in the two (2) must its nominees. x x x.
preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise
registered." be able to contribute to the formulation
and enactment of appropriate legislation
Fifth, the party or organization must not that will benefit the nation as a whole.
be an adjunct of, or a project organized (Emphasis supplied)
or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government. x x x. In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this
Court stretched the Ang Bagong
xxxx Bayani ruling further. In BANAT, the
majority officially excluded major political
Sixth, the party must not only comply parties from participating in party-list
with the requirements of the law; its elections,60 abandoning even the lip-
nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 service that Ang Bagong
of RA 7941 reads as follows: Bayani accorded to the 1987 Constitution
and R.A.No. 7941 that major political
"SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List parties can participate in party-list
Nominees. - No person shall be elections.
nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the The minority in BANAT, however,
Philippines, a registered voter, a resident believed that major political parties can
of the Philippines for a period of not less participate in the party-list system
than one (1)year immediately preceding through their sectoral wings. The
the day of the election, able to read and minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the
write, a bona fide member of the party or major political parties in party-list
organization which he seeks to represent
elections is manifestly against the party may appeal to this Court from
Constitution, the intent of the decisions or orders of the COMELEC only
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. if the COMELEC committed grave abuse
7941. This Court cannot engage in socio- of discretion.
political engineering and judicially
legislate the exclusion of major political Thus, we remand all the present petitions
parties from the party-list elections in to the COMELEC. In determining who
patent violation of the Constitution and may participate in the coming 13 May
the law."61 The experimentations in 2013 and subsequent party-list elections,
socio-political engineering have only the COMELEC shall adhere to the
resulted in confusion and absurdity in the following parameters:
party-list system. Such experimentations,
in clear contravention of the 1987 1. Three different groups may
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941, must participate in the party-list
now come to an end. system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties
We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC or organizations, and (3) sectoral
for following prevailing jurisprudence in parties or organizations.
disqualifying petitioners. In following
prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC 2. National parties or
could not have committed grave abuse of organizations and regional parties
discretion. However, for the coming 13 or organizations do not need to
May 2013 party-list elections, we must organize along sectoral lines and
now impose and mandate the party-list do not need to represent any
system actually envisioned and "marginalized and
authorized under the 1987 Constitution underrepresented" sector.
and R.A. No. 7941. In BANAT, this Court
devised a new formula in the allocation 3. Political parties can participate
of party-list seats, reversing the in party-list elections provided
COMELEC's allocation which followed the they register under the party-list
then prevailing formula in Ang Bagong system and do not field candidates
Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court in legislative district elections. A
did not declare that the COMELEC political party, whether major or
committed grave abuse of discretion. not, that fields candidates in
Similarly, even as we acknowledge here legislative district elections can
that the COMELEC did not commit grave participate in party-list elections
abuse of discretion, we declare that it only through its sectoral wing that
would not be in accord with the 1987 can separately register under the
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply party-list system. The sectoral
the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and wing is by itself an independent
BANAT in determining who are qualified sectoral party, and is linked to a
to participate in the coming 13 May political party through a coalition.
2013 party-list elections. For this
purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a
4. Sectoral parties or members of such parties or
organizations may either be organizations.
"marginalized and
underrepresented" or lacking in 6. National, regional, and sectoral
"well-defined political parties or organizations shall not
constituencies." It is enough that be disqualified if some of their
their principal advocacy pertains nominees are disqualified,
to the special interest and provided that they have at least
concerns of their sector. The one nominee who remains
sectors that are "marginalized and qualified.
underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, The COMELEC excluded from
indigenous cultural communities, participating in the 13 May 2013 party-
handicapped, veterans, and list elections those that did not satisfy
overseas workers. The sectors these two criteria: (1) all national,
that lack "well-defined political regional, and sectoral groups or
constituencies" include organizations must represent the
professionals, the elderly, women, "marginalized and underrepresented"
and the youth. sectors, and (2) all nominees must
belong to the "marginalized and
5. A majority of the members of underrepresented" sector they represent.
sectoral parties or organizations Petitioners may have been disqualified by
that represent the "marginalized the COMELEC because as political or
and underrepresented" must regional parties they are not organized
belong to the "marginalized and along sectoral lines and do not represent
underrepresented" sector they the "marginalized and
represent. Similarly, a majority of underrepresented." Also, petitioners'
the members of sectoral parties or nominees who do not belong to the
organizations that lack "well- sectors they represent may have been
defined political constituencies" disqualified, although they may have a
must belong to the sector they track record of advocacy for their sectors.
represent. The nominees of Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral
sectoral parties or organizations parties may have been disqualified
that represent the "marginalized because they do not belong to any
and underrepresented," or that sector. Moreover, a party may have been
represent those who lack "well- disqualified because one or more of its
defined political constituencies," nominees failed to qualify, even if the
either must belong to their party has at least one remaining qualified
respective sectors, or must have a nominee. As discussed above, the
track record of advocacy for their disqualification of petitioners, and their
respective sectors. The nominees nominees, under such circumstances is
of national and regional parties or contrary to the 1987 Constitution and
organizations must be bona-fide R.A. No. 7941.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 SO ORDERED.
Constitution, apply its provisions
faithfully, and desist from engaging in
socio-economic or political
experimentations contrary to what the
Constitution has ordained. Judicial power
does not include the power to re-write G.R. No. 201716 January 8,
the Constitution. Thus, the present 2013
petitions should be remanded to the
COMELEC not because the COMELEC MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO,
committed grave abuse of discretion in SR., Petitioner,
disqualifying petitioners, but because vs.
petitioners may now possibly qualify to COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 ERNESTO R. VEGA, Respondents.
party-list elections under the new
parameters prescribed by this Court. DECISION

WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions VELASCO, JR., J.:

are GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which
have been granted Status Quo Ante The Case
Orders but without mandatory injunction
to include the names of petitioners in the In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule
printing of ballots, are remanded to the 65, petitioner Abelardo Abundo, Sr.
Commission on Elections only for (Abundo) assails and seeks to nullify (1)
determination whether petitioners are the February 8, 2012 Resolution1 of the
qualified to register under the party-list Second Division, Commission on
system under the parameters prescribed Elections (COMELEC), in EAC (AE) No. A-
in this Decision but they shall not 25-2010 and (2) the May 10, 2012
participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list Resolution2 of the COMELEC en banc
elections. The 41 petitions, which have affirming that division’s disposition. The
been granted mandatory injunctions to assailed issuances, in turn, affirmed the
include the names of petitioners in the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
printing of ballots, are remanded to the (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43,
Commission on Elections for dated August 9, 2010, in Election Case
determination whether petitioners are No. 55 declaring Abundo as ineligible,
qualified to register under the party-list under the three-term limit rule, to run in
system and to participate in the 13 May the 2010 elections for the position of, and
2013 party-list elections under the necessarily to sit as, Mayor of Viga,
parameters prescribed in this Decision. Catanduanes.
The Commission on Elections may
conduct summary evidentiary hearings The antecedent facts are undisputed.
for this purpose. This Decision is
immediately executory. For four (4) successive regular elections,
namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010
national and local elections, Abundo vied
for the position of municipal mayor of before the RTC-Br. 43 in Virac,
Viga, Catanduanes. In both the 2001 and Catanduanes, docketed as Election Case
2007 runs, he emerged and was No. 55, to unseat Abundo on essentially
proclaimed as the winning mayoralty the same grounds Torres raised in his
candidate and accordingly served the petition to disqualify.
corresponding terms as mayor. In the
2004 electoral derby, however, the Viga The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
municipal board of canvassers initially
proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres By Decision8 of August 9, 2010 in Election
(Torres), who, in due time, performed Case No. 55, the RTC declared Abundo
the functions of the office of mayor. ineligible to serve as municipal mayor,
Abundo protested Torres’ election and disposing as follows:
proclamation. Abundo was eventually
declared the winner of the 2004 WHEREFORE, Decision is, hereby,
mayoralty electoral contest, paving the rendered GRANTING the petition and
way for his assumption of office starting declaring Abelardo Abundo, Sr. ineligible
May 9, 2006 until the end of the 2004- to serve as municipal mayor of Viga,
2007 term on June 30, 2007, or for a Catanduanes.
period of a little over one year and one
month. SO ORDERED.9

Then came the May 10, 2010 elections In so ruling, the trial court, citing
where Abundo and Torres again opposed Aldovino, Jr. v. COMELEC,10 found
each other. When Abundo filed his Abundo to have already served three
certificate of candidacy3 for the consecutive mayoralty terms, to wit,
mayoralty seat relative to this electoral 2001-2004, 2004-2007 and 2007-2010,
contest, Torres lost no time in seeking and, hence, disqualified for another, i.e.,
the former’s disqualification to run, the fourth, consecutive term. Abundo, the
corresponding petition,4 docketed as SPA RTC noted, had been declared winner in
Case No. 10-128 (DC), predicated on the the aforesaid 2004 elections consequent
three-consecutive term limit rule. On to his protest and occupied the position
June 16, 2010, the COMELEC First of and actually served as Viga mayor for
Division issued a Resolution5 finding for over a year of the remaining term, i.e.,
Abundo, who in the meantime bested from May 9, 2006 to June 30, 2007, to be
Torres by 219 votes6 and was accordingly exact. To the RTC, the year and a month
proclaimed 2010 mayor-elect of Viga, service constitutes a complete and full
Catanduanes. service of Abundo’s second term as
mayor.
Meanwhile, on May 21, 2010, or before
the COMELEC could resolve the adverted Therefrom, Abundo appealed to the
disqualification case Torres initiated COMELEC, his recourse docketed as EAC
against Abundo, herein private (AE) No. A-25-2010.
respondent Ernesto R. Vega (Vega)
commenced a quo warranto7 action The Ruling of the COMELEC
On February 8, 2012, in EAC (AE) No. A- as he is considered never to have lost title
25-2010, the COMELEC’s Second Division to the disputed office after he won in his
rendered the first assailed Resolution, election protest; and second, what the
the dispositive portion of which reads as Constitution prohibits is for an elective
follows: official to be in office for the same
position for more than three consecutive
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, terms and not to the service of the term.
the decision of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 73, Virac, Catanduanes is Hence, the instant petition with prayer
AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED for the issuance of a temporary
for lack of merit. restraining order (TRO) and/or
preliminary injunction.
SO ORDERED.11
Intervening Events
Just like the RTC, the COMELEC’s Second
Division ruled against Abundo on the In the meantime, following the issuance
strength of Aldovino, Jr. and held that by the COMELEC of its May 10, 2012
service of the unexpired portion of a term Resolution denying Abundo’s motion for
by a protestant who is declared winner in reconsideration, the following events
an election protest is considered as transpired:
service for one full term within the
contemplation of the three-term limit 1. On June 20, 2012, the
rule. COMELEC issued an
Order13 declaring its May 10, 2012
In time, Abundo sought but was denied Resolution final and executory.
reconsideration by the COMELEC en banc The following day, June 21, 2012,
per its equally assailed Resolution of May the COMELEC issued an Entry of
10, 2012. The fallo of the COMELEC en Judgment.14
banc’s Resolution reads as follows:
2. On June 25, 2012, Vega filed a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Execution15 with the
motion for reconsideration is DENIED for RTC-Br. 43 in Virac, Catanduanes.
lack of merit. The Resolution of the
Commission (Second Division) is hereby 3. On June 27, 2012, the
AFFIRMED. COMELEC, acting on Vega’s
counsel’s motion16 filed a day
SO ORDERED.12 earlier, issued an Order17 directing
the bailiff of ECAD (COMELEC) to
In affirming the Resolution of its Second personally deliver the entire
Division, the COMELEC en banc held in records to said RTC.
essence the following: first, there was no
involuntary interruption of Abundo’s On June 29, 2012, the COMELEC
2004-2007 term service which would be ECAD Bailiff personally delivered
an exception to the three-term limit rule the entire records of the instant
case to, and were duly received Cervantes––who had taken their
by, the clerk of court of RTC-Br. oaths of office the day before—
43. assumed the posts of mayor and
vice-mayor of Viga,
4. On June 29, 2012, or on the Catanduanes. 24

same day of its receipt of the case

records, the RTC-Br. 43 in Virac, 9. On July 6, 2012, Vega
Catanduanes granted Vega’s interposed a Motion (To Admit
Motion for Execution through an Attached Manifestation)25 and
Order18 of even date. And a Writ Manifestation with Leave to
of Execution19 was issued on the Admit26 dated July 5, 2012 stating
same day. that the TRO thus issued by the
Court has become functus officio
5. On July 2, 2012, Sheriff Q. owing to the execution of the
Tador, Jr. received the Writ of RTC’s Decision in Election Case
Execution and served the same at No. 55.
the office of Mayor Abundo on the
same day via substituted service. 10. On July 10, 2012, Vega filed
his Comment/Opposition with
6. On July 3, 2012, the Court Leave to the Petitioner’s Prayer for
issued a TRO20 enjoining the the Issuance of a Status Quo Ante
enforcement of the assailed Order27 reiterating the argument
COMELEC Resolutions. that since Vice-Mayor Emeterio M.
Tarin and First Councilor Cesar O.
7. On July 4, 2012, Vega received Cervantes already assumed the
the Court’s July 3, 2012 posts of Mayor and Vice-Mayor of
Resolution21 and a copy of the Viga, Catanduanes, then a Status
TRO. On the same day, Vice- Quo Ante Order would serve no
Mayor Emeterio M. Tarin and First purpose.
Councilor Cesar O. Cervantes of
Viga, Catanduanes took their 11. On July 12, 2012, Abundo filed
oaths of office22 as mayor and his Most Urgent Manifestation and
vice-mayor of Viga, Catanduanes, Motion to Convert the July 3, 2012
respectively. TRO into a Status Quo Ante Order
(In View of the Unreasonable and
8. On July 5, 2012, Vega received Inappropriate Progression of
a copy of Abundo’s Seventh (7th) Events).28
Most Extremely Urgent
Manifestation and Motion dated
23
It is upon the foregoing backdrop of
June 28, 2012 praying for the events that Abundo was dislodged from
issuance of a TRO and/or status his post as incumbent mayor of Viga,
quo ante Order. On the same day, Catanduanes. To be sure, the speed
Vice-Mayor Emeterio M. Tarin and which characterized Abundo’s ouster
First Councilor Cesar O. despite the supervening issuance by the
Court of a TRO on July 3, 2012 is not lost terms despite the fact that he only
on the Court. While it is not clear whether served the remaining one year
Vice-Mayor Tarin and First Councilor and one month of the second term
Cervantes knew of or put on notice about as a result of an election protest.30
the TRO either before they took their
oaths of office on July 4, 2012 or before First Issue:
assuming the posts of mayor and vice-
mayor on July 5, 2012, the confluence of Arguments in Motion for Reconsideration
events following the issuance of the Not Mere Reiteration
assailed COMELEC en banc irresistibly
tends to show that the TRO––issued as it The COMELEC en banc denied Abundo’s
were to maintain the status quo, thus motion for reconsideration on the basis
averting the premature ouster of Abundo that his arguments in said motion are
pending this Court’s resolution of his mere reiterations of what he already
appeal––appears to have been brought up in his appeal Brief before the
trivialized. COMELEC Second Division. In this
petition, petitioner claims otherwise.
On September 11, 2012, Vega filed his
Comment on Abundo’s petition, followed Petitioner’s assertion is devoid of merit.
not long after by public respondent
COMELEC’s Consolidated Comment.29 A comparison of Abundo’s arguments in
the latter’s Brief vis-à-vis those in his
The Issues Motion for Reconsideration (MR) reveals
that the arguments in the MR are
Abundo raises the following grounds for elucidations and amplications of the
the allowance of the petition: same issues raised in the brief. First, in
his Brief, Abundo raised the sole issue of
6.1 The Commission En Banc lack of jurisdiction of the RTC to consider
committed grave abuse of the quo warranto case since the alleged
discretion amounting to lack or violation of the three-term limit has
excess of jurisdiction when it already been rejected by the COMELEC
declared the arguments in First Division in SPA Case No. 10-128
Abundo’s motion for (DC), while in his MR, Abundo raised the
reconsideration as mere rehash similar ground of the conclusiveness of
and reiterations of the claims he the COMELEC’s finding on the issue of his
raised prior to the promulgation of qualification to run for the current term.
the Resolution. Second, in his Brief, Abundo assailed
RTC’s reliance on Aldovino, Jr., while in
6.2 The Commission En Banc his MR, he argued that the Court’s
committed grave abuse of pronouncement in Aldovino, Jr., which
discretion amounting to lack or dealt with preventive suspension, is not
excess of jurisdiction when it applicable to the instant case as it
declared that Abundo has involves only a partial service of the term.
consecutively served for three Abundo argued in his Brief that his
situation cannot be equated with the Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local
case of preventive suspension as held in officials, except barangay officials, which
Aldovino, Jr., while in his MR, he argued shall be determined by law, shall be three
before that the almost two years which years and no such official shall serve for
he did not sit as mayor during the 2004- more than three consecutive terms.
2007 term is an interruption in the Voluntary renunciation of the office for
continuity of his service for the full term. any length of time shall not be considered
as an interruption in the continuity of his
Thus, COMELEC did not err in ruling that service for the full term for which he was
the issues in the MR are a rehash of those elected. (Emphasis supplied.)
in the Brief.
and is reiterated in Sec. 43(b) of Republic
Core Issue: Act No. (RA) 7160, or the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, thusly:
Whether or not Abundo is deemed to
have served three consecutive terms Sec. 43. Term of Office. —

The pivotal determinative issue then is xxxx

whether the service of a term less than
the full three years by an elected official (b) No local elective official shall serve for
arising from his being declared as the more than three (3) consecutive terms in
duly elected official upon an election the same position. Voluntary
protest is considered as full service of the renunciation of the office for any length
term for purposes of the application of of time shall not be considered as an
the three consecutive term limit for interruption in the continuity of service
elective local officials. for the full term for which the elective
official concerned was elected.
On this core issue, We find the petition (Emphasis Ours.)
meritorious. The consecutiveness of what
otherwise would have been Abundo’s To constitute a disqualification to run for
three successive, continuous mayorship an elective local office pursuant to the
was effectively broken during the 2004- aforequoted constitutional and statutory
2007 term when he was initially deprived provisions, the following requisites must
of title to, and was veritably disallowed to concur:
serve and occupy, an office to which he,
after due proceedings, was eventually (1) that the official concerned has
declared to have been the rightful choice been elected for three consecutive
of the electorate. terms in the same local
government post; and
The three-term limit rule for elective local
officials, a disqualification rule, is found (2) that he has fully served three
in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 consecutive terms.31
Constitution, which provides:
Judging from extant jurisprudence, the
three-term limit rule, as applied to the
different factual milieus, has its official does not seek a fourth term,
complicated side. We shall revisit and immediately following the third. Of
analyze the various holdings and relevant course, the basic law is unequivocal that
pronouncements of the Court on the a "voluntary renunciation of the office for
matter. any length of time shall NOT be
considered an interruption in the
As is clearly provided in Sec. 8, Art. X of continuity of service for the full term for
the Constitution as well as in Sec. 43(b) which the elective official concerned was
of the LGC, voluntary renunciation of the elected." This qualification was made as
office by the incumbent elective local a deterrent against an elective local
official for any length of time shall NOT, official intending to skirt the three-term
in determining service for three limit rule by merely resigning before his
consecutive terms, be considered an or her third term ends. This is a voluntary
interruption in the continuity of service interruption as distinguished from
for the full term for which the elective involuntary interruption which may be
official concerned was elected. In brought about by certain events or
Aldovino, Jr., however, the Court stated causes.
the observation that the law "does not
textually state that voluntary While appearing to be seemingly simple,
renunciation is the only actual the three-term limit rule has engendered
interruption of service that does not a host of disputes resulting from the
affect ‘continuity of service for a full term’ varying interpretations applied on local
for purposes of the three-term limit officials who were elected and served for
rule."32 three terms or more, but whose terms or
service was punctuated by what they
As stressed in Socrates v. Commission on view as involuntary interruptions, thus
Elections,33 the principle behind the entitling them to a, but what their
three-term limit rule covers only opponents perceive as a proscribed,
consecutive terms and that what the fourth term. Involuntary interruption is
Constitution prohibits is a consecutive claimed to result from any of these
fourth term. Put a bit differently, an events or causes: succession or
elective local official cannot, following his assumption of office by operation of law,
third consecutive term, seek immediate preventive suspension, declaration of the
reelection for a fourth term,34albeit he is defeated candidate as the winner in an
allowed to seek a fresh term for the same election contest, declaration of the
position after the election where he could proclaimed candidate as the losing party
have sought his fourth term but in an election contest, proclamation of a
prevented to do so by reason of the non-candidate as the winner in a recall
prohibition. election, removal of the official by
operation of law, and other analogous
There has, in fine, to be a break or causes.
interruption in the successive terms of
the official after his or her third term. An This brings us to an examination of
interruption usually occurs when the situations and jurisprudence wherein
such consecutive terms were considered three consecutive terms in an elective
or not considered as having been local office, he must also have been
"involuntarily interrupted or broken." elected to the same position for the same
number of times before the
(1) Assumption of Office by Operation of 38
disqualification can apply." There was,
Law the Court ruled, no violation of the three-
term limit, for Capco "was not elected to
In Borja, Jr. v. Commission on Elections the office of the mayor in the first term
and Jose T. Capco, Jr.35 (1998) and but simply found himself thrust into it by
Montebon v. Commission on operation of law"39 when a permanent
Elections36 (2008), the Court delved on vacancy occurred in that office.
the effects of "assumption to office by
operation of law" on the three-term limit The Court arrived at a parallel conclusion
rule. This contemplates a situation in the case of Montebon. There,
wherein an elective local official fills by Montebon had been elected for three
succession a higher local government consecutive terms as municipal councilor
post permanently left vacant due to any of Tuburan, Cebu in 1998-2001, 2001-
of the following contingencies, i.e., when 2004, and 2004-2007. However, in
the supposed incumbent refuses to January 2004, or during his second term,
assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is Montebon succeeded and assumed the
removed from office, voluntarily resigns position of vice-mayor of Tuburan when
or is otherwise permanently the incumbent vice-mayor retired. When
incapacitated to discharge the functions Montebon filed his certificate of
of his office.37 candidacy again as municipal councilor, a
petition for disqualification was filed
In Borja, Jr., Jose T. Capco, Jr. (Capco) against him based on the three-term limit
was elected vice-mayor of Pateros on rule. The Court ruled that Montebon’s
January 18, 1988 for a term ending June assumption of office as vice-mayor in
30, 1992. On September 2, 1989, Capco January 2004 was an interruption of his
became mayor, by operation of law, upon continuity of service as councilor. The
the death of the incumbent mayor, Cesar Court emphasized that succession in local
Borja. Capco was then elected and government office is by operation of law
served as mayor for terms 1992-1995 and as such, it is an involuntary
and 1995-1998. When Capco expressed severance from office. Since the law no
his intention to run again for the less allowed Montebon to vacate his post
mayoralty position during the 1998 as councilor in order to assume office as
elections, Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who vice-mayor, his occupation of the higher
was then also a candidate for mayor, office cannot, without more, be deemed
sought Capco’s disqualification for as a voluntary renunciation of his position
violation of the three-term limit rule. as councilor.

Finding for Capco, the Court held that for (2) Recall Election
the disqualification rule to apply, "it is not
enough that an individual has served
With reference to the effects of recall Socrates ran and eventually won.
election on the continuity of service, However, midway into his term, Socrates
Adormeo v. Commission on faced recall proceedings and in the recall
Elections40(2002) and the election held, Hagedorn run for the
aforementioned case of Socrates (2002) former’s unexpired term as mayor.
provide guidance. Socrates sought Hagedorn’s
disqualification under the three-term limit
In Adormeo, Ramon Talaga, Jr. (Talaga) rule.
was elected and served as mayor of
Lucena City during terms 1992-1995 and In upholding Hagedorn’s candidacy to
1995-1998. During the 1998 elections, run in the recall election, the Court ruled:
Talaga lost to Bernard G. Tagarao.
However, before Tagarao’s 1998-2001 x x x After Hagedorn ceased to be mayor
term ended, a recall election was on June 30, 2001, he became a private
conducted in May 2000 wherein Talaga citizen until the recall election of
won and served the unexpired term of September 24, 2002 when he won by
Tagarao until June 2001. When Talaga 3,018 votes over his closest opponent,
ran for mayor in 2001, his candidacy was Socrates.
challenged on the ground he had already
served as mayor for three consecutive From June 30, 2001 until the recall
terms for violation of the three term-limit election on September 24, 2002, the
rule. The Court held therein that the mayor of Puerto Princesa was Socrates.
remainder of Tagarao’s term after the During the same period, Hagedorn was
recall election during which Talaga simply a private citizen. This period is
served as mayor should not be clearly an interruption in the continuity of
considered for purposes of applying the Hagedorn’s service as mayor, not
three-term limit rule. The Court because of his voluntary renunciation,
emphasized that the continuity of but because of a legal prohibition.41
Talaga’s mayorship was disrupted by his
defeat during the 1998 elections. The Court likewise emphasized in
Socrates that "an elective local official
A similar conclusion was reached by the cannot seek immediate reelection for a
Court in Socrates. The petitioners in that fourth term. The prohibited election
case assailed the COMELEC Resolution refers to the next regular election for the
which declared Edward Hagedorn same office following the end of the third
qualified to run for mayor in a recall consecutive term and, hence, any
election. It appeared that Hagedorn had subsequent election, like recall election,
been elected and served as mayor of is no longer covered x x x."42
Puerto Princesa City for three
consecutive terms: in 1992-1995, 1995- (3) Conversion of a Municipality into a
1998 and 1998-2001. Obviously aware of City
the three-term limit principle, Hagedorn
opted not to vie for the same mayoralty On the other hand, the conversion of a
position in the 2001 elections, in which municipality into a city does not
constitute an interruption of the official is under preventive suspension
incumbent official’s continuity of service. cannot be considered as an interruption
The Court said so in Latasa v. of the continuity of his service. The Court
Commission on Elections43 (2003). explained why so:

Latasa is cast against the ensuing Strict adherence to the intent of the
backdrop: Arsenio A. Latasa was elected three-term limit rule demands that
and served as mayor of the Municipality preventive suspension should not be
of Digos, Davao del Sur for terms 1992- considered an interruption that allows an
1995, 1995-1998, and 1998-2001. elective official’s stay in office beyond
During his third term, Digos was three terms. A preventive suspension
converted into a component city, with the cannot simply be a term interruption
corresponding cityhood law providing the because the suspended official continues
holdover of elective officials. When to stay in office although he is barred
Latasa filed his certificate of candidacy as from exercising the functions and
mayor for the 2001 elections, the Court prerogatives of the office within the
declared Latasa as disqualified to run as suspension period. The best indicator of
mayor of Digos City for violation of the the suspended official’s continuity in
three-term limit rule on the basis of the office is the absence of a permanent
following ratiocination: replacement and the lack of the authority
to appoint one since no vacancy
This Court believes that (Latasa) did exists.44 (Emphasis supplied.)
involuntarily relinquish his office as
municipal mayor since the said office has (5) Election Protest
been deemed abolished due to the
conversion. However, the very instant he With regard to the effects of an election
vacated his office as municipal mayor, he protest vis-à-vis the three-term limit rule,
also assumed office as city mayor. Unlike jurisprudence presents a more differing
in Lonzanida, where petitioner therein, picture. The Court’s pronouncements in
for even just a short period of time, Lonzanida v. Commission on
stepped down from office, petitioner Elections (1999),
45 Ong v.
Latasa never ceased from acting as chief Alegre46(2006), Rivera III v. Commission
executive of the local government unit. on Elections47 (2007) and Dizon v.
He never ceased from discharging his Commission on Elections48 (2009), all
duties and responsibilities as chief protest cases, are illuminating.
executive of Digos.
In Lonzanida, Romeo Lonzanida was
(Emphasis supplied.) elected and had served as municipal
mayor of San Antonio, Zambales in terms
(4) Period of Preventive Suspension 1989-1992, 1992-1995 and 1995-1998.
However, his proclamation relative to the
In 2009, in the case Aldovino Jr., the 1995 election was protested and was
Court espoused the doctrine that the eventually declared by the RTC and then
period during which a local elected by COMELEC null and void on the ground
of failure of elections. On February 27, Vicente, Camarines Norte for terms 1995-
1998, or about three months before the 1998, 1998-2001, and 2001-2004.
May 1998 elections, Lonzanida vacated During the 1998 mayoralty elections, or
the mayoralty post in light of a COMELEC during his supposed second term, the
order and writ of execution it issued. COMELEC nullified Ong’s proclamation on
Lonzanida’s opponent assumed office for the postulate that Ong lost during the
the remainder of the term. In the May 1998 elections. However, the COMELEC’s
1998 elections, Lonzanida again filed his decision became final and executory on
certificate of candidacy. His opponent, July 4, 2001, when Ong had fully served
Efren Muli, filed a petition for the 1998-2001 mayoralty term and was
disqualification on the ground that in fact already starting to serve the 2001-
Lonzanida had already served three 2004 term as mayor-elect of the
consecutive terms in the same post. The municipality of San Vicente. In 2004, Ong
Court, citing Borja Jr., reiterated the two filed his certificate of candidacy for the
(2) conditions which must concur for the same position as mayor, which his
three-term limit to apply: "1) that the opponent opposed for violation of the
official concerned has been elected for three-term limit rule.
three consecutive terms in the same local
government post and 2) that he has fully Ong invoked the ruling in Lonzanida and
served three consecutive terms."49 argued that he could not be considered
as having served as mayor from 1998-
In view of Borja, Jr., the Court ruled that 2001 because he was not duly elected to
the foregoing requisites were absent in the post and merely assumed office as a
the case of Lonzanida. The Court held "presumptive winner." Dismissing Ong’s
that Lonzanida cannot be considered as argument, the Court held that his
having been duly elected to the post in assumption of office as mayor for the
the May 1995 elections since his term 1998-2001 constitutes "service for
assumption of office as mayor "cannot be the full term" and hence, should be
deemed to have been by reason of a valid counted for purposes of the three-term
election but by reason of a void limit rule. The Court modified the
proclamation." And as a corollary point, conditions stated in Lonzanida in the
the Court stated that Lonzanida did not sense that Ong’s service was deemed
fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term and counted as service for a full term
having been ordered to vacate his post because Ong’s proclamation was voided
before the expiration of the term, a only after the expiry of the term. The
situation which amounts to an Court noted that the COMELEC decision
involuntary relinquishment of office.This which declared Ong as not having won
Court deviated from the ruling in the 1998 elections was "without practical
Lonzanida in Ong v. Alegre50 owing to a and legal use and value" promulgated as
variance in the factual situations it was after the contested term has
attendant. expired. The Court further reasoned:

In that case, Francis Ong (Ong) was Petitioner Francis Ong’s contention that
elected and served as mayor of San he was only a presumptive winner in the
1998 mayoralty derby as his Ong’s slight departure from Lonzanida
proclamation was under protest did not would later find reinforcement in the
make him less than a duly elected mayor. consolidated cases of Rivera III v.
His proclamation as the duly elected Commission on Elections53 and Dee v.
mayor in the 1998 mayoralty election Morales.54 Therein, Morales was elected
coupled by his assumption of office and mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for the
his continuous exercise of the functions following consecutive terms: 1995-1998,
thereof from start to finish of the term, 1998-2001 and 2001-2004. In relation to
should legally be taken as service for a the 2004 elections, Morales again ran as
full term in contemplation of the three- mayor of the same town, emerged as
term rule. garnering the majority votes and was
proclaimed elective mayor for term
The absurdity and the deleterious effect commencing July 1, 2004 to June 30,
of a contrary view is not hard to discern. 2007. A petition for quo warranto was
Such contrary view would mean that later filed against Morales predicated on
Alegre would – under the three-term rule the ground that he is ineligible to run for
- be considered as having served a term a "fourth" term, having served as mayor
by virtue of a veritably meaningless for three consecutive terms. In his
electoral protest ruling, when another answer, Morales averred that his
actually served such term pursuant to a supposed 1998-2001 term cannot be
proclamation made in due course after an considered against him, for, although he
election.51 (Emphasis supplied.) was proclaimed by the Mabalacat board
of canvassers as elected mayor vis-à-vis
The Court did not apply the ruling in the 1998 elections and discharged the
Lonzanida and ruled that the case of Ong duties of mayor until June 30, 2001, his
was different, to wit: proclamation was later nullified by the
RTC of Angeles City and his closest rival,
The difference between the case at Anthony Dee, proclaimed the duly
bench and Lonzanida is at once apparent. elected mayor. Pursuing his point,
For one, in Lonzanida, the result of the Morales parlayed the idea that he only
mayoralty election was declared a nullity served as a mere caretaker.
for the stated reason of "failure of
election", and, as a consequence thereof, The Court found Morales’ posture
the proclamation of Lonzanida as mayor- untenable and held that the case of
elect was nullified, followed by an order Morales presents a factual milieu similar
for him to vacate the office of mayor. For with Ong, not with Lonzanida. For ease
another, Lonzanida did not fully serve the of reference, the proclamation of Francis
1995-1998 mayoral term, there being an Ong, in Ong, was nullified, but after he,
involuntary severance from office as a like Morales, had served the three-year
result of legal processes. In fine, there term from the start to the end of the
was an effective interruption of the term. Hence, the Court concluded that
continuity of service.52 (Emphasis Morales exceeded the three-term limit
supplied.) rule, to wit:
Here, respondent Morales was elected for mayoralty bid. This time, the Court ruled
the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. in his favor, holding that for purposes of
He assumed the position. He served as the 2007 elections, the three-term limit
mayor until June 30, 2001. He was mayor rule was no longer a disqualifying factor
for the entire period notwithstanding the as against Morales. The Court wrote:
Decision of the RTC in the electoral
protest case filed by petitioner Dee Our ruling in the Rivera case served as
ousting him (respondent) as mayor. To Morales’ involuntary severance from
reiterate, as held in Ong v. Alegre, such office with respect to the 2004-2007
circumstance does not constitute an term. Involuntary severance from office
interruption in serving the full term. for any length of time short of the full
term provided by law amounts to an
xxxx interruption of continuity of service. Our
decision in the Rivera case was
Respondent Morales is now serving his promulgated on 9 May 2007 and was
fourth term. He has been mayor of effective immediately. The next day,
Mabalacat continuously without any Morales notified the vice mayor’s office of
break since July 1, 1995. In just over a our decision. The vice mayor assumed
month, by June 30, 2007, he will have the office of the mayor from 17 May 2007
been mayor of Mabalacat for twelve (12) up to 30 June 2007. The assumption by
continuous years.55 (Emphasis supplied.) the vice mayor of the office of the mayor,
no matter how short it may seem to
The Court ruled in Rivera that the fact of Dizon, interrupted Morales’ continuity of
being belatedly ousted, i.e., after the service. Thus, Morales did not hold office
expiry of the term, cannot constitute an for the full term of 1 July 2004 to 30 June
interruption in Morales’ service of the full 2007.57 (Emphasis supplied)
term; neither can Morales, as he argued,
be considered merely a "caretaker of the To summarize, hereunder are the
office" or a mere "de facto officer" for prevailing jurisprudence on issues
purposes of applying the three-term limit affecting consecutiveness of terms
rule. and/or involuntary interruption, viz:

In a related 2009 case of Dizon v. 1. When a permanent vacancy

Commission on Elections,56 the Court occurs in an elective position and
would again find the same Mayor Morales the official merely assumed the
as respondent in a disqualification position pursuant to the rules on
proceeding when he ran again as a succession under the LGC, then
mayoralty candidate during the 2007 his service for the unexpired
elections for a term ending June 30, portion of the term of the replaced
2010. Having been unseated from his official cannot be treated as one
post by virtue of this Court’s ruling in full term as contemplated under
Rivera, Morales would argue this time the subject constitutional and
around that the three-term limit rule was statutory provision that service
no longer applicable as to his 2007 cannot be counted in the
application of any term limit election protest and is ousted from
(Borja, Jr.). If the official runs office, thus disenabling him from
again for the same position he serving what would otherwise be
held prior to his assumption of the the unexpired portion of his term
higher office, then his succession of office had the protest been
to said position is by operation of dismissed (Lonzanida and Dizon).
law and is considered an The break or interruption need not
involuntary severance or be for a full term of three years or
interruption (Montebon). for the major part of the 3-year
term; an interruption for any
2. An elective official, who has length of time, provided the cause
served for three consecutive terms is involuntary, is sufficient to
and who did not seek the elective break the continuity of service
position for what could be his (Socrates, citing Lonzanida).
fourth term, but later won in a
recall election, had an interruption 6. When an official is defeated in
in the continuity of the official’s an election protest and said
service. For, he had become in the decision becomes final after said
interim, i.e., from the end of the official had served the full term for
3rd term up to the recall election, said office, then his loss in the
a private citizen (Adormeo and election contest does not
Socrates). constitute an interruption since he
has managed to serve the term
3. The abolition of an elective local from start to finish. His full service,
office due to the conversion of a despite the defeat, should be
municipality to a city does not, by counted in the application of term
itself, work to interrupt the limits because the nullification of
incumbent official’s continuity of his proclamation came after the
service (Latasa). expiration of the term (Ong and
Rivera).
4. Preventive suspension is not a
term-interrupting event as the The Case of Abundo
elective officer’s continued stay
and entitlement to the office Abundo argues that the RTC and the
remain unaffected during the COMELEC erred in uniformly ruling that
period of suspension, although he he had already served three consecutive
is barred from exercising the terms and is, thus, barred by the
functions of his office during this constitutional three-term limit rule to run
period (Aldovino, Jr.). for the current 2010-2013 term. In gist,
Abundo arguments run thusly:
5. When a candidate is proclaimed
as winner for an elective position 1. Aldovino, Jr. is not on all fours
and assumes office, his term is with the present case as the
interrupted when he loses in an former dealt with preventive
 suspension which does not COMELEC ruled that Abundo did not lose
interrupt the continuity of service title to the office as his victory in the
of a term; protest case confirmed his entitlement to
said office and he was only unable to
2. Aldovino, Jr. recognizes that the temporarily discharge the functions of
term of an elected official can be the office during the pendency of the
interrupted so as to remove him election protest.
from the reach of the
constitutional three-term We note that this present case of Abundo
limitation; deals with the effects of an election
protest, for which the rulings in
3. The COMELEC misinterpreted Lonzanida, Ong, Rivera and Dizon appear
the meaning of "term" in Aldovino, to be more attuned than the case of
Jr. by its reliance on a mere Aldovino Jr., the interrupting effects of
portion of the Decision and not on the imposition of a preventive suspension
the unified logic in the being the very lis mota in the Aldovino,
disquisition; Jr. case. But just the same, We find that
Abundo’s case presents a different
4. Of appropriate governance in factual backdrop.
this case is the holding in
Lonzanida58 and Rivera III v. Unlike in the abovementioned election
Commission on Elections.59 protest cases wherein the individuals
subject of disqualification were
5. The COMELEC missed the point candidates who lost in the election
when it ruled that there was no protest and each declared loser during
interruption in the service of the elections, Abundo was the winner
Abundo since what he considered during the election protest and was
as an "interruption" of his 2004- declared the rightful holder of the
2007 term occurred before his mayoralty post. Unlike Mayor Lonzanida
term started; and and Mayor Morales, who were both
unseated toward the end of their
6. To rule that the term of the respective terms, Abundo was the
protestee (Torres) whose protestant who ousted his opponent and
proclamation was adjudged had assumed the remainder of the term.
invalid was interrupted while that
of the protestant (Abundo) who Notwithstanding, We still find this Court’s
was eventually proclaimed winner pronouncements in the past as
was not so interrupted is at once instructive, and consider several
absurd as it is illogical. doctrines established from the 1998 case
of Borja, Jr. up to the most recent case
Both respondents Vega and the of Aldovino Jr. in 2009, as potent aids in
COMELEC counter that the ratio arriving at this Court’s conclusion.
decidendi of Aldovino, Jr. finds
application in the instant case. The
The intention behind the three-term limit interruption during the three three-year
rule was not only to abrogate the periods, resulting in the disruption of the
"monopolization of political power" and continuity of Abundo’s mayoralty.
prevent elected officials from breeding
"proprietary interest in their The facts of the case clearly point to an
60
position" but also to "enhance the involuntary interruption during the July
people’s freedom of choice."61 In the 2004-June 2007 term.
words of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,
"while people should be protected from There can be no quibbling that, during
the evils that a monopoly of power may the term 2004-2007, and with the
bring about, care should be taken that enforcement of the decision of the
their freedom of choice is not unduly election protest in his favor, Abundo
curtailed."62 assumed the mayoralty post only on May
9, 2006 and served the term until June
In the present case, the Court finds 30, 2007 or for a period of a little over
Abundo’s case meritorious and declares one year and one month. Consequently,
that the two-year period during which his unlike Mayor Ong in Ong and Mayor
opponent, Torres, was serving as mayor Morales in Rivera, it cannot be said that
should be considered as an interruption, Mayor Abundo was able to serve fully the
which effectively removed Abundo’s case entire 2004-2007 term to which he was
from the ambit of the three-term limit otherwise entitled.
rule.
A "term," as defined in Appari v. Court of
It bears to stress at this juncture that Appeals,63 means, in a legal sense, "a
Abundo, for the 2004 election for the fixed and definite period of time which
term starting July 1, 2004 to June 30, the law describes that an officer may hold
2007, was the duly elected mayor. an office."64 It also means the "time
Otherwise how explain his victory in his during which the officer may claim to
election protest against Torres and his hold office as a matter of right, and fixes
consequent proclamation as duly elected the interval after which the several
mayor. Accordingly, the first requisite for incumbents shall succeed one
the application of the disqualification rule another."65 It is the period of time during
based on the three-term limit that the which a duly elected official has title to
official has been elected is satisfied. and can serve the functions of an elective
office. From paragraph (a) of Sec. 43, RA
This thus brings us to the second 7160,66 the term for local elected officials
requisite of whether or not Abundo had is three (3) years starting from noon of
served for "three consecutive terms," as June 30 of the first year of said term.
the phrase is juridically understood, as
mayor of Viga, Catanduanes immediately In the present case, during the period of
before the 2010 national and local one year and ten months, or from June
elections. Subsumed to this issue is of 30, 2004 until May 8, 2006, Abundo
course the question of whether or not cannot plausibly claim, even if he wanted
there was an effective involuntary to, that he could hold office of the mayor
as a matter of right. Neither can he assert a term or giving a hiatus in the
title to the same nor serve the functions occupation of the elective office. On the
of the said elective office. The reason is other hand, the word "renunciation"
simple: during that period, title to hold connotes the idea of waiver or
such office and the corresponding right abandonment of a known right. To
to assume the functions thereof still renounce is to give up, abandon, decline
belonged to his opponent, as proclaimed or resign.70 Voluntary renunciation of the
election winner. Accordingly, Abundo office by an elective local official would
actually held the office and exercised the thus mean to give up or abandon the title
functions as mayor only upon his to the office and to cut short the service
declaration, following the resolution of of the term the concerned elected official
the protest, as duly elected candidate in is entitled to.
the May 2004 elections or for only a little
over one year and one month. In its assailed Resolution, the COMELEC
Consequently, since the legally en banc, applying Aldovino, Jr.,71 held:
contemplated full term for local elected
officials is three (3) years, it cannot be It must be stressed that involuntary
said that Abundo fully served the term interruption of service which
2004-2007. The reality on the ground is jurisprudence deems an exception to the
that Abundo actually served less. three-term limit rule, implies that the
service of the term has begun before it
Needless to stress, the almost two-year was interrupted. Here, the respondent
period during which Abundo’s opponent did not lose title to the office. As the
actually served as Mayor is and ought to assailed Resolution states:
be considered an involuntary interruption
of Abundo’s continuity of service. An In the case at bar, respondent cannot be
involuntary interrupted term, cannot, in said to have lost his title to the office. On
the context of the disqualification rule, be the contrary, he actively sought
considered as one term for purposes of entitlement to the office when he lodged
counting the three-term threshold.67 the election protest case. And
respondent-appellant’s victory in the said
The notion of full service of three case is a final confirmation that he was
consecutive terms is related to the validly elected for the mayoralty post of
concepts of interruption of service and Viga, Catanduanes in 2004-2007. At
voluntary renunciation of service. The most, respondent-appellant was only
word interruption means temporary unable to temporarily discharge the
cessation, intermission or functions of the office to which he was
suspension.68To interrupt is to obstruct, validly elected during the pendency of
thwart or prevent.69 When the the election protest, but he never lost
Constitution and the LGC of 1991 speak title to the said office.72 (Emphasis
of interruption, the reference is to the added.)
obstruction to the continuance of the
service by the concerned elected official The COMELEC’s Second Division, on the
by effectively cutting short the service of other hand, pronounced that the actual
length of service by the public official in grants the local elected official the right
a given term is immaterial by reckoning to serve the unexpired portion of the
said service for the term in the term. Verily, while he was declared
application of the three-term limit rule, winner in the protest for the mayoralty
thus: seat for the 2004-2007 term, Abundo’s
full term has been substantially reduced
As emphasized in the case of Aldovino, by the actual service rendered by his
"this formulation—no more than three opponent (Torres). Hence, there was
consecutive terms—is a clear command actual involuntary interruption in the
suggesting the existence of an inflexible term of Abundo and he cannot be
rule." Therefore we cannot subscribe to considered to have served the full 2004-
the argument that since respondent 2007 term.
Abundo served only a portion of the
term, his 2004-2007 "term" should not be This is what happened in the instant
considered for purposes of the case. It cannot be overemphasized that
application of the three term limit rule. pending the favorable resolution of his
When the framers of the Constitution election protest, Abundo was relegated
drafted and incorporated the three term to being an ordinary constituent since his
limit rule, it is clear that reference is to opponent, as presumptive victor in the
the term, not the actual length of the 2004 elections, was occupying the
service the public official may render. mayoralty seat. In other words, for
Therefore, one’s actual service of term no almost two years or from July 1, 2004—
matter how long or how short is the start of the term—until May 9, 2006
immaterial.73 or during which his opponent actually
assumed the mayoralty office, Abundo
In fine, the COMELEC ruled against was a private citizen warming his heels
Abundo on the theory that the length of while awaiting the outcome of his
the actual service of the term is protest. Hence, even if declared later as
immaterial in his case as he was only having the right to serve the elective
temporarily unable to discharge his position from July 1, 2004, such
functions as mayor. declaration would not erase the fact that
prior to the finality of the election protest,
The COMELEC’s case disposition and its Abundo did not serve in the mayor’s
heavy reliance on Aldovino, Jr. do not office and, in fact, had no legal right to
commend themselves for concurrence. said position.
The Court cannot simply find its way clear
to understand the poll body’s Aldovino Jr. cannot possibly lend support
determination that Abundo was only to respondent’s cause of action, or to
temporarily unable to discharge his COMELEC’s resolution against Abundo. In
functions as mayor during the pendency Aldovino Jr., the Court succinctly defines
of the election protest. what temporary inability or
disqualification to exercise the functions
As previously stated, the declaration of of an elective office means, thus:
being the winner in an election protest
On the other hand, temporary inability or apparent similarities of Mayor Abundo’s
disqualification to exercise the functions case with the cases of Mayor Talaga in
of an elective post, even if involuntary, Adormeo and Mayor Hagedorn in
should not be considered an effective Socrates as Mayors Talaga and Hagedorn
interruption of a term because it does not were not proclaimed winners since they
involve the loss of title to office or at least were non-candidates in the
an effective break from holding office; regularelections. They were proclaimed
the office holder, while retaining title, is winners during the recall elections and
simply barred from exercising the clearly were not able to fully serve the
functions of his office for a reason terms of the deposed incumbent officials.
provided by law.74 Similar to their cases where the Court
deemed their terms as involuntarily
We rule that the above pronouncement interrupted, Abundo also became or was
on preventive suspension does not apply a private citizen during the period over
to the instant case. Verily, it is erroneous which his opponent was serving as
to say that Abundo merely was mayor. If in Lonzanida, the Court ruled
temporarily unable or disqualified to that there was interruption in Lonzanida’s
exercise the functions of an elective post. service because of his subsequent defeat
For one, during the intervening period of in the election protest, then with more
almost two years, reckoned from the reason, Abundo’s term for 2004-2007
start of the 2004-2007 term, Abundo should be declared interrupted since he
cannot be said to have retained title to was not proclaimed winner after the 2004
the mayoralty office as he was at that elections and was able to assume the
time not the duly proclaimed winner who office and serve only for a little more than
would have the legal right to assume and a year after winning the protest.
serve such elective office. For another,
not having been declared winner yet, As aptly stated in Latasa, to be
Abundo cannot be said to have lost title considered as interruption of service, the
to the office since one cannot plausibly "law contemplates a rest period during
lose a title which, in the first place, he did which the local elective official steps
not have. Thus, for all intents and down from office and ceases to exercise
purposes, even if the belated declaration power or authority over the inhabitants
in the election protest accords him title to of the territorial jurisdiction of a particular
the elective office from the start of the local government unit."75 Applying the
term, Abundo was not entitled to the said principle in the present case, there is
elective office until the election protest no question that during the pendency of
was finally resolved in his favor.1âwphi1 the election protest, Abundo ceased from
exercising power or authority over the
Consequently, there was a hiatus of good people of Viga, Catanduanes.
almost two years, consisting of a break
and effective interruption of his service, Consequently, the period during which
until he assumed the office and served Abundo was not serving as mayor should
barely over a year of the remaining term. be considered as a rest period or break in
At this juncture, We observe the his service because, as earlier stated,
prior to the judgment in the election their leaders. Like the framers of the
protest, it was Abundo’s opponent, Constitution, We bear in mind that We
Torres, who was exercising such powers "cannot arrogate unto ourselves the right
by virtue of the still then valid to decide what the people want"76 and
proclamation. hence, should, as much as possible,
"allow the people to exercise their own
As a final note, We reiterate that sense of proportion and rely on their own
Abundo’s case differs from other cases strength to curtail the power when it
involving the effects of an election overreaches itself."77 For democracy
protest because while Abundo was, in the draws strength from the choice the
final reckoning, the winning candidate, people make which is the same choice
he was the one deprived of his right and We are likewise bound to protect.
opportunity to serve his constituents. To
a certain extent, Abundo was a victim of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
an imperfect election system. While PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the
admittedly the Court does not possess assailed February 8, 2012 Resolution of
the mandate to remedy such the Commission on Elections Second
imperfections, the Constitution has Division and May 10, 2012 Resolution of
clothed it with enough authority to the Commission on Elections en banc in
establish a fortress against the injustices EAC (AE) No. A-25-2010 and the Decision
it may bring. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac,
Catanduanes, Branch 43, dated August 9,
In this regard, We find that a contrary 2010, in Election Case No. 55, are hereby
ruling would work damage and cause REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
grave injustice to Abundo––an elected
official who was belatedly declared as the Petitioner Abelardo Abundo, Sr. is
winner and assumed office for only a DECLARED ELIGIBLE for the position of
short period of the term. If in the cases Mayor of Viga, Catanduanes to which he
of Lonzanida and Dizon, this Court ruled was duly elected in the May 2010
in favor of a losing candidate––or the elections and is accordingly ordered
person who was adjudged not legally IMMEDIATELY REINSTATED to said
entitled to hold the contested public position. Withal, Emeterio M. Tarin and
office but held it anyway––We find more Cesar O. Cervantes are ordered to
reason to rule in favor of a winning immediately vacate the positions of
candidate-protestant who, by popular Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Viga,
vote, deserves title to the public office Catanduanes, respectively, and shall
but whose opportunity to hold the same revert to their original positions of Vice-
was halted by an invalid proclamation. Mayor and First Councilor, respectively,
upon receipt of this Decision.
Also, more than the injustice that may be
committed against Abundo is the The TRO issued by the Court on July 3,
injustice that may likewise be committed 2012 is hereby LIFTED.
against the people of Viga, Catanduanes
by depriving them of their right to choose This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.