Election Law Review vacuum in the law cannot prevent the COMELEC

from levitating above the problem. Section 2(1) of

Case Digest Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC
the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
Maruhom vs COMELEC recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this
GR No. 139357 provision is to give the COMELEC all the necessary
May 5, 2000 and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective
of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections. Congruent to this intent, this
Section 2(1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the Court has not been niggardly in defining the
COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws parameters of powers of COMELEC in the conduct
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, of our elections . . . In the case at bar, the
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." which intends to COMELEC order for a manual count was not only
give the COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for reasonable. It was the only way to count the
it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, decisive local votes . . . The bottom line is that by
peaceful and credible elections. means of the manual count, the will of the voters
of Sulu was honestly determined. We cannot kick
Facts: away the will of the people by giving a literal
Maruhom and Dimaporo were both candidates for Mayor in interpretation to R.A. 8436. R.A. 8436 did not
the Municipality of Marogong, Lanao del Sur. During the prohibit manual counting when machine count does
counting of votes, serious irregularities, anomalies and not work. Counting is part and parcel of the conduct
electoral frauds were committed at the instance of petitioner of an election which is under the control and
or his followers in that votes actually casted for the private supervision of the COMELEC . . .
respondent were not counted and credited in his favor thru
the concerted acts, conspiracy and manipulation of the Board . . . Our elections are not conducted under
of Election Inspectors, military, Election Officer and the laboratory conditions. In running for public offices,
Machine Operator who happens to be a nephew of the candidates do not follow the rules of Emily Post.
petitioner. Many official ballots were refused or rejected by Too often, COMELEC has to make snap judgments
the machine. As a result of the foregoing irregularities, to meet unforeseen circumstances that threaten to
anomalies and electoral frauds, the petitioner was illegally subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the
proclaimed as winner because he appeared to have obtained actions of COMELEC may not be impeccable,
2,020 votes while the private respondent garnered 2,000 indeed, may even be debatable. We cannot,
votes with a slight margin of only 20 votes. Private however, engage in a swivel chair criticism of these
respondent, knowing that he was cheated and the true winner actions often taken under very difficult
for Mayor, filed before this Honorable Commission a petition circumstances.
to annul the proclamation of petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom
as the duly elected Mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur. Verily, the legal compass from which the COMELEC should
Subsequently, a Revision Committee was created and its take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the
membership were duly appointed in open court which principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of
committee was directed by the COMELEC to finish the revision the remedy." Be that as it may, the fact is the averments in
of ballots. After the Revision Committee was directed by the petitioner's counter-protest and private respondent's protest
respondent to commence the revision of ballots, the petitioner already justified the determination of the issues through a
Abdulmadid Maruhom thru counsel orally moved for the judicial revision and recounting of the ballots pursuant to
dismissal of the protest on the grounds that (1) The ballot Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that
boxes containing the ballots in the protested and counter- —
protested precincts have been violated; (2) Automated
counting of ballots does not contemplate a manual recount of Sec. 255. Judicial counting of votes in election contest.
the ballots. — Where allegations in a protest or counter-protest so
warrant or whenever in the opinion of the court the interests
Issue: of justice so require, it shall immediately order the book of
WON the COMELEC may order manual recount of ballots even voters, ballot boxes and their keys, ballots and other
not mentioned in R.A. 8436 documents used in the election be brought before it and that
the ballots be examined and votes recounted.
Held:
Yes. Although admittedly there is a lacuna leges in R.A. No.
8436 which prescribes the adoption of an automated election Rulloda vs COMELEC
system. However, while conceding as much, this Court ruled GR No. 154198
in Tupay Loong v. COMELEC, 42 that the Commission is January 20, 2003
nevertheless not precluded from conducting a manual count
when the automated counting system fails, reasoning thus:
Facts:
. . . In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress obviously In the Brgy. elections of July 15, 2002, Romeo N. Rulloda and
failed to provide a remedy where the error in Remigio L. Placido were the contending candidate for
counting is not machine related for human foresight barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.
is not all-seeing. We hold, however, that the

1
Romeo suffered a heart attack and passed away at the 16, 2002. On July 31, 2002, petitioners took their oath of
Mandaluyong City Medical Centre. office.

His widow, PetronilaRulloda, wrote a letter to the COMELEC On August 9, 2002, Comelec issued a memorandum directing
seeking permission to run as candidate in his stead. This all election officers to delete the names of those candidates
request was supported by the Appeal-Petition containing whose certificates of candidacy were denied due course
several signatures of people purporting to be members of the despite the fact that said denial did not arrive on time, and
electorate of Brgy. Sto. Tomas. also ordered the candidates concerned to desist from taking
their oaths and from assuming the ositions to which they have
In the election, even though she garnered more votes than been elected. On August 21, 2002, the Comelec en banc
her opponent, her opponent was proclaimed the winner. promulgated Resolution 5666 re proclaimed candidates found
After the elections, she learned that COMELEC issued to be ineligible for being not registered voters in the place
resolution denying due course of her certificate of candidacy where they were elected: “in the event that the disqualified
and to direct the election officer to delete her name as a candidate is proclaimed the winner despite his disqualification
candidate. or despite the pending disqualification case filed before his
proclamation, but which is subsequently resolved against him,
Petronila Rulloda filed petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the proclamation of said disqualified candidate is hereby
the resolution of the the COMELEC in so far as they prohibited declared void from the beginning, with notice to the candidate
the petitioner from running as substitute. concerned, even if the dispositive portion of the resolution
disqualifying him or cancelling his certificate of candidacy
Placido, the private respondent in his comment argued that does not provide for such an annulment.”
the Brgy. election is non-partisan, substitution of candidates
is not allowed. Moreover, he further states that petitioner did Issue:
not file any certificate of candidacy; hence there was only one Whether or not the resolution issued by Comelec which denied
candidate for Brgy. Chairman of Sto. Tomas. due course to the certificates of candidacy of petitioners is
patently erroneous for being without basis in fact and in law,
Issues: and the issuance of which is in grave abuse of discretion?
Whether or not substitution of candidates is allowed in
barangay election Held:
At the very outset, it must be made clear that the Comelec
Held: has jurisdiction to deny due course to or cancel a certificate
The absence of specific provision governing substitution of of candidacy. Such jurisdiction continues even after the
candidates in barangay elections cannot be inferred as a elections, if for any reason no final judgment of
prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive disqualification is rendered before the elections, and the
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the
not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the highest number of votes, and provided further that the
substitution of candidates where no political parties are winning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken his oath
involved than when political considerations or party affiliations of office. Furhermore, a decision by the Comelec to disqualify
reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law. a candidate shall become final and executory only after a
period of five (5) days: “Sec. 3 - Decisions in petitions to deny
Private respondent likewise contends that the votes in due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy or to
petitioners favor can not be counted because she did not file disqualify a candidate. . . . shall become final and executory
any certificate of candidacy. In other words he was the only after the lapse of 5 days from their promulgation. . .”
candidate for brgy. chairman. This claim was refuted by the
memorandum of the COMELC law department as well as the Here, the assailed resolution denying due course to
assailed resolution no. 5217, wherein it indubitably appears petitioner’s certificates of candidacy was promulgated on July
that petitioners letter request to be allowed to run as brgy. 15, 2002, or on the very day of the elections. On that day
chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband was therefore, the decision of the Comelec had not yet become
treated as certificate of candidacy. final and andexecutory since petitioners still had until June 20,
2002 to fil their motion for reconsideration. The Baranabay
Board of Canvassers rightly retained petitioners’ names in the
list of qualified candidates and could not be faulted from
Saya-Ang vs Comelec counting the votes cast in favor of petitioners. The latter were,
GR No. 155087 therefore, validly proclaimed as winners of the elections on
28 November 2003 July 16, 2002.
Petitioners also maintain that they were never served a copy
of the assailed resolution and were never given the chance to
Facts: present their evidence. It is clear, however, that under Sec. 3
Petitioners Eduardo Saya-ang and Ricardo Lara were Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure that a petition to
candidates for the Office of Barangay Captain of Brgys. cancel a certificate of candidacy shall be heard summarily
Congan and New Aklan respectively for the July 15, 2002 after due notice.
Synchronized SangguniangKabataan and Barangay Elections.
On the day of elections, the Comelec issued En Banc Finally, the Court notes again that petitioners have already
Resolution No. 5393, which denied due course to the been proclaimed as the winners in the elections. They have
certificates of candidacy of petitioners herein, and to delete already taken their oaths of office and are, already serving
their names from the certified list of candidates. Despite said their constituents in their respective barangays.
resolution, petitioners were still proclaimed as winners on July

2
*While provisions relating to certificates of candidacy are a ministerial duty of the COMELEC that is enjoined by law and
mandatory in terms, it is an established rule of interpretation is part and parcel of its administrative functions. It involves
as regards election laws, that mandatory provisions requiring no exercise of discretionary authority on the part of the
certain steps before elections will be construed as directory respondent COMELEC; let alone an exercise of its adjudicatory
after the elections, to give effect to the will of the electorate. or quasi-judicial power to hear and resolve controversies
For when voters have honestly cast their ballots, the same defining the rights and duties of party litigants, relative to the
should not be nullified simply because the officers tasked conduct of elections of public officers and the enforcement of
under the law to direct the elections and guard the purity of the election laws. COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which
the ballot did not do their duty. provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct
of the required plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to the
COMELEC’s quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident
of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of
plebiscites, thus, Resolution 2987 may not be deemed as a
Salva v Makalintal “final order” reviewable by certiorari by this court. Any
340 SCRA 506 question pertaining to the validity of said resolution may be
September 18, 2000 well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

Facts: Brillantes Jr vs Comelec

The Sangguinang Panlalawigan of Batangas enacted GR No. 163193
Ordinance 05, which abolished Brgy. San Rafael and ordered June 15, 2004
its merger with Brgy. Dacanlao. The Governer of Batangas
vetoed the ordinance as it was not shown that it complied
with the requisites in Sections 7 & 9 of the LGC. The
governor’s veto was overridden by Resolution 345. · FACTS:
Consequently, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2987 to By 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436 authorizing
govern the conduct of the needed plebiscite. The petitioners, the COMELEC to use an automated election system(AES) for
officials and residents of Barangay San Rafael, filed for the the process of voting, counting of votes and
issuance of a TRO against the plebiscite with the trial court. canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local
The trial court denied their petition, claiming that it had no elections and required the COMELEC to acquire automated
jurisdiction over acts, resolutions, or decisions of the counting machines (ACMs), computer equipment, devices and
COMELEC. The trial court directed the petitioners to bring the materials and adopt new electoral forms and printing
case to the Supreme Court. materials.

Apparently, the plebiscite was conducted during the pendency The COMELEC initially intended to implement the said
of the case. · The petitioners maintain that since their action automation during the May 11, 1998 presidential elections,
is based on the validity of Ordinance 05 and Resolution 345 particularly in counting the votes collected from the
(basis of COMELEC Res. 2987) the trial court had jurisdiction. Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). However,
the failure of the machines to correctly read a number of
They further maintained that the Supreme Court only had automated ballots discontinued its implementation.
exclusive jurisdiction when COMELEC exercises its quasi‐
judicial functions. However, when the COMELEC acts in a Contributions for the establishment of the AES persisted that
purely ministerial manner, the case may be subject to the even President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive
RTC. Ordersto allocate and release funds for such purpose. By
2003, The COmelec promulgated Resolution No. 6074
Issue: awarding the contracts for PHASE II of the AES to Mega
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the Pacific Consortium and correspondingly entered into a
case contract with the latter to implement it. It further entered into
a separate contract with PMSIwhich contractpertains to Phase
Ruling: III of the respondent COMELECs AES modernization program
The Supreme Court ruled that Yes, COMELEC Resolutions on
the conduct of plebiscites are administrative in nature and ITFP then filed a petition in this Court for the nullification of
subject to RTC Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution Resolution No. 6074 approving the contract for Phase II of
provides in part that: “SEC.7. xxx. Unless otherwise provided AES to Mega Pacific Consortium and while the case was
by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of pending in this Court, the COMELEC paid the contract fee to
each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on the PMSI in trenches.
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.” In the case of Filipinas Engineering By 2004 this Court promulgated its Decision nullifying
v. Ferrer, it was held that what is contemplated by the term COMELEC Resolution No. 6074 .On the other hand, the
‘final orders, rulings and decisions’ of the COMELEC validation scheme under Phase I of the AES apparently
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court are those encountered problems in its implementation, as evinced by
rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and the COMELECs pronouncements prior to the elections that it
taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its was reverting to the old listing of voters. Despite the
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. In this case, Resolution scrapping of Phase II of the AES, the COMELEC nevertheless
2987 was only issued after the COMELEC took cognizance of ventured to implement Phase III of the AES through an
Ordinance 05 and Resolution 345. Resolution No. 2987 is thus electronic transmission of advanced unofficial results of the

3
2004 elections for national, provincial and municipal positions, of custody from the Board of Election Inspectors to the
also dubbed as an unofficial quick count. COMELEC.

4. Inapplicability of Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election

ISSUE: Code: The Court contends that Section 52(i) of the
The Respondent COMELEC Committed Grave Abuse Of Omnibus Election Code, which is cited by the COMELEC
Discretion Amounting To Lack Or Excess Of Jurisdiction In as the statutory basis for the assailed resolution, does
Issuing Resolution No. 6712? not cover the use of the latest technological and election
devices for "unofficial" tabulations of votes. Moreover,
HELD: the COMELEC failed to notify the authorized
YES. representatives of accredited political parties and all
REASONS: candidates in areas affected by the use or adoption of
1. Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the 1987: Resolution Preempts the sole technological and electronic devices not less than thirty
and exclusive authority vested in the Congress to days prior to the effectivity of the use of such devices,
canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice- after failing to submit any document proving that it had
President. It is a grave error on the part of the notified all political parties of the intended adoption of
respondent to have ignored the misapprehensions Resolution No. 6712.
addressed by Senate President Franklin M. Drilon to
COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos during the 2004 5. The assailed resolution has no constitutional and
saying that such act would be in violation of the statutory basis. That respondent COMELEC is the sole
Constitution (section 4 of Article VII): body tasked to enforce and administer all laws and
"any quick count to be conducted by the Commission on regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
said positions would in effect constitute a canvass of the plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recalland to ensure
votes of the President and Vice-President, which not only free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible electionsis
would be pre-emptive of the authority of Congress, but beyond cavil. That it possesses the power to promulgate
would also be lacking of any constitutional authority." rules and regulations in the performance of its
constitutional duties is, likewise, undisputed. However,
Parenthetically, even the provision of Rep. Act No. 8436 the duties of the COMELEC under the Constitution, Rep.
confirms the constitutional undertaking of Congress as Act No. 7166, and other election laws are carried out, at
the sole body tasked to canvass the votes for the all times, in its official capacity. There is no constitutional
President and Vice-President and statutory basis for the respondent COMELEC to
undertake a separate and an unofficial tabulation of
2. The assailed COMELEC resolution likewise contravened results, whether manually or electronically. Indeed, by
the constitutional provision that "no money shall be paid conducting such unofficial tabulation of the results of the
out of the treasury except in pursuance of an election, the COMELEC descends to the level of a private
appropriation made by law." It being “unofficial”, any organization, spending public funds for the purpose.
disbursement of public fund would be contrary to the Besides, it is absurd for the COMELEC to conduct two
provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No. 9206, kinds of electoral counts a slow but official count, and an
which is the 2003 General Appropriations Act alleged quicker but unofficial count, the results of each
may substantially differ.Clearly, the assailed resolution is
3. Under Section 27 of Rep. Act No. 7166, as amended by an implementation of Phase III of the modernization
Rep. Act No. 8173,[49] and reiterated in Section 18 of program of the COMELEC under Rep. Act No. 8436.
Rep. Act No. 8436,[50] the accredited citizens arm - in Section 2 of the assailed resolution expressly refers to
this case, NAMFREL - is exclusively authorized to use a the Phase III-Modernization Project of the COMELEC.
copy of the election returns in the conduct of an Since this Court has already scrapped the contract for
unofficial counting of the votes, whether for the national Phase II of the AES, the COMELEC cannot as yet
or the local elections. No other entity, including the implement the Phase III of the program.
respondent COMELEC itself, is authorized to use a copy
of the election returns for purposes of conducting an 6. As correctly observed by the petitioner, there is a great
unofficial count. In addition, the second or third copy of possibility that the unofficial results reflected in the
the election returns, while required to be delivered to the electronic transmission under the supervision and control
COMELEC under the aforementioned laws, are not of the COMELEC would significantly vary from the results
intended for undertaking an unofficial count. The reflected in the COMELEC official count. The latter
aforesaid COMELEC copies are archived and unsealed follows the procedure prescribed by the Omnibus
only when needed by the respondent COMELEC to verify Election Code, which is markedly different from the
election results in connection with resolving election procedure envisioned in the assailed resolution.
disputes that may be imminent. However, in
contravention of the law, the assailed Resolution
authorizes the so-called Reception Officers (RO), to open Moreover, the Court doubts that the problem of dagdag-
the second or third copy intended for the respondent bawas could be addressed by the implementation of the
COMELEC as basis for the encoding and transmission of assailed resolution. It is observed that such problem
advanced unofficial precinct results. This not only arises because of the element of human intervention. In
violates the exclusive prerogative of NAMFREL to the prevailing set up, there is human intervention
conduct an unofficial count, but also taints the integrity because the results are manually tallied, appreciated,
of the envelopes containing the election returns, as well and canvassed. On the other hand, the electronic
as the returns themselves, by creating a gap in its chain transmission of results is not entirely devoid of human
intervention. The crucial stage of encoding the precinct

4
 results in the computers prior to the transmission and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that
requires human intervention. Under the assailed the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its
resolution, encoding is accomplished by employees of ruling.[36] In other words, due process requires that a party be
the PMSI. Thus, the problem of dagdag-bawas could still given an opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his
occur at this particular stage of the process. side of the case and that the evidence should be considered
in the adjudication of the case.[37] The facts show that
COMELEC set aside the proclamation of petitioner , without
Sandoval vs. Comelec the benefit of prior notice and hearing and it rendered the
GR No. 133842 questioned order based solely on private respondent's
January 26, 2000 allegations.

We likewise reject private respondent's assertion that the

Facts: hearing held on June 9, 1998 substantially satisfies the due
Petitioner and private respondent herein were candidates for process requirement. The law requires that the hearing be
the congressional seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative held before the COMELEC rules on the petition. Here, the
district during the elections held on May 11, 1998. After public respondent first issued an order annulling the
canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, the district proclamation of petitioner and then set the date of the
board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the duly elected hearing.
congressman. The petitioner took his oath of office on the
same day. Private respondent filed with the Comelec a Taking cognizance of private respondent's petitions for
petition, which sought the annulment of petitioner's annulment of petitioner's proclamation, COMELEC was not
proclamation. He alleged that there was a verbal order from merely performing an administrative function. The
the Comelec Chairman to suspend the canvass and administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to
proclamation of the winning candidate, but the district board determine the number and location of polling places, appoint
of canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of
despite the said verbal order. He also alleged that there was voters, deputize law enforcement agencies and government
non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, which instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
would result in an incomplete canvass of the election returns. credible elections, register political parties, organizations or
The Comelec en banc issued an order setting aside the coalitions, accredit citizens' arms of the Commission,
proclamation of petitioner and ruled the proclamation as void. prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President
Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking the annulment and the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action
reversal of the Comelec order. upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or
disregard of its directive, order or decision. In addition, the
Issues: Commission also has direct control and supervision over all
1.) Whether the COMELEC has the power to take cognizance personnel involved in the conduct of election. However, the
of SPC No. 98-143 and SPC No. 98-206, both alleging the resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent
existence 'of manifest error in the certificate of canvass issued and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest
by the Malabon municipal board of canvassers and seeking to error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires
reconvene said board of canvassers to allow it to correct the the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It behooves the
alleged error Commission to hear both parties to determine the
2.) Whether the COMELEC's order to set aside petitioner's veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the
proclamation was valid alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the resolution
of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of
Ruling: its quasi- judicial power. It has been said that where a
On the first issue, we uphold the jurisdiction of the COMELEC power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial
over the petitions filed by private respondent. As nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of
a general rule, candidates and registered political parties functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than
involved in an election are allowed to file pre-proclamation a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.The COMELEC
cases before the COMELEC. Pre-proclamation cases refer to therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the
any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the requirements of procedural due process in resolving the
board of canvassers which may be raised by, any candidate petitions filed by private respondent.
or by any registered political party or coalition of political
parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or
any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in Faderanga vs Comelec
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and GR No. 55938
appreciation of election returns.[24] The COMELEC has June 26, 1981
exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation
controversies.[25] As an exception, however, to the general
rule, Section 15 of Republic Act (RA) 7166[26]. prohibits Facts:
candidates in the presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial The case arose from a petition filed on January 18, 1980 by
and congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation private respondents with respondent Commission on Elections
cases. seeking the disqualification of petitioners from being
candidates respectively for mayor, vice mayor and members
We find the exercise of its jurisdiction tainted with of the Sangguniang Bayan of Banton, Romblon. It was
illegality. We hold that its order to set aside the proclamation alleged that they changed their party affiliation from KBL to
of petitioner is invalid for having been rendered without due NP within six (6) months before the local election. On the
process of law. Procedural due process demands prior notice date of the election, such petition was still undecided.

5
 filed. Petitioner then instituted this certiorari proceedings
It was not until February 28, 1980 that such petition for against the respondent Commission.
disqualification was resolved. It was denied for lack of This certiorari proceeding, as noted at the outset, was not
sufficient evidence. Accordingly, on March 3, 1980, the filed until May 30, 1980.
Registrar of Banton, Romblon, advised petitioners that all
winning candidates would be proclaimed anew on the ISSUE:
afternoon of that day. Thus, for the second time, on March Whether or not the quo warranto petition has been timely filed
3, 1980, petitioners were proclaimed. by the petitioner?

A motion for reconsideration was heard and submitted for RULING:

resolution on September 29, 1980. Then, three months to the NO. the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit, a quo
day, on December 29, 1980, as noted at the outset, warranto petition having already been filed as far back as
respondent Commission reversed itself. Hence this certiorari March 10, 1980 by the losing party.
and mandamus petition filed on January 19, 1981. A The ruling in Venezuela was applied in Villegas v. Commission
temporary restraining order was issued on January 20, 1981 on Elections, Potencion v. Commission on Elections, Arcenas
v. Commission on Elections, and Singco v. Commission on
Issue: Elections. A citation from Arcenas finds pertinence:
Whether or not it was proper for COMELEC to reopen the
proceedings and reversing its decision in dismissing the This Court has invariably adhered to the principle that after
petition for disqualification of the petitioners? the holding of the January 30, 1980 election, and a
proclamation thereafter made, a petition to disqualify a
Held: candidate based on a change of political party affiliation within
In the cases of Venezuela v. Commission on Elections, as well six (6) months immediately preceding, or following an
as in the succeeding cases of Villegas v. Commission on election, filed with this Court after January 30, 1980, arising
Elections, the attempt to prolong a pre-proclamation from a pre-proclamation controversy, should be dismissed
controversy even after the duly elected officials had been without prejudice to such ground being passed upon in a
proclaimed and had assumed office should not prosper. This proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding. Where,
Court applied the doctrine, earlier noted, that such a stage however, such constitutional provision had been seasonably
having been reached, the proper remedy would be an election invoked prior to that date with the Commission on Elections
contest or a quo warranto petition as the case may be. having acted on it and the matter then elevated to this Court
before such election, the issue thus presented should be
Respondent Commission should have denied the motion resolved.
considering that as far back as March 3, 1980, petitioners
were proclaimed and thereafter held and continue to hold the With a quo warranto petition having already been filed as far
offices in question back as March 10, 1980, by the party most interested, no less
than the losing candidate, Cesar Villones, the petition
This is not to impugn the good faith of respondent for certiorari must be dismissed.
Commission. It is merely to stress that in a choice of
alternatives, what should guide its final disposition of a pre-
proclamation controversy after the lapse of a considerable
period is to accord respect to a proclamation made after due Alunan vs Mirasol
deliberation but, as noted above, without prejudice to a GR No. 108399
protest or quo warranto action to be filed, if the losing party July 31, 1997
chooses to pursue such remedy.

Facts:
1. LGC of 1991 provided for an SK in every barangay to be
Aguinaldo vs Comelec composed of a chairman, 7 members, a secretary and a
GR No. L-53953 treasurer, and provided that the first SK elections wereto be
January 5, 1981 held 30 days after the next local elections. The Local
Government Code was enacted January 1, 1992.

FACTS: 2. The first elections under the code were held May of 1992.
In the January 30, 1980 election, there were three candidates, August 1992, COMELEC provided guidelines for the holding of
SaturninoTiamson of the Nacionalista Party, Cesar Villones of the general elections for the SK on Sept. 30, 1992, which also
the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan and Edgardo Samson of the placed the SK elections under the direct control and
National Union for Liberation. After the canvassing of the supervision of DILG, with the technical assistance of
election returns, it was shown that private respondent COMELEC. After postponements, they were held December 4,
Tiamson had more than 117 votes over the candidate Villones. 1992.
On February 29, 1980, he was proclaimed as Mayor by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers and on March 3, 1980 assumed 3. Registration in 6 districts of Manila was conducted. 152,363
such position. On March 10, 1980, as mentioned, Villones filed people aged 15-21registered, 15,749 of them filing
a quo warranto petition based on the disqualification provision certificated of candidacy. The City Council passed the
of the Constitution prohibiting a change of political party necessary appropriations for the elections.
affiliation within six (6) months immediately preceeding or
following an election. The Commission on Election dismissed 4. September 18, 1992 – The DILG, through Alunan, issued a
the petition and the motion for reconsideration thereafter letter-resolution exempting Manila from holding SK elections

6
because the elections previously held on May 26, 1990 were was not given discretionary powers because they merely used
to be considered the first SK elections under the new LGC. the time period set by COMELEC as a reference in designating
DILG acted on a letter by Santiago, acting President of the KB exempted barangays. Likewise, the LGC of 1991 was held to
(Kabataang Barangay) City Federation of Manila and a be curative, and thus should be given retroactive effect, giving
member of the City Council of Manila, which stated that the mayor the authority to call elections; thus, the 1990 KB
elections for the Kabataang Barangay were held on May 26, elections were not null and void for being conducted without
1990. In this resolution, DILG stated that the LGC intended to authority.
exempt those barangay chapters which conducted their KB
elections from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 1992 from the 2. The contention of violation of the equal protection clause
forthcoming SK elections. The terms of those elected would could not be determined from the records of this case. The
be extended to coincide with the terms of those elected in the mere showing that there were other barangays that held KB
SK elections elections during the set period but were not exempted from
the 1992 SK elections is not sufficient to prove that violation.
5. Private respondents, claiming to represent 24,000 An article in manila Bulletin stated that barangays in Bulacan
members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan, filed a petition for did not have elections in 1992 because they held elections on
certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the DILG had no January 1, 1988.
power to amend the resolutions of the COMELEC calling for
general elections for SKs, and that DILG denied them equal
protection of laws.
Galido vs COMELEC
6. RTC – issued an injunction and ordered petitioners to desist 193 SCRA 78
from implementing the order of the DILG Secretary, and January 18, 1991
ordered them to perform the specified pre-election activities
in order to implement the general elections. The case was
reraffled to a different branch of the same court, and the new
judge held that the DILG had no power to exempt the City of FACTS:
Manila from holding SK elections on December 4, 1992 Petitioner and private respondent were candidates during the
because under Art. IX, C, 2(1) of the Constitution the power 18 January 1988 local elections for the position of mayor in
to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Province of Bohol.
the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-
and recall is vested solely in the COMELEC; (2) the COMELEC Hernandez, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
had already in effect determined that there had been no
previous elections for KB by calling for general elections for On 25 January 1988, private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon
SK officers in every barangay without exception; and (3) the filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of
exemption of the City of Manila was violative of the equal Bohol, 7th Judicial Region, Branch I, Tagbilaran City. After
protection clause of the Constitution because, according to hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner
the DILGs records, in 5,000 barangays KB elections were held as the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, by a majority
between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 but only in the of eleven (11) votes.
City of Manila, where there were 897 barangays, was there
no elections held on December 4, 1992. Private respondent appealed the RTC decision to the
COMELEC. Its First Division reversed the RTC decision and
Issues: declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor. After the
1. Can the COMELEC validly vest the DILG with the power of COMELEC en banc denied the petitioner’s motion for
direct control and supervision over the SK elections with the reconsideration and affirmed the decision of its First Division.
technical assistance of COMELEC? The COMELEC held that the fifteen (15) ballots in the same
2. Was there a violation of the equal protection clause when precinct containing the initial “C” after the name “Galido” were
some LGUs were exempted from holding SK elections by the marked ballots and, therefore, invalid.
DILG?
Undaunted by his previous failed actions the petitioner filed
Held: the present petition for certiorari and injunction before the
1. Yes. COMELEC vesting DILG with such powers is not Supreme Court and succeeded in getting a temporary
unconstitutional. Election for SK officers are not subject to the restraining order. In his comment to the petition, private
supervision of COMELEC in the same way that contests respondent moved for dismissal, citing Article IX (C), Section
involving elections of SK officials do not fall within the 2(2), paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution, that “Final
jurisdiction of COMELEC. decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election
contests involving elective municipal offices are final and
Justice Davide, in Mercado vs Board of Election Supervisors, executory, and not appealable.
stated that the provision in the Omnibus Election Code that
states that COMELEC shall have exclusive appellate ISSUE:
jurisdiction over contest involving elective barangay officials WON a COMELEC decision may, if it sets aside the trial court’s
only refer to elective barangay officials under the laws in force decision involving marked ballots, be brought to the Supreme
at the time the Code was enacted, which was the old LGC. Court by a petition for certiorari by the aggrieved party.

Moreover, DILG was only acting or performing tasks in RULING:

accordance to the framework of detailed and comprehensive Yes, it may be brought to the SC by a petition for certiorari.
rules embodied in a resolution of COMELEC. Although it is Under Article IX (A) Section 7 of the Constitution, which
argued that no barangays were named in the resolution, DILG petitioner cites in support of this petition, it is stated:

7
"(U)nless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, court granting the motion for execution pending appeal and
any decision, order, or ruling of each (Constitutional) the writ of execution.
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from The COMELEC granted the petition on February 9, 1995,
receipt of a copy thereof." ordering the petitioner Rosita Cumba is ordered restored to
her position as Municipality Mayor of Magallanes, Agusan del
On the other hand, private respondent relies on Article IX, (C), Norte, upholding its exclusive authority to decide petitions
Section 2(2), paragraph 2 of the Constitution which provides for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus where the
that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on COMELEC maintains that there is a special law granting it such
Elections in contests involving elective municipal and jurisdiction Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which remains in full
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. force as it was not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election
Code (B.P. Blg. 881).
We resolve this issue in favor of the petitioner. The fact that
decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on ISSUE:
Elections in contests involving elective municipal and Does the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) have
barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does jurisdiction over petitions for, certiorari, prohibition,
not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil and mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive
action of certiorari. appellate jurisdiction?

Under Article IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, which RULING:

petitioner cites, it is stated, “Unless otherwise provided by this YES. Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 remains in full force and
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2),
(Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the Supreme Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days appellate jurisdiction.
from receipt thereof.”
Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the
We do not, however, believe that the respondent COMELEC extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition,
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
excess of jurisdiction in rendering the questioned decision.
The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election
contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and
apply established jurisprudence, in support of its findings and Carlos vs Judge Angeles
conclusions; and that the extent to which such precedents GR No. 142907
apply rests on its discretion, the exercise of which should not November 29, 2000
be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the
prejudice of either party. Petition is dismissed.

Facts
Relampagos vs Cumba Petitioner Carlos and respondent Serapio were candidates for
GR No. 118861 the position of mayor of the municipality of Valenzuela, Metro
April 27, 1995 Manila during the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner was
proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela.

FACTS: Serapio filed with the Regional Trial Court an election protest
In the synchronized elections of May 11, 1992, the petitioner challenging the results. Petitioner filed with the trial court an
and private respondent were candidates for the position of answer with affirmative defenses and motion to dismiss. The
Mayor in the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. court denied the motion to dismiss by order dated January 14,
The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate. Unwilling to 1999.
accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with the
RTC of Agusan del Norte. On June 29, 1994, the trial court, In the recount, the final tally showed: (a) protestant Serapio
per Judge Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have - 66,602 votes (b) protestee Carlos - 83,609 votes, giving the
won with a margin of six votes over the private respondent latter a winning margin of 17,007 votes. Nevertheless, in its
and rendered judgement in favor of the petitioner. decision, the trial court set aside the final tally of valid votes
because of its finding of significant badges of fraud, namely:
The private respondent appealed the decision to the 1. The keys turned over by the City Treasurer to the court did
COMELEC which was later on given a due course by the trial not fit into the padlocks of the ballot boxes that had to be
court. The petitioner then filed with the trial court a motion forcibly opened; 2. Seven (7) ballot boxes did not contain any
for execution pending appeal. The trial court granted the ballot and two (2) ballot boxes out of the seven (7) ballot
petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal despite the boxes did not contain any election returns; 3. Some schools
opposition of the private respondent. where various precincts were located experienced brownouts
during the counting of votes causing delay in the counting
The corresponding writ of execution was forthwith issued. although there was no undue commotion or violence that
Thereafter, the private respondent filed a motion for a occurred; 4. Some of the assigned watchers of protestant
reconsideration which was later on denied. The private were not in their posts during the counting of votes. The court
respondent then filed with the respondent COMELEC a held that the fraud was attributable to the protestee who had
petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial control over the election paraphernalia and the basic services
in the community such as the supply of electricity.

8
Notwithstanding the plurality of valid votes in favor of the candidates were proclaimed, herein petitioner filed a petition
protestee, the trial court set aside the proclamation of before the COMELEC seeking to suspend the canvassing of
protestee Jose Emmanuel Carlos by the Municipal Board of votes and/or proclamation in Quezon City, and to declare a
Canvassers and declared protestant Antonio M. Serapio as the failure of elections. However, while said petition was pending
duly elected mayor of Valenzuela City. before the COMELEC, the elected officials in Quezon City were
proclaimed. Later, the COMELEC promulgated its challenged
Issue resolution dismissing the petition before it on the ground that
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review, by the allegations therein were not supported by sufficient
petition for certiorari as a special civil action, the decision of evidence and that the grounds recited were not among the
the regional trial court in an election protest case involving an pre-proclamation issues set forth in Sec. 17 of RA 7166.
elective municipal official considering that it has no appellate
jurisdiction over such decision Issue:
Whether or not the petition raised issues proper for a pre-
Ruling: proclamation controversy
Yes. The Supreme Court is vested with original jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against Ruling:
the decision of the regional trial court in the election protest No.
case before it, regardless of whether it has appellate Petitioner here anchored his initiatory petition on failure of
jurisdiction over such decision. elections, then he built his case as a pre-proclamation
Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides controversy. In any case, petitioner cannot succeed in either
that: remedies. In the petition for declaration of failure of elections,
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following there was nothing therein that could support the same as it
powers: was never alleged therein that the elections were either not
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting held or suspended. Further, petitioner's claim stood as a bare
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, conclusion bereft of any substantive support. However, with
and over petitions for certiorari, the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas contested, the question of whether the petition raised issues
corpus. proper for a pre-proclamation controversy was already of no
xxx consequence as the same was no longer viable. The more
appropriate remedy would be a regular election protest or a
By Constitutional fiat, the Commission on Election (Comelec) petition for quo warranto. Further, it is already provided by
has appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases involving law that pre-proclamation cases are deemed terminated when
elective municipal officials decided by courts of general the term of office involved had already begun, as in the
jurisdiction, as provided for in Article IX (C), Section 2 of the casehere.
1987 Constitution:
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise
the following powers and functions:
(1) x x x. Mitmug vs COMELEC
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all GR No. 106270-73
contests relating to the elections, returns and February 10, 1994
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or Facts:
involving elective barangay officials decided by Petitioner Mitmug and private respondent
trial courts of limited jurisdiction. DatuGambaiDagalangit were among the candidates for the
mayoralty position of Lumba-Bayabao during the 11 may 1992
In like manner, the Comelec has original jurisdiction to issue election. There were 67 precincts in the municipality.The
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving turnout of voters during election was abnormally low. As a
election cases in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, result, several petitions were filed seeking the declaration of
both the Supreme Court and Comelec have concurrent failure of election in precincts where less than 25% of the
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and electorate managed to cast their votes. But a special election
mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general jurisdiction was ordered in precincts where no voting actually took place.
(regional trial courts) in election cases involving elective COMELEC ruled that for as long as the precincts functioned
municipal officials. The Court that takes jurisdiction first shall and conducted actual voting during electionday, low voter
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. turnout would not justify a declaration of failure of election.

In the interim, petitioner filed a petition seeking the

annulment of the special election conducted on 30 May 1992
Sison vs COMELEC alleging various irregularities such as the alteration,
GR No. 134096 tampering and substitution of ballots. Other petitions seeking
March 3, 1999 the declaration of failure of election in some or all precincts of
Lumba-Bayabao were also filed with COMELEC by other
mayoralty candidates. COMELEC dismissed the petition, ruling
Facts: that the allegations therein did not support a case of failure
While the election returns were being canvassed by the of election.
Quezon City Board of Canvassersbut before the winning

9
Issue: Norte during the 1998 elections. Petitioners
Did COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion amounting belonged to Lakas-NUCD party, while private
to lack of jurisdiction in denying motuproprio and without due respondents ran under the Laban ng Makabayan
notice and hearing the petitions seeking to declare a failure of Masang Pilipino (LAMMP) banner.
election in some or all of the precincts in Lumba-Bayabao,  After election day, all the LAKAS candidates were
Lanao del Sur. proclaimed as winning candidates. Six days after
that, p.respondent Bacquial filed a petitions to
Ruling: declare a failure of elections due to “massive fraud,
Incidentally, a petition to annul an election is not a pre- terrorism, ballot switching, stuffing of ballot boxes,
proclamation controversy. Consequently, the proclamation of delivery of ballot boxes by petitioner Soliva, his wife
a winning candidate together with his subsequent assumption and men from several precincts to the supposed
of office is not an impediment to the prosecution of the case canvassing area, failure of the counting of votes in
to its logical conclusion. the precincts or polling places, and other anomalies
or irregularities. Baludio, one of Soliva’s men,
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, within 24 hours from allegedly attempted to assassinate Bacquial when
the filing of a verified petition to declare a failure to elect, he was about to case his vote. This petition was
notices to all interested parties indicating therein the date of amended to include the other candidates under
hearing should be served through the fastest means available. LAMMP.
The hearing of the case will also be summary in nature.  COMELEC granted the petition and declared a
failure of elections in RTR. COMELEC likewise
Based on the foregoing, the clear intent of the law is that a declared the proclamation of winners to be null and
petition of this nature must be acted upon with dispatch only void. COMELEC called for a special election.
after hearing thereon shall have been conducted. Since  Petitioners filed this present petition for certiorari
COMELEC denied the other petitions which sought to include and prohibition attributing grave abuse of discretion
43 more precincts in a special election without conducting any amounting to lack of, or in excess of, jurisdiction to
hearing, it would appear then that there indeed might have COMELEC, when, without any formal proceedings
been grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitions. and absent any formal presentation of evidence and
witnesses, it declared a failure of elections. SolGen
However, before COMELEC can act on a verified petition maintains that the declaration is proper because of
seeking to declare a failure of election, 2 conditions must the grounds stated by private respondents.
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or
precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, ISSUE:
the election nevertheless results in failure to elect; Whether COMELEC erred in declaring a failure of election in
and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the the entire municipality of RTR
election.
RULING:
In the case before us, it is indubitable that the votes not cast The COMELEC did not err, did not commit grave abuse of
will definitely affect the outcome of the election. But, the first discretion; the petition was dismissed.
requisite is missing, i.e., that no actual voting took place, or  The 1987 Constitution vested upon the COMELEC
even if there is, the results thereon will be tantamount to a the broad power to enforce all the laws and
failure to elect. Since actual voting and election by the regulations of the conduct of elections as well as
registered voters in the questioned precincts have taken the plenary authority to decide all questions
place, the results thereof cannot be disregarded and affecting elections, except the question as to the
excluded. COMELEC therefore did not commit any abuse of right to vote. (plenary – full, entire, complete)
discretion, much less grave, in denying the petitions outright.  Section 4 of RA 7166 provide that the
There was no basis for the petitions since the facts alleged postponement, declaration of failure of elections
therein did not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant the and the calling of special elections shall be decided
relief sought. For, the language of the law expressly requires by COMELEC sitting en banc by a majority vote.
the concurrence of these conditions to justify the calling of a  Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
special election. contemplates 3 instances when the COMELEC may
declare a failure of election and call for the holding
Considering that there is no concurrence of the two (2) of a special election:
conditions in the petitions seeking to declare failure of election o when the election in any polling place has
in forty-three (43) more, precincts, there is no more need to not been held on the date fixed due to
receive evidence on alleged election irregularities. force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud
or other analogous cases
o when the election in any polling place
had been suspended before the hour
Soliva vs COMELEC fixed by law for the closing of voting
GR No. 141723 o when after the voting and during the
April 20, 2001 preparation and the transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in
a failure to elect
FACTS:  The SC agrees with the findings of COMELEC that
 Petitioners and private respondents vied for local there was a failure of election. The counting of the
posts in Remedios T. Romualdez (RTR), Agusan del votes and the canvassing of election returns were

10
 clearly attended by fraud, intimidation, terrorism delegated its constitutional duty to hear and decide pre-
and harassment. Findings of fact of administrative proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee. She argues
bodies charged with a specific field of expertise are that the COMELEC should have ordered a recanvass and
afforded great weight and respect by the courts. retabulation of the votes, instead of limiting itself to the
 Petitioners did not assail the claim that the counting findings of the Ad Hoc Committee which did not actually
of votes was transferred from the polling place to resolve the conflicting claims of the parties.
the multi-purpose gymnasium without the
knowledge of private respondents. They were done Issue:
without the accredited watchers or duly authorized Did the COMELEC erred when it delegated its constitutional
representatives of private respondents. They duty to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases to a mere Ad
likewise did not deny that the transfer of the Hoc Committee.
counting was without the authority of COMELEC as
required by law. The provisions in COMELEC HELD:
resolution no. 2971 state that the counting of votes No, The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc
should be in the polling place and conducting Committee are merely advisory in nature and do not bind the
without interruption, and that if the counting of COMELEC, especially in light of petitioners failure to present
votes were to be transferred to a safer place, it any evidence that the COMELEC merely relied on said findings
should be effected through an unanimous approval and recommendations and did not go over the records of the
of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and case to make its own assessment. Absent any evidence to the
concurred by the majority of watchers present. contrary then, the presumption of regular performance of an
These sections were violated. These provisions official duty stands.
emphasize the need to safeguard the popular will.
 Petitioners did not submit any counter affidavits to It bears emphasis that the COMELEC has broad powers to
rebut the sworn statements submitted by the ascertain the true results of an election by means available to
witnesses for the private respondents. The it.In the case at bar, it was well within the COMELECs
elections cannot be accorded regularity and discretion to avail of the means it deemed effective, such as
validity. The circumstances constitute a failure of requiring the parties to present their side through position
election, and thus, COMELEC is empowered to papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory hearing
annul the election and call for a special election. wherein the members of the BOC were required to shed light
on the two proclamations made. Besides, it is a settled rule
that the COMELECs judgment cannot be overturned by this
Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Hadja Ardais vs COMELEC Since the assailed resolution is supported by substantial
GR No. 1578863 evidence, it cannot be considered whimsical, capricious or
April 28, 2004 arbitrary warranting this Courts power of review

FACTS: Talaga vs COMELEC

Ardais and Asmadun were mayoralty candidates in the GR No. 196804
Municipality of Lugus during 2001 election. After the votes October 9, 2012
were cast the ballot boxes where brought to the headquarters
of the 104th army brigade for centralized counting and
canvassing. After the canvassing was completed, as there was FACTS:
no pending pre-proclamation controversy, Asmadun was Ramon Talaga and Philip M. Castillo respectively filed their
proclaimed as mayor-elect on May 17, 2001, the certificate of certificates of candidacy (CoCs) for the position of Mayor of
canvass bearing 8701805 signed and thumbmarked by its Lucena City to be contested in the scheduled May 10, 2010
Chairman Bakri and Secretary Dammang but the BOC Vice- national and local elections. Ramon, the official candidate of
Chairman Uddoh’s signature and thumbmark did not appear the Lakas-Kampi-CMD, declared in his CoC that he was eligible
in the first COC. Ardais, also on May 17, 2001, was proclaimed for the office he was seeking to be elected to.
as mayor-elect by virtue of a second COC bearing the same
serial number as that of the first COC, signed and Four days later, or on December 5, 2009, Castillo filed with
thumbmarked by all three members of the BOC.On May 19, the COMELEC a petition denominated as In the Matter of the
2001, respondent Asmadun took his oath of office and Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of
assumed office on July 2, 2001.Ardais, on the other hand, Candidacy of Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. as Mayor for Having
took his oath of office on June 23, 2001. On even date, Already Served Three (3) Consecutive Terms as a City Mayor
petitioners spouse former Mayor Mansur Aradais went to the of Lucena. He alleged therein that Ramon, despite knowing
headquarters of the 104th Infantry Brigade and requested for that he had been elected and had served three consecutive
army escorts for the formal assumption of office of petitioner. terms as Mayor of Lucena City, still filed his CoC for Mayor of
Lucena City in the May 10, 2010 national and local elections.
An Ad Hoc committee was then created by the COMELEC to
settle the matter of apparently two proclamation. Ad hoc Ramon countered that that the Sandiganbayan had
committee then recommended the affirmation of mayor-elect preventively suspended him from office during his second and
Asmadun, a resolution adopted by the COMELEC second third terms; and that the three-term limit rule did not then
division. apply to him pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence to the
effect that an involuntary separation from office amounted to
Petitioner Aradais contends that the COMELEC En an interruption of continuity of service for purposes of the
Banc gravely abused its power and discretion when it application of the three-term limit rule.

11
 official candidate of a registered or accredited party
So in the series of events, Ramon was substituted by his wife, may be substituted.
Ruby, in the filing of the CoC. She won the mayoralty election. Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid
In focus in these consolidated special civil actions are the candidacy, there can be no valid substitution of the candidate
disqualification of a substitute who was proclaimed the winner under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. It should be
of a mayoralty election; and the ascertainment of who should clear, too, that a candidate who does not file a valid CoC may
assume the office following the substitute's disqualification. not be validly substituted, because a person without a valid
The consolidated petitions for certiorari seek to annul and set CoC is not considered a candidate in much the same way as
aside the En Banc Resolution issued by the Commission on any person who has not filed aCoC is not at all a candidate.
Elections (COMELEC).
2. Declaration of Ramon's disqualification rendered
ISSUE: his CoC invalid; hence, he was nota valid candidate to
be properly substituted
Is the substitution by Barbara Ruby as candidate for the
position of Mayor of Lucena City in lieu of Ramon, her To be sure, the cause of Ramon's ineligibility (i.e., the three-
husband, valid? term limit) is enforced both by the Constitution and statutory
Who among the contending parties should assume the law. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
contested elective position? Section 8. The term of office of
elective local officials, except barangay
HELD: officials, which shall be determined by
The petitions lack merit. Mayor Ruby Talaga’s contentions are law, shall be three years and no such
mistaken. The substitution was invalid. Castillo cannot validly official shall serve for more than
assume the position of Mayor as he is only a second-placer. three consecutive terms. Voluntary
The law of filling up the vacancy through succession must renunciation of the office for any
apply. length of time shall not be considered
as an interruption in the continuity of
1. Existence of a valid CoC is a condition sine qua non his service for the full term for which
for a valid substitution he was elected.
Section 43 of the Local Government Codereiterates the
The filing of a CoC within the period provided by law is a constitutional three-term limit for all elective local
mandatory requirement for any person to be considered a officials, to wit:
candidate in a national or local election.
Section 43. Term of Office.— (a) . . .
Accordingly, a person's declaration of his intention to run for (b) No local elective official shall
public office and his affirmation that he possesses the serve for more than three (3)
eligibility for the position he seeks to assume, followed by the consecutive terms in the same
timely filing of such declaration, constitute a valid CoC that position. Voluntary renunciation of
render the person making the declaration a valid or official the office for any length of time shall
candidate. not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of service for the full
There are two remedies available to prevent a candidate from term for which the elective official
running in an electoral race. One is through a petition for concerned was elected.
disqualification and the other through a petition to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. To accord with the constitutional and statutory proscriptions,
In the event that a candidate is disqualified to run for a public Ramon was absolutely precluded from asserting an eligibility
office, or dies, or withdraws his CoC before the elections, to run as Mayor of Lucena City for the fourth consecutive
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Codeprovides the option term. Resultantly, his CoC was invalid and ineffectual
of substitution, to wit: ab initio for containing the incurable defect consisting
in his false declaration of his eligibility to run. The
Section 77. Candidates in case of invalidity and inefficacy of his CoC made his situation even
death, disqualification or withdrawal. worse than that of a nuisance candidate because the nuisance
— If after the last day for the filing of candidate may remain eligible despite cancellation of his CoC
certificates of candidacy, an official or despite the denial of due course to the CoC pursuant to
candidate of a registered or Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
accredited political party dies, Ramon himself specifically admitted his ineligibility when he
withdraws or is disqualified for filed his Manifestation with Motion to Resolve in the
any cause, only a person COMELEC. That sufficed to render his CoC invalid,
belonging to, and certified by, the considering that for all intents and purposes the
same political party may file a COMELEC's declaration of his disqualification had the
certificate of candidacy to replace effect of announcing that he was no candidate at all.
the candidate who died, withdrew
or was disqualified. xxxxxx. We stress that a non-candidate like Ramon had no
right to pass on to his substitute.
Nonetheless, whether the ground for substitution is death,
withdrawal or disqualification of a candidate, Section 77 of the 3. Elected Vice Mayor must succeed and assume the
Omnibus Election Code unequivocally states that only an position of Mayor due to a permanent vacancy in the
office

12
 of a crime of falsification which carried with it the accessory
Relying on the pronouncement in Cayat, Castillo asserts that penalty of disqualification to run for public office. Moreover,
he was entitled to assume the position of Mayor of Lucena he already served for three consecutive terms already thus he
City for having obtained the highest number of votes among was disqualified to run for public office. Despite this, he
the remaining qualified candidates. declared in his COC that he is eligible to run. Elections came
and Lonzanida garnerned the highest number of votes
Indeed, Castillo could not assume the office for he was only a followed by Antipolo who was the second placer. Aratea won
second placer. Labo, Jr.should be applied. There, the Court the elections for the vice-mayor. Aratea subsequently
emphasized that the candidate obtaining the second highest discharged the functions of the Office of the Mayor of San
number of votes for the contested office could not assume the Antonio, Zambales.
office despite the disqualification of the first placer because
the second placer was "not the choice of the sovereign will." Issue:
Surely, the Court explained, a minority or defeated candidate Who between the Antipolo (second placer) and Aratea (vice
could not be deemed elected to the office. There was to be mayor) is entitled to the Offfice of the Mayor of San Antonio,
no question that the second placer lost in the election, was Zambales?
repudiated by the electorate, and could not assume the
vacated position. No law imposed upon and compelled the Ruling:
people of Lucena City to accept a loser to be their political Antipolo. The accessory penalty of perpetual special
leader or their representative. disqualification takes effect immediately once the
judgment of conviction becomes final. The effectivity of
The only time that a second placer is allowed to take the place this accessory penalty does not depend on the duration of the
of a disqualified winning candidate is when two requisites principal penalty, or on whether the convict serves his jail
concur, namely: (a) the candidate who obtained the highest sentence or not. The last sentence of Article 32 states that
number of votes is disqualified; and (b) the electorate was "the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office
fully aware in fact and in law of that candidate's during the period of his [perpetual special] disqualification."
disqualification as to bring such awareness within the realm Once the judgment of conviction becomes final, it is
of notoriety but the electorate still cast the plurality of the immediately executory. Any public office that the convict may
votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. Under this sole be holding at the time of his conviction becomes vacant upon
exception, the electorate may be said to have waived the finality of the judgment, and the convict becomes
validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying ineligible to run for any elective public office
their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case the perpetually. In the case of Lonzanida, he became
eligible candidate with the second highest number of votes ineligible perpetually to hold, or to run for, any
may be deemed elected. But the exception did not apply in elective public office from the time the judgment of
favor of Castillo simply because the second element was conviction against him became final. The judgment of
absent. The electorate of Lucena City were not the least conviction was promulgated on 20 July 2009 and
aware of the fact of Barbara Ruby's ineligibility as the became final on 23 October 2009, before Lonzanida
substitute. In fact, the COMELEC En Banc issued the filed his certificate of candidacy on 1 December 2009.
Resolution finding her substitution invalid only on May 20,
2011, or a full year after the elections. In a certificate of candidacy, the candidate is asked to certify
under oath his eligibility, and thus qualification, to the office
On the other hand, the COMELEC En Banc properly he seeks election. Even though the certificate of candidacy
disqualified Barbara Ruby from assuming the position of does not specifically ask the candidate for the number of
Mayor of Lucena City. To begin with, there was no valid terms elected and served in an elective position, such fact is
candidate for her to substitute due to Ramon's ineligibility. material in determining a candidate’s eligibility, and thus
Also, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw his CoC before the qualification for the office. Election to and service of the same
elections in accordance with Section 73 of the Omnibus local elective position for three consecutive terms renders a
Election Code. Lastly, she was not an additional candidate for candidate ineligible from running for the same position in the
the position of Mayor of Lucena City because her filing of her succeeding elections. Lonzanida misrepresented his eligibility
CoC on May 4, 2010 was beyond the period fixed by law. because he knew full well that he had been elected, and had
Indeed, she was not, in law and in fact, a candidate. served, as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales for more than
three consecutive terms yet he still certified that he was
A permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor of Lucena City eligible to run for mayor for the next succeeding term. Thus,
thus resulted, and such vacancy should be filled pursuant to Lonzanida’s representation that he was eligible for the office
the law on succession defined in Section 44 of the LGC. that he sought election constitutes false material
representation as to his qualification or eligibility for the office.

The disqualification of Lonzanida is not simply anchored on

one ground. On the contrary, it was emphasized in our En
Aratea vs Comelec Banc resolution that Lonzanida’s disqualification is two-
GR No. 195229 pronged: first, he violated the constitutional fiat on the three-
October 9, 2012 term limit; and second, as early as December 1, 2009, he is
known to have been convicted by final judgment for ten (10)
counts of Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Facts: Code. In other words, on election day, respondent
Romeo Lonzanida and Estela Antipolo were candidates for the Lonzanida’s disqualification is notoriously known in fact and in
position of municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. Prior law. Ergo, since respondent Lonzanida was never a
to the filing of Lonzanida of his COC, he was already convicted candidate for the position of Mayor [of] San Antonio,

13
Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By
votes. Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily
sole qualified candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained represented himself as an American, in effect declaring before
the highest number of votes, should now be proclaimed as immigration authorities of both countries that he is an
the duly elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges
granted by the United States of America. The renunciation of
Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was cancelled because he foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be
was ineligible or not qualified to run for Mayor. Whether his professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It
certificate of candidacy is cancelled before or after the requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the
elections is immaterial because the cancellation on such foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and
ground means he was never a candidate from the very political rights granted by the foreign country which granted
beginning, his certificate of candidacy being void ab the citizenship. While the act of using a foreign passport is not
initio. There was only one qualified candidate for Mayor in the one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63
May 2010 elections - Antipolo, who therefore received the constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship,
highest number of votes. it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath
of renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is
also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a
Maquiling vs. COMELEC local elective position.
GR No. 195649
July 2, 2013
Chua vs COMELEC
GR No. 216607
Facts: April 5, 2016
Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen.
However, as a consequence of his subsequentnaturalization
as a citizen of USA, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado Facts:
applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225before the
On October 3, 2012, Chuafiled her Certificate of
Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, USA
Candidacy6 for Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila. The
and took the Oath of Allegiance to the RP on10 July 2008. On
Fourth District of Manila is entitled to six (6) seats in the
the same day an order of approval of his citizenship retention
Sangguniang Panlungsod.After the conduct of elections, Chua
and re-acquisition was issued in hisfavour. In 2009, Arnado
garnered the sixth highest number of votes.8 She was
again took his Oath of Allegiance to RP and executed an
proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers on May 15, 2013.9
affidavit of renunciation of hisforeign citizenship. On 30
November 2009, Arnado filed his certificate of candidacy for
On the date of Chua’s proclamation, however, Fragata filed a
Mayor of Kauswagan, LanaoDel Norte. Respondent Linog
Petitioncaptioned as a "petition to declare [Chua] as a
Balua, another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to
nuisance candidate"11 and "to deny due course and/or cancel
disqualify Arnado and presenteda record indicating that
[Chua’s] Certificate of Candidacy."12 Fragata was allegedly a
Arnado has been using his US Passport in entering and
registered voter in the Fourth District13 who claimed that Chua
departing the Philippines.
was unqualified to run for Councilor on two grounds: Chua
Maquiling filed the instant petitionquestioning the propriety of
was not a Filipino citizen, and she was a permanent resident
declaring Arnado qualified to run for public office despite his
of the United States of America.
continued use of a USpassport, and praying that he be
proclaimed as the winner in the 2010 mayoralty race.
Bacani filed a Motion to Intervene. Bacani alleged that she
likewise ran for Councilor in the Fourth District of Manila, and
Issue:
that after the canvassing of votes, she ranked seventh among
Whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing
all the candidates, next to Chua.29 Should Chua be
foreign citizenship amount toundoing a renunciation earlier
disqualified, Bacani claimed that she should be proclaimed
made
Councilor30
Held:
Yes.The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s
foreigncitizenship is a positive and voluntary act of According to Chua, Fragata’s Petition was belatedly
representation as toone’s nationality and citizenship; it does filed,20 whether it was treated as one for declaration of a
not divest Filipinocitizenship regained by repatriation but it nuisance candidate21 or for denial of due course or
recants the Oath ofRenunciation required to qualify one to run cancellation of certificate of candidacy.22 Fragata filed her
for an elective position Petition on May 15, 2013, which was beyond five (5) days
from October 5, 2012, the last day of the filing of certificates
Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run of candidacy.23 The Petition was also filed beyond 25 days
for a public office.However, this legal presumption does not from October 3, 2012,24 the date Chua filed her Certificate of
operate permanently and is open to attack when, after Candidacy.25
renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs
positive acts showing his continued possession of a foreign Chua stressed that she had already been proclaimed on May
citizenship. 15, 2013, the same date that Fragata filed her Petition; hence,
Fragata’s proper remedy was to file a petition for quo
Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign warranto
citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC,
he used his US passport four times, actions that run counter

14
COMELEC annulled the proclamation of Chua and declared The rule on succession under Section 45 would not apply if
Bacani as duly elected councilor. the permanent vacancy was caused by one whose certificate
of candidacy was void ab initio. Specifically with respect to
dual citizens, their certificates of candidacy are void ab initio
Issue:
because they possess "a substantive [disqualifying
1. Whether or not private respondent Fragata filed a petition circumstance] . . . [existing] prior to the filing of their
for disqualification or a petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy."103 Legally, they should not even be
certificate of candidacy considered candidates. The votes casted for them should be
considered stray and should not be counted.104
2. Whether or not the rule on succession under Section 45 of
the Local Government Code applies to this case In cases of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio
certificates of candidacy, the person legally entitled to the
vacant position would be the candidate who garnered the next
Held: highest number of votes among those eligible.105 In this case,
it is private respondent Bacani who is legally entitled to the
1. It depends. Private respondent Fragata alleges in her position of Councilor, having garnered the sixth highest
Petition that petitioner is a permanent resident in the United number of votes among the eligible candidates. The
States, a green card holder who, prior to the filing of her Commission on Elections correctly proclaimed private
Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor, has resided in the State respondent Bacani in lieu of petitioner.
of Georgia for 33 years. She anchors her Petition on Section
40 of the Local Government Code, which disqualifies Petitioner may have garnered more votes than private
permanent residents of a foreign country from running for any respondent Bacani. She may have already been proclaimed.
elective local position. Nevertheless, elections are more than a numbers game.
It is true that under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory
persons who file their certificates of candidacy declare that requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of
they are not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications to be
country. Therefore, a petition to deny due course or cancel a possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed
certificate of candidacy may likewise be filed against a by persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those
permanent resident of a foreign country seeking an elective qualifications must be met before one even becomes a
post in the Philippines on the ground of material candidate. When a person who is not qualified is voted for
misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy.93 and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the
will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure
What remedy to avail himself or herself of, however, depends the defect in the qualifications of the candidate. To rule
on the petitioner. If the false material representation in the
otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law
certificate of candidacy relates to a ground for disqualification, that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of
the petitioner may choose whether to file a petition to deny candidates.
due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy or a petition
for disqualification, so long as the petition filed complies with
the requirements under the law.94
Before the Commission on Elections, private respondent Diambrang vs Comelec
Fragata had a choice of filing either a petition to deny due GR No. 201809
course or cancel petitioner’s certificate of candidacy or a October 11, 2016
petition for disqualification. In her Petition, private respondent
Fragata did not argue that petitioner made a false material
representation in her Certificate of Candidacy; she asserted FACTS:
that petitioner was a permanent resident disqualified to run Petitioner Diambrang, and respondent Patad were candidates
for Councilor under Section 40 of the Local Government Code. for Punong Barangay. Patad obtained the highest number of
Private respondent Fragata’s Petition, therefore, was a votes over Diambrang, but it was the latter who was
petition for disqualification. proclaimed by the Barangay BOC based on the assumption
that Patad was disqualified for being a fugitive from justice.
Arguing that there was yet no ruling by the Comelec on the
It follows that private respondent Fragata timely filed her issue of his qualifications. Patad filed a petition to annul
Petition before the Commission on Elections. Under Rule 25, Diambrang’s proclamation with the Comelec.
Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, a
petition for disqualification "shall be filed any day after the Meanwhile, the Comelec en banc finally denied due course to
last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later that Patad’s COC on the ground that he was a fugitive from justice
the date of proclamation." Private respondent Fragata filed and thus was disqualified to run for public office. However,
her Petition on the date of petitioner’s proclamation on May the COMELEC en banc ruled that despite Patad’s
15, 2013. The Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse disqualification, Diambrang, who garnered the next highest
its discretion in taking cognizance of private respondent number of votes, could not be proclaimed as the elected
Fragata’s Petition. Punong Barangay. Having lost the elections, Diambrang is not
entitled to be declared elected and instead, it should be the
2. No. The Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its first ranking Kagawad to succeed.
discretion in disqualifying petitioner, annulling her
proclamation, and subsequently proclaiming private
respondent Bacani as the duly elected Councilor for the Fourth ISSUE:
District of Manila. Is the ruling of the Comelec correct?

15
When does the second-placer rule apply? declared winners, short of the 52 party-list representatives
who should actually sit in the House.

HELD: Thereafter, nine other party-list organizations filed their

Clearly, the prevailing ruling is that if the certificate of respective Motions for Intervention, seeking the same relief
candidacy is void ab initio, the candidate is not considered a as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the same
candidate from the very beginning even if his certificate of grounds. Likewise, PAG-ASA's Petition was joined by other
candidacy was cancelled after the elections. party-list organizations in a Manifestation they filed on August
28, 1998. These organizations were COCOFED, Senior
Patad's disqualification arose from his being a fugitive from Citizens, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PCCI,
justice. His certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. As such, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, OCW-UNIFIL, KAMPIL, MAHARLIKA,
Diambrang, being the “first-placer” among the qualified AFW, Women Power, Inc., Ang Lakas OCW, FEJODAP, CUP,
candidates, should have been proclaimed. Veterans Care, Bantay Bayan, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, ALU
and BIGAS.
The second-placer rule applies when the COC of the candidate
with the highest votes is cancelled for being void ab initio. On October 15, 1998, the COMELEC Second Division
promulgated the present assailed Resolution granting PAG-
Citing Jalosjos Jr. vs. Comelec (2012), the Court explained: ASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of herein 38
Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would
be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or thus total 52 party-list representatives. It held that "at all
declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the times, the total number of congressional seats must be filled
certificate of candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time up by eighty (80%) percent district representatives and
of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a twenty (20%) percent party-list representatives." In allocating
violation of law that took effect, or a legal impediment that the 52 seats, it disregarded the two percent-vote requirement
took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. Instead, it
identified three "elements of the party-list system," which
On the other hand, if the certificate of candidacy is void ab should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats should be
initio, then legally the person who filed such void certificate filled up”.
of candidacy was never a candidate in the elections at any
time. All votes for such non-candidate are stray votes and
should not be counted.That the disqualified candidate has ISSUES:
already been proclaimed and has assumed office is of no 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
moment. The subsequent disqualification based on a representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of
substantive ground that existed prior to the filing of the the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
certificate of candidacy voids not only the COC but also the 2. How should the seats be allocated?
proclamation.
RULING:
1. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress
Veterans Fed. Party vs Comelec enacted RA 7941. As said earlier, Congress declared therein a
GR No. 136781 policy to promote "proportional representation" in the election
October 6, 2000 of party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
to contribute legislation that would benefit them. It however
Facts: deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations and
May 11, 1998, the first election for party-list representation coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least two
was held simultaneously with the national elections. A total of percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order
one hundred twenty-three (123) parties, organizations and to be entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than
coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, the COMELEC en this percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to
banc proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from their total number of votes. Furthermore, no winning party,
twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had obtained at organization or coalition can have more than three seats in
least two percent of the total number of votes cast for the the House of Representatives. Thus the relevant portion of
party-list system. Two of the proclaimed representatives Section 11(b) of the law provides:
belonged to Petitioner APEC, which obtained 5.5 percent of
the votes. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA (People's Progressive Alliance for votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled
Peace and Good Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty to one seat each; Provided, That those garnering
and Social Advancement) filed with the COMELEC a "Petition more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of total number of votes; Provided, finally, That each
the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to
in the House of Representatives, as provided under the not more than three (3) seats.Considering the
Constitution, was mandatory. It further claimed that the literal foregoing statutory requirements, it will be shown
application of the two percent vote requirement and the presently that Section 5 (2), Article VI of the
three-seat limit under RA 7941 would defeat this Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a
constitutional provision, for only 25 nominees would be ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.

16
2. In crafting a legally defensible and logical solution to of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party list
determine the number of additional seats that system was intended to benefit the marginalized and
a qualified party is entitled to, we need to review the underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties,
parameters of the Filipino party-list system. the none-marginalized or overrepresented.

First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined Issues:

number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed a. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-
twenty percent of the total membership of the House of list elections
Representatives, including those elected under the b. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to
party list. ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and
Second, the two percent threshold - only those organizations
parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total
valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to Held:
have a seat in the House of Representatives; The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be
Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, remanded to the COMELEC which will determine, after
regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution
qualifying and two additional seats. satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The
Fourth, proportional representation - the additional resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain
seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be proclaiming any winner” during the last party-list election,
computed in proportion to their total number of votes. shall remain in force until after the COMELEC have compiled
and reported its compliance.
The problem, as already stated, is to find a way to translate a. Yes
proportional representation into a mathematical formula that b. No.
will not contravene, circumvent or amend the above-
mentioned parameters. Rationale:
a. Political parties, even the major ones, may
After careful deliberation, we now explain such formula, step participate in the party-list elections. Under
by step. the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, cannot be disqualified from the party-list
the public and the private respondents, as well as the elections, merely on the ground that they are
members of this Court, that the initial step is to rank all political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the
the participating parties, organizations and coalitions Constitution provides that members of the House of
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of Representatives may "be elected through a party-
votes they each received. Then the ratio for each party list system of registered national, regional, and
is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast sectoral parties or organizations."
for all the parties participating in the system. All parties Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C)
with at least two percent of the total votes are of the Constitution, political parties may be registered
guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be under the party-list system. For its part, Section
considered in the computation of additional seats. The 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of
party receiving the highest number of votes shall registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
thenceforth be referred to as the first party. organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly
states that a "party" is "either a political party or a
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be
able to compute that for the other parties. Since the That political parties may participate in the party-list elections
distribution is based on proportional representation, does not mean, however, that any political party -- or any
the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
votes. down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of
the Constitution. The provision on the party-list system
is not self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with
phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may be provided
by law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the
Bagong Bayani vs Comelec lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was
GR No. 147589 enacted.
June 26, 2001

Facts: Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs Comelec

Bagong Bayani and and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before GR No. 147589 and 147613
the COMELEC a Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, June 25, 2003
challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the
COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the Facts
2001 party list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification

17
On the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec gave due the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of said case.
154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several
others in its 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 378. A petition was The Comelec dismissed the petition stating that Aklat cannot
filed praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be considered as an organization representing the
be deleted from the 'Certified List of Participants in the Party marginalized and underrepresented groups as identified
List System for the May 14, under Section 5 of R.A. 7941 as there was nothing in its
2001 Elections' and that said certified list be accordingly petition which identified the particular marginalized and
amended because the inclusion of political parties in the underrepresented group AKLAT was representing. The
party-list system is objectionable. Comelec held that AKLAT lumped all the sectoral groups
imaginable under the classification of regular members just to
On June 26, 2001, the Court promulgated a Decision providing show that its defect has been cured. Comelec denied Aklat’s
an eight-point guideline for the qualifications of party-list motion for reconsideration on three grounds namely: (1) the
participants. The Court required Comelec to conduct summary petition was filed beyond the deadline set by the Comelec in
evidentiary hearings on the qualifications of the party-list Resolution No. 6320 for registration of party-list
participants in the light of the guidelines enunciated and organizations; (2) the petition was not one for re-qualification
directed COMELEC to submit its compliance report. as Aklat was never a registered party-list organization having
failed to meet the eight-point guidelines set by the Court in
Issue the Bagong Bayani case; and (3) that its decision not to
Aside from those already validly proclaimed, are there other extend the deadline for registration of party-list organizations
party-list candidates that should be proclaimed winners? is valid, the Comelec being in the best position to make such
a determination.
Held
Yes. In its First Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, Aklat asserts that under Section 5 of R.A. 7941, petitions for
Comelec recommended the party-list participants that were registration as a party-list organization may be filed not later
be deemed to have hurdled the eight-point guideline in a than ninety (90) days before the elections. It therefore had
Court Decision, and recommended the disqualification of a until February 10, 2004, the ninetieth day before the elections
number of party-list groups. After the Court had accepted and on May 10, 2004, within which to file its petition. Hence, its
approved this Report and its amendments, the following petition, which was filed on November 20, 2003, was filed
nominees BAYAN MUNA, AKBAYAN, BUTIL, APEC and CIBAC within the allowed period. Section 5 of Resolution No. 6320
were validly proclaimed winners by COMELEC. Comelec made which requires the filing of such petitions not later than
a Second Partial and Final Compliance Report to recommend September 30, 2003, is null and void as it amends R.A. 7941.
more qualified party-list participants and those to be
disqualified. Under its Resolution No. NBC 02-001, Comelec The OSG also points out that Aklat failed to support its petition
motu proprio amended its Compliance Reports by, inter alia, with the documents required under Section 7 of Resolution
adding four more party-list participants (BUHAY, COCOFED, No. 6320, namely: a list of its officers and members
NCIA and BAGONG BAYANI) to the list of qualified candidates particularly showing that the majority of its membership
for the May 14, 2001 elections. belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors it
seeks to represent, and a track record or summary showing
Court accepted Comelec’s submission of the qualifications of that it represents and seeks to uplift the marginalized and
the party-lists since these issues are factual in character, for underrepresented sectors of society.
which the Court is inclined to adopt the Commission’s findings,
absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its ISSUE:
action. Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
in issuing Resolution No. 6320 as it requires the filing of
petitions for registration on September 30, 2003 or earlier
Aklat vs Comelec than the the prescribed 90 day period before elections, as
GR No. 162203 provided for under R.A 7941.
April 14, 2004
RULING:
No. R.A. 7941 provides:

FACTS: Sec. 5. Registration.—Any organized group of persons may

On November 20, 2003, Aklat-Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of
Ng Lipunan At Adhikan Para sa Tao, Inc. (Aklat) filed a Petition the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than
for declaration of re-qualification as a party-list organization ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its
for purposes of the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the
petition that it participated in the 2001 elections but was party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or
disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations,
complied with the guidelines set by the Court in the case of xxx.
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec (Bagong
Bayani case) for party-list organizations to qualify and By its wording, R.A. 7941 itself supports the Comelec’s
participate as such in the party-list elections. Accordingly, position that the period stated therein refers to the prohibitive
Aklat re-organized itself (allegedly particularly for the benefit period beyond which petitions for registration should no
of indigenous cultural communities, fisherfolk, farm and longer be filed nor entertained. Put elsewise, it is simply the
factory workers and the youth) in order that it will comply with minimum countback period which is not subject to reduction
since it is prescribed by law, but it is susceptible of protraction

18
on account of administrative necessities and other exigencies Meanwhile petitioner Rosales, in G.R. No. 177314, addressed
perceived by the poll body. 2 letters to the Director of the Comelec’s Law Department
requesting a list of that groups’ nominees. Evidently
Verily, the Comelec has the power to promulgate the unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance of
necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724 under date April 3, 2007
election laws. This power includes the determination, within virtually declaring the nominees’ names confidential and in net
the parameters fixed by law, of appropriate periods for the effect denying petitioner Rosales’ basic disclosure request.
accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions According to COMELEC, there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that
for registration under the party-list system. This is exactly requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees, and
what the Comelec did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320 that party list elections must not be personality oriented
declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing according to Chairman Abalos.
petitions for registration under the party-list system.
In the first petition (G.R. No. 177271), BA-RA 7941 and UP-
It is also established that Aklat is not an organization LR assail the Comelec resolutions accrediting private
representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the
but is actually a business interest or economic lobby group forthcoming party-list elections without simultaneously
which seeks the promotion and protection of the book determining whether or not their respective nominees possess
publishing industry. the requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No. 7941, or the
"Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized and
The Court observes that Aklat’s articles of incorporation and underrepresented sector each seeks to.
document entitled ‘The Facts About Aklat’ which were
attached to its petition for re-qualification contain general In the second petition (G.R. No. 177314), petitioners Loreta
averments that it supposedly represents marginalized groups Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay
such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban poor and Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution dated
farmers/fisherfolk. These general statements do not measure April 3, 2007.
up to the first guideline set by the Bagong Bayani case for
screening party-list participants, i.e., that "the political party, While both petitions commonly seek to compel the Comelec
sector, organization or coalition must represent the to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in various party-list groups named in the petitions, BA-RA 7941
Section 5 of R.A. 7941. In other words, it must show—through and UP-LR have the additional prayers that the 33 private
its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, respondents named therein be "declare[d] as unqualified to
platform of government and track record—that it represents participate in the party-list elections and that the Comelec be
and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented enjoined from allowing respondent groups from participating
sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to in the elections.
the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must
demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is
likely to choose the interest of such sectors. However, it is ISSUES:
shown that Aklat has no track record to speak of concerning 1. Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the
its representation of marginalized and underrepresented Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in their
constituencies considering that it has been in existence for petition on the ground that these groups and their respective
only a month prior to the filing of its petition for re- nominees do not appear to be qualified.
qualification. 2. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the
names of the nominees of the various party-list groups, has
It should finally be emphasized that the findings of fact by the violated the right to information and free access to documents
Comelec, or any other administrative agency exercising as guaranteed by the Constitution; and
particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the 3. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the
Supreme Court. Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said
nominees.

Bantay Republic Act vs COMELEC Ruling:

GR No. 177271 1. The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners
May 4, 2007 BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the
grounds thus advanced in their petition. The exercise would
require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter
FACTS: which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for certiorari civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court
and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain issuances of is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must
the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list be decided on the undisputed facts on record. The sole
groups which have manifested their intention to participate in function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of
the party-list elections on May 14, 2007. jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include
a review of the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence. Also, the
A number of organized groups filed the necessary petitioner’s posture that the COMELEC committed grave
manifestations and subsequently were accredited by the abuse of discretion when it granted the assailed accreditations
Comelec to participate in the 2007 elections. Bantay Republic without simultaneously determining the qualifications of their
Act (BA-RA 7941) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP- nominees is without basis, Nowhere in R .A. No. 7941 is there
LR) filed with the Comelec an Urgent Petition seeking to a requirement that the qualification of a party-list nominee be
disqualify the nominees of certain party-list organizations.

19
determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an party-list organizations as winners involving a total of thirty-
organization. five (35) seats guaranteed and additional seats. The petitioner
questioned the formula used by the COMELEC and filed the
2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz: present Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the
and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, Commission on Elections is flawed because votes that were
transactions, or decisions, as well to government research spoiled or that were not made for any party-lists were not
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded counted. According to the petitioner, around seven million
the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by (7,000,000) votes were disregarded as a result of the
law. Commission on Elections’ erroneous
interpretation. 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded
Section 28, Article II of the Constitution reading: votes according to petitioner ARARO).

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on
the State adopts and implements a policy of full public Elections En Banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. is the following:

As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is Number of seats available to legislative districts_x .20
involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the =Number of seats available to party-list representatives .80
partylist groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for the May
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate 2010 elections is 57 as shown below:
demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the
party-list groups subject of their respective petitions. 229__x .20 =57 .80
Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading: "[T]he applies the formula used in Barangay Association for National
names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC18 to
certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec arrive at the winning party-list groups and their guaranteed
to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the prohibition seats, where:
imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is limited in
scope and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the Number of votes of party-list
certified list which the same provision requires to be posted ______________________________=
in the polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
of the prohibition to the absolute is to read into the law Total number of votes for party-list candidates
something that is not intended. As it were, there is absolutely
nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from The Commission on Elections through the Office of the
disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the Solicitor General took the position that invalid or stray votes
"Certified List" the names of the party-list nominees. The should not be counted in determining the divisor. The
Comelec obviously misread the limited nondisclosure aspect Commission on Elections argues that this will
of the provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before contradict Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v.
the May 2007 elections. The interpretation thus given by the COMELEC22 and Barangay Association for National
Comelec virtually tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC.23 It
last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941. asserts that:

Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number of

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly voters who did not even vote for any qualified party-list
DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of the candidate, as these voters cannot be considered to have cast
respondents named therein. However, insofar as it seeks to any vote "for the party-list system."24
compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the
nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations Issues:
accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse
same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314 are of discretion in its interpretation of the formula used in BANAT
GRANTED. v. COMELEC25 to determine the party-list groups that would
be proclaimed in the 2010 elections

HELD:
CIBAC vs Comelec The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even lowers
GR No. 172103 its chances to meet the 2% threshold required by law for a
April 13, 2007 guaranteed seat. Its arguments will neither benefit nor injure
the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to raise the argument
FACTS: in this Court.
Petitioner, ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered a
total of 147,204 votes in the May 10, 2010 elections and The Court agrees with the petitioner but only to the extent
ranked 50th. The COMELEC En Banc sitting as the National that votes later on determined to be invalid due to no cause
Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed twenty-eight (28) attributable to the voter should not be excluded in the divisor.

20
In other words, votes cast validly for a party-list group listed residence requirement. Emano won the mayoral post and
in the ballot but later on disqualified should be counted as proclaimed winner.
part of the divisor. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise
the voters who voted on the basis of good faith that that ballot Issue:
contained all the qualified candidates. However, following this Whether Emano failed to comply theresidency requirement
rationale, party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and Held:
whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the The pertinent provision sought to be enforced is Section 39 of
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such elections the LGC of 1991, which provides for the qualifications of local
should not be included in the divisor. elective officials, as follows: An elective local official must be
a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only those municipality, city, or province x xx where he intends to be
votes cast for the party-list system shall be considered in the elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
computation of the percentage of representation: immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to
read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list Generally, in requiring candidates to have a minimum period
system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That of residence in the area in which they seek to be elected, the
those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes Constitution or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a
shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total "stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and
number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, needs of a community and not identified with the latter from
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than seeking an elective office to serve that community. This
three (3) seats. purpose is "best met by individuals who have either had actual
residence in the area for a given period or who have been
The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as domiciled in the same area either by origin or by choice."
used and interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is
MODIFIED as follows: In the case at bar, the Comelec found that private respondent
and his family had actually been residing in Cagayan de Oro
Number of votes. of party-list Total number of valid votes for City, in a house he had bought in 1973. Furthermore, during
party-list candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes the three terms (1988-1998) that he was governor of Misamis
garnered by party-list Oriental, he physically lived in that city, where the seat of the
provincial government was located. In June 1997, he also
The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast for registered as voter of the same city. Based on our ruling in
the party-list system including votes cast for party-list groups Mamba-Perez, these facts indubitably prove that Vicente Y.
whose names are in the ballot but are subsequently Emano was a resident of Cagayan de Oro City for a period of
disqualified. Party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose time sufficient to qualify him to run for public office therein.
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and Moreover, the Comelec did not find any bad faith on the part
whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the of Emano in his choice of residence.
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such elections
should not be included in the divisor. The divisor shall also not Petitioners put much emphasis on the fact that Cagayan de
include votes that are declared spoiled or invalid. Oro City is a highly urbanized city whose voters cannot
participate in the provincial elections. Such political
subdivisions and voting restrictions, however, are simply for
Torayno vs COMELEC the purpose of parity in representation. The classification of
GR 137329 an area as a highly urbanized or independent component city,
August 9, 2000 for that matter, does not completely isolate its residents,
politics, commerce and other businesses from the entire
province -- and vice versa -- especially when the city is located
Facts: at the very heart of the province itself, as in this case.
During the 1995 elections, Vicente Emano ran was elected
and proclaimed provincial governor of Misamis Oriental. It was Undeniably, Cagayan de Oro City was once an integral part of
his third consecutive term as governor of the province. In his Misamis Oriental and remains a geographical part of the
Certificate of Candidacy dated March 12, 1995, his residence province. Not only is it at the center of the province; more
was declared to be in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. important, it is itself the seat of the provincial government. As
On June 14, 1997, while still the governor of Misamis Oriental, a consequence, the provincial officials who carry out their
Emano executed a Voter Registration Record in Cagayan de functions in the city cannot avoid residing therein; much less,
Oro City (geographically located in the Province of Misamis getting acquainted with its concerns and interests. Vicente Y.
Oriental), a highly urbanized city, in which he claimed 20 Emano, having been the governor of Misamis Oriental for
years of residence. On March 25, 1998, he filed his Certificate three terms and consequently residing in Cagayan de Oro City
of Candidacy for mayor of the city, stating therein that his within that period, could not be said to be a stranger or
residence for the preceding two years and five months was in newcomer to the city in the last year of his third term, when
Cagayan de Oro City. he decided to adopt it as his permanent place of residence.

Petitioners filed a Petition before the COMELEC, in which they In the instant case, private respondent was actually and
sought the disqualification of Emano as mayoral candidate, on physically residing in Cagayan de Oro City while discharging
the ground that he had allegedly failed to meet the one-year his duties as governor of Misamis Oriental. He owned a house
in the city and resided there together with his family. He even

21
paid his 1998 community tax and registered as a voter Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) asked the
therein. To all intents and purposes of the Constitution and COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use
the law, he is a resident of Cagayan de Oro City and eligible the Veterans formula. COMELEC denied the consideration.
to run for mayor thereof.
Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for certiorari with
To petitioners' argument that Emano could not have mandamus and prohibition assailing the resolution of the
continued to qualify as provincial governor if he was indeed a COMELEC in its decision to use the Veterans formula.
resident of Cagayan de Oro City, we respond that the issue
before this Court is whether Emano's residence in the city ISSUES:
qualifies him to run for and be elected as mayor, not whether (1) Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party-list
he could have continued sitting as governor of the province. representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
There was no challenge to his eligibility to continue running Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling
the province; hence, this Court cannot make any (2) Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA
pronouncement on such issue. Considerations of due process 7941 is constitutional
prevent us from adjudging matters not properly brought to (3) Whether or not the two percent threshold prescribed in
us. On the basis, however, of the facts proven before the Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for one seat is
Comelec, we hold that he has satisfied the residence constitutional
qualification required by law for the mayorship of the city. (4) How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?
In other words, the actual, physical and personal presence of (5) Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties
herein private respondent in Cagayan de Oro City is from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can
substantial enough to show his intention to fulfill the duties of the major political parties be barred from participating in
mayor and for the voters to evaluate his qualifications for the the party-list elections?
mayorship. Petitioners' very legalistic, academic and technical
approach to the residence requirement does not satisfy this RULING:
simple, practical and common-sense rationale for the (1) The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely
residence requirement. a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than
20% of the members of the House of Representatives.
Interpretation to Favor Popular Mandate. There is no question
that private respondent was the overwhelming choice of the (2) Yes, it is constitutional. The three-seat cap, as a
people of Cagayan de Oro City. Thus, we find it apt to reiterate limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-
the principle that the manifest will of the people as expressed list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory
through the ballot must be given fullest effect. In case of device that prevents any party from dominating the
doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit party-list elections.
to the popular mandate.
(3) The second clause of Section 11(b) of R. A. 7941 “those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall
BANAT vs COMELEC be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
GR No. 179271 number of votes” is unconstitutional. The two percent
April 21, 2009 (En Banc) threshold only in relation to the distribution of the
additional seats presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution and prevents the attainment of "the
FACTS: broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or
Barangay Association for National Advancement and group interests in the House of Representatives."
Transparency (BANAT) filed before the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC) a petition to proclaim the full number of (4) In determining the allocation of seats for party-list
party list representatives provided by the Constitution. representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the
However, the recommendation of the head of the legal group following procedure shall be observed:
of COMELEC’s national board of canvassers to declare the a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be
petition moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the
en banc. number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving
the resolution of COMELEC to their petition to proclaim the full at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for
number of party list representatives provided by the the party-list system shall be entitled to one
Constitution. guaranteed seat each.
c) Those garnering sufficient number of votes,
The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated a resolution according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be
proclaiming thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
elections in May 2007. The COMELEC announced that, upon total number of votes until all the additional seats
completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would are allocated.
determine the total number of seats of each winning party, d) Each party, organization, or coalition shall be
organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Federation Party v. COMELEC formula.
(5) Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits
Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher major political parties from participating in the party-list
Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution

22
 clearly intended the major political parties to participate establishment of religion. insofar as it justified the
in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. Also, exclusion by using religious dogma.
in defining a "party" that participates in party-list
elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," 2. Whether or not Public Morals is a proper ground to deny
R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political petition for registration or accreditation in the party-list
parties will participate in the party-list elections. system.
Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections
is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. However, HELD:
by the vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the 1. Yes, COMELEC’s denial of accreditation violated the
ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from constitutional guarantees against establishment of
participating in the party-list elections, directly or religion. insofar as it justified the exclusion by using
indirectly. religious dogma.

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “No law

shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs Comelec prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our
GR No. 190582 non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality
April 8, 2010 in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on
religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of
neutrality.” The Supreme Courtruled that it was grave
violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to
FACTS: utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT AngLadlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the
(lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender) community is a legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead,
marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification
disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine.
identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, The government must act for secular purposes and in ways
and violence; that because of negative societal attitudes, that have primarily secular effects.
LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and
that AngLadlad complied with the 8-point guidelines 2. No, public morals is not a proper ground for denial in the
enunciated by this Court in AngBagongBayani-OFW Labor registration for party-list system.
Party v. Commission on Elections. AngLadlad laid out its
national membership base consisting of individual members The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt
and organizational supporters, and outlined its platform of immoral act performed by AngLadlad. Even the OSG agrees
governance. On August 17, 2009, AngLadlad filed a Petition that "there should have been a finding by the COMELEC that
for registration with the COMELEC. the group's members have committed or are committing
immoral acts." 3The OSG argues:
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioner’s ...A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the same
evidence, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the gender, of a different gender, or more than one gender, but
Petition on moral grounds that petitioner tolerates immorality mere attraction does not translate to immoral acts. There is a
which offends religious beliefs, and advocates sexual great divide between thought and action. Reduction ad
immorality. Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation absurdum. If immoral thoughts could be penalized, COMELEC
not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not would have its hands full of disqualification cases against both
being truthful when it said that it “or any of its the "straights" and the gays." Certainly this is not the
nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed intendment of the law.
to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the
elections.” Furthermore, states COMELEC, AngLadlad will be Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought
exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the
to the teachings of our faith. WhenAngLadlad sought youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its
reconsideration, COMELEC still, on December 16, 2010, position that petitioner's admission into the party-list system
upheld the First Assailed Resolution. would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric
of society. We, of course, do not suggest that the state is
On January 4, 2010, AngLadlad a Petition, praying that the wholly without authority to regulate matters concerning
Supreme Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and direct the morality, sexuality, and sexual relations, and we recognize
COMELEC to grant AngLadlad’s application for that the government will and should continue to restrict
accreditation. AngLadlad also sought the issuance ex parte behavior considered detrimental to society. Nonetheless, we
of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC, cannot countenance advocates who, undoubtedly with the
which had previously announced that it would begin printing loftiest of intentions, situate morality on one end of an
the final ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, argument or another, without bothering to go through the
2010. rigors of legal reasoning and explanation. In this, the notion
of morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare
invocation of morality will not remove an issue from our
ISSUES: scrutiny.
1. Whether or not the denial of accreditation by COMELEC,
violated the constitutional guarantees against the We also find the COMELEC's reference to purported violations
of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at

23
worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as "any cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections.
act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or Nevertheless, the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any
anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or national, regional sectoral party or organizations or coalitions
morality," the remedies for which are a prosecution under the adversely affected can personally or through its authorized
Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or representative file a verified opposition on October 26, 2009.
abatement without judicial proceedings. 32 A violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand,
PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal
sought, through its pleading, the admission ad cautelam of its
conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere
allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket petition for accreditation as a party-list organization under the
invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of Party-List System Act.The COMELEC denied PGBIs
civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial determination of motion/opposition for lack of merit.
liability or culpability.
PGBI came to us in its petition for certiorari, arguing the same
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not positions it raised with the COMELEC when it moved to
a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of reconsider its delisting. We initially dismissed the petition.
homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. The PGBI subsequently moved to reconsider the dismissal of its
denial of AngLadlad's registration on purely moral grounds petition. Among other arguments, PGBI claimed that the
amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of dismissal of the petition was contrary to law, the evidence and
homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial
existing jurisprudence.
public interest. Respondent's blanket justifications give rise to
the inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC targets
homosexuals themselves as a class, not because of any PGBI thus asserts that Section 6(8) does not apply to its
particular morally reprehensible act. It is this selective situation, as it is obvious that it failed to participate in one (1)
targeting that implicates our equal protection clause. but not in the two (2) preceding elections. Implied in this is
that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one (1)
but not in the two (2) preceding elections.

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood Inc. vs COMELEC Issues:

GR No. 190529 1. Whether or not there is legal basis for delisting PGBI.
April 29, 2010 2. Whether or not PGBI’s right to due process was violated.

Ruling:
Facts: 1. No. We are aware that PGBI’s situation a party list group
Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise or organization that failed to garner 2% in a prior election and
known as the Party-List System Act, provides: immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding
election is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The RA 7941. From this perspective, it may be an unintended gap
COMELEC may motuproprio or upon verified complaint of any in the law and as such is a matter for Congress to address.
interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and We cannot and do not address matters over which full
hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral discretionary authority is given by the Constitution to the
party, organization or coalition on any of the following legislature; to do so will offend the principle of separation of
grounds: powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the present case should
bring this concern to the legislatures notice.
xxxx
2. No.PGBI’s right to due process was not violated for PGBI
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. The essence of due
cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding process, we have consistently held, is simply the opportunity
elections for the constituency in which it has to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due
registered.[Emphasis supplied.] process is the opportunity to explain ones side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times
Resolution No. 2847 the Rules and Regulations Governing the and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied
Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party- where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
List System which it promulgated on June 25, 1996. opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc x xx. We find it obvious under the attendant circumstances
issued on October 13, 2009 Resolution No. 8679 deleting that PGBI was not denied due process.
several party-list groups or organizations from the list of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations
or coalitions. Among the party-list organizations affected was
PGBI; it was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC

24
 GR No. 203766 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
April 2, 2013 provided they register underthe party-list system and do not
field candidates in legislative district elections. Apolitical party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative
FACTS: districtelections can participate in party-list elections only
Approximately 280 groups andorganizations registered and through its sectoral wing that canseparately register under the
manifested their desire to participate in the May 2013 party- party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself anindependent
list elections.Fifty-two party list groups and organizations sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a
were disqualified by the COMELEC in its assailed coalition.
resolutionsfor various reasons but mainlyfor not being
qualified as representatives for marginalized or 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
underrepresentedsectors of the society. The determination marginalized andunderrepresented or lacking in well-defined
was based on whether the groups and organizations that filed political constituencies. It is enoughthat their principal
manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of
party-list elections have continually complied with the theirsector.
requirements of RA No. 7941 and AngBagongBayani-OFW
Labor Party vs. COMELEC. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented"
include labor,peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, indigenous
ISSUE: cultural communities, handicapped,veterans, and overseas
What are the criteria for participating in the party-list system? workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined
politicalconstituencies" include professionals, the elderly,
RULING: women, and the youth.
The SC adopts new parameters in thequalification of national,
regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list system, 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions organizations that represent the"marginalized and
(AngBagongBayaniand BANAT) applied by the COMELEC underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized
indisqualifying petitioners. andunderrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members ofsectoral parties or organizations
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list that lack "well-defined political constituencies"must belong to
system of representation. It is intended to democratize the sector they represent.
political power by giving political parties that cannot win
inlegislative district elections a chance to win seats in the The nominees of sectoral parties ororganizations that
House of Reps. It is not for sectoral partiesonly, but also for represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or
non-sectoral parties. Thus, the party-list system is composed thatrepresent those who lack "well-defined political
of three different groups: (1) national parties ororganizations; constituencies," either must belongto their respective sectors,
(2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
ororganizations. sectors.

Sec 5(2), Art VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that, The nominees of national and regional parties or
during the first 3 consecutive terms of Congress after the organizationsmust be bona-fide members of such parties or
ratification of the Constitutionone-half of the seats allocated organizations.
to party-list representatives wouldbe open to non-sectoral
party-list representatives, clearly negating theidea that the 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
party-list system is exclusively for sectoral parties shall not be disqualified ifsome of their nominees are
representing the"marginalized and underrepresented." The disqualified, provided that they have at least onenominee who
reservation of the other one-half to sectoral parties remains qualified.
appliesonly for the first 3 consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution clearly making the party-list
system fully open after the end of said terms. After this period, Alliance for Rural & Agrarian Reconstruction Inc
there will be no seatsreserved for any class or type of party (Araro) vs Comelec
that qualifies under the 3 groupsconstituting the party-list GR No. 192803
system. December 10, 2013

Parameters in Qualifying Party- Lists

In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May
2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall Facts:
adhere to the following parameters: ARARO, a duly accredited party-list, garnered a total of
147,204 votes& ranked 50in the May 10, 2010 elections. The
1. Three different groups may participate: (a) national parties COMELEC En Banc initially proclaimed 28 party-list
or organizations, (b) regional parties or organizations, and (c) organizations aswinners 35 seats guaranteed and additional
sectoral parties ororganizations. seats. It was based on the COMELEC's count of 121
Certificates of Canvass or a total of 29,750,041 votes for the
2. National and regional parties or organizations do NOTneed Party-List System.It then filed an election protest before the
to organize along sectoral lines and do NOT need to represent HRET questioning the Resolution of the COMELEC that
any"marginalized and underrepresented" sector. proclaimed the 28 party-list groups and without its resolution,
it filed this present petition review on certiorari with
Preliminary Injunction and TRO (no TRO was issued).

25
Subsequently, through a resolution, COMELEC proclaimed the The total votes cast do not include invalid votes. The invalid
winning party-list and used the formula in Banat case for the votes, for the determination of the denominator, may be votes
allocation of the 57 available party-list seats. that were spoiled or votes that resulted from the following:
ARARO contends that: improper shading or having no shade at all; 51 existence of
 The formula used by the COMELEC is stray or ambiguous marks; 52 tears in the ballot; and/or
flawedbecause votes that were spoiled or that were ballots rejected by the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS)
not made for any party-lists were notcounted. machines under the paper-based 53 automated election
Around seven million (7,000,000) votes system. All these are causes that nullify the count for that vote
weredisregarded as a result of the COMELEC’s that can be attributable to the voter's action.
erroneous interpretation and being contrary to law.
 The correct interpretation of the provisions of The divisor should now include all votes cast for party-list
Republic Act No.7941 or the Party-list Law does not groups that are subsequently disqualified for so long as they
distinguish between valid and invalid votes were presented as a choice to the electorate. If his or her vote
o Votes of all the registered voters who is not counted as part of the divisor, then this would amount
actually voted inthe May 2010 elections to a disenfranchisement of a basic constitutional right to be
should be included in the computation of able to choose representatives of the House of
the divisor whether validlv or invalid. Representatives in two ways. First, his or her vote will be
Votes cast for the party-list candidates is nullifed. Second, he or she will be deprived of choosing
notthe same as the votes cast under or another party-list group to represent his or her interest should
for the party-list system the party listed in the ballot be declared disqualified.
o Invalid votes include those votes that
were made for disqualified party-list However, there are instances when the Commission on
groups,votes that were spoiled due to Elections include the name of the party-list group in the ballot
improper shading, erasures in the ballots, but such group is disqualifed with finality prior to the
and even thosethat did not vote for any elections. In applying and interpreting the provisions of
party-list candidate at all. All of the votes Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, we said in Cayat v.
should be included inthe divisor to Commission on Elections that votes cast in favor of a
determine the 2% threshold candidate "disqualified with finality" should be considered
 The National Board of Canvassers' Resolution No. stray and not be counted. To be consistent, the party-list
10-009 applies the formula used in BANAT v. group in the ballot that has been disqualified with finality and
COMELEC to arrive at the winning party-list groups whose final disqualification was made known to the electorate
and their guaranteed seats, where: by the Commission on Elections should also not be included
in the divisor. This is to accord weight to the disqualification
Proportion or as well as accord respect to the inherent right of suffrage of
Number of votes the voters.
of party-list Percentage of votes
——————————= garnered by party-list candidates Thus, the formula to determine the proportion garnered by
Total number of the party-list group would now henceforth be:
votes for party-list
Number of votes of party-list Proportion or
——————————————----- = Percentage of votes
Total number of valid votes for garnered by party-list
Issue: party-list candidates
For the correct computation of the divisor, should it include
both valid and invalid votes?
The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast
Ruling: for the party-list system including votes cast for party-
Yes but only to the extent that votes later on determined to list groups whose names are in the ballot but are
be invalid due to no cause attributable to the voter should not subsequently disqualified. Party-list groups listed in the
be excluded in the divisor. In other words, votes cast validly ballot but whose disqualification attained finality prior to the
for a party-list group listed in the ballot but later on elections and whose disqualification was reasonably made
disqualified should be counted as part of the divisor. To do known by the Commission on Elections to the voters prior to
otherwise would be to disenfranchise the voters who voted on such elections should not be included in the divisor. The
the basis of good faith that that ballot contained all the divisor shall also not include votes that are declared spoiled
qualified candidates. However, following this rationale, party- or invalid.
list groups listed in the ballot but whose disqualification
attained finality prior to the elections and whose The refined formula shall apply prospectively to succeeding
disqualification was reasonably made known by the party-list elections from the date of finality of this case.
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such elections
should not be included in the divisor.
Binhi Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga
Not all votes cast in the elections should be included in the Magsasaka vs Comelec
divisor. Contrary to the argument of the petitioner, Section 11 GR No. 206988,
(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only those votes cast FebruarY 18, 2014
for the party-list system shall be considered in the
computation of the percentage of representation

26
FACTS: subsequent summary evidentiary hearing would, thus, have
On August 7, 2009, petitioner BINHI filed with the COMELEC been a superfluity. It would have been nothing more than a
its petition for registration and accreditation as a party rehash of the exercise made in August 2012.
representing "peasants, farmers and farm tillers especially
those who are landless and in need of capital for As stated by the COMELEC: "[t]he purpose of this provision
farming." The COMELEC granted BINHI's petition for [disallowing the participation in the party-list system of an
registration and accreditation. Thereafter, BINHI participated adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the
in the May 10, 2010 elections but was unsuccessful in its bid. government] is to avoid any groups [sic] that would be
beholden to the government in exchange for the assistance
On May 30, 2012, BINHI filed with the COMELEC its received." Notwithstanding the six (6) parameters outlined
manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list elections in Atong Paglaum, the rationale for this disallowance remains
set on May 13, 2013. valid and compelling.

On August 9, 2012, the COMELEC issued an order setting, on The proscription against the participation in the party-list
various dates, the summary evidentiary hearings of existing system of an "adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or
accredited party-list groups which have manifested their assisted by, the government," as articulated in Rule 2, Section
intent to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. 2, paragraph (c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 stands. As
Accordingly, BINHI pre-marked its exhibits, appeared in the "Cabanatuan City Seed Growers," otherwise known as BINHI,
summary evidentiary hearing through its Secretary General, was a beneficiary of the GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program, it
and formally offered its evidence. is in clear violation of such resolution. Thus, the COMELEC
had ample ground to disallow BINHI from participating in the
On November 28, 2012, respondent COMELEC En Banc May 13, 2013 party-list elections.
promulgated a resolution cancelling BINHI's
registration/accreditation, thereby disallowing it from
participating in the May 13, 2013 elections. It noted that De Jesus vs People
BINHI was merely the party-list name of Cabanatuan City GR No. L-61998
Seed Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CCSGMPC), a February 22, 1983
cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative
Development Authority pursuant to RA No. 6938 or
the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Facts:
Ananias Hibo a defeated candidate the office of mayor of the
The COMELEC En Banc underscored that as a duly registered Municipality of Casiguran, Sorsogon filed with the COMELEC a
cooperative, "the needs of CCSGMPC or BINHI is [sic] well- complaint charging petitioner Rogelio de Jesus, then
attended to and there is no need for its members to be COMELEC registrar of Casiguran for violation of the 1978
represented in Congress." It added that BINHI/CCSGMPC Election Code byintentionally tampering the number of the
was among the seed growers cooperatives which were registered voters.
beneficiaries of the Department of Agriculture's GMA Rice
Seed Subsidy Program in Region III. BINHI/CCSGMPC was, Noting that petitioner was charged with an offense relating to
thus, a recipient of (financial) assistance from the government his office, the assistant fiscals as deputized Tanodbayan
and that it was funded or assisted by the government. prosecutors, conducted an investigation. Thereafter a
Accordingly, per the fifth guideline in Ang Bagong Bayani- resolution finding the existence of a prima facie case against
OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, BINHI was barred from petitioner for violation of section 89 and section 178 of the
participating in the party-list system. Election Code was issued. Subsequently an information was
filed before the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUES: Petitioner filed a motion t quash the information, contending

1. Whether the COMELEC En Banc was obliged to conduct a that neither the Tanodbayan nor the Sandiganbayan has the
summary evidentiary hearing. authority to investigate, prosecute and try the offense.The
2. Whether BINHI may validly participate in the party-list COMELEC, having learned of the pendency of the case,
system/party-list elections. entered its appearance as amicus curiae, submitted a
memorandum supporting petitioner's stand.
RULING:
No. The COMELEC is not obliged to conduct a summary The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, hence a petition for
evidentiary hearing. Further, BINHI cannot participate in the certiorari was filed.
party-list elections.
Issue:
The decision in Atong Paglaum did not place upon the Which court has the jurisdiction to prosecute the election
COMELEC an immutable obligation to conduct summary offense committed a public officer?
evidentiary hearings where there were reasonable grounds for
foregoing the holding of the same. In this case, the Ruling:
disallowance of BINHI relates to its alleged receipt of The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to
government funds or otherwise being assisted by enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
government. Moreover, from the proceedings conducted in election and the concomittant authority to investigate and
August 2012, evidence had already been submitted to the prosecute election offenses is not without compelling reason.
COMELEC. On the basis of this evidence, the COMELEC had The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power
settled on findings relating to the factual matter of BINHI's to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest
receipt of funds and/or assistance from the government. A conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the

27
frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere Idle The petition is impressed with merit.
ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified
citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to Article IX C Section 2 of the Constitution provides:
investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public
officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair "Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate. following powers and functions:

There is neither explicit nor implicit grant to the Sandiganbayn (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
and its prosecuting arm, the Tanodbayan, of the authority to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
investigate, prosecute and hear election offenses committed and recall.
by public officers in relation to their office, as contra-
distinguished from the clear and categorical bestowal of said (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
authority and jurisdiction upon the COMELEC and the courts petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of votes,
of first instance under Sections 182 and 184, respectively, of investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
the Election Code of 1978. violation of election laws, including acts or omission
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
(Emphasis supplied).
People vs Inting
GR No. 88919 In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not
July 25, 1990 only to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of
election laws. This means that the COMELEC is empowered to
conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election
Facts: offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine
Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor probable cause and for filing an information in court. This
Dominador Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the power is exclusive with COMELEC.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), for allegedly
transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in From a careful scrutiny of the constitutional provisions relied
the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay upon by the Sandiganbayan, We perceived neither explicit nor
and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from implicit grant to it and its prosecuting arm, the Tanodbayan,
COMELEC as required by law. of the authority to investigate, prosecute and hear election
offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office
Acting on the complaint, COMELEC directed Atty. Gerardo as contradistinguished from the clear and categorical
Lituanas, Provincial Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City: bestowal of said authority and jurisdiction upon the COMELEC
(1) to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case; (2) and the courts of first instance under Section 182 and 184,
to prepare and file the necessary information in court; (3) to respectively, of the Election Code of 1978.
handle the prosecution if the evidence submitted shows a
prima facie case and (3) to issue a resolution of prosecution An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the
or dismissal as the case may be. Election Code of 1978 reveals the clear intention to place in
the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and
Atty. Lituanas found a prima facie case. Hence, he filed with prosecute election offenses committed by any person,
the respondent trial court a criminal case for violation of whether private individual or public officer or employee, and
section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC- in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is
Mayor. committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other
words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personality
The respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an
accused OIC Mayor but before the accused could be arrested, election offense jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively
the trial court set aside its order on the ground that Atty. with the COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over
Lituanas is not authorized to determine probable cause the conduct of elections."
pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The
court stated that it "will give due course to the information Hence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the
filed in this case if the same has the written approval of the prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor
Provincial Fiscal after which the prosecution of the case shall files an information charging an election offense or prosecutes
be under the supervision and control of the latter." a violation of election law, it is because he has been deputized
by the COMELEC. He does not do so under the sole authority
Atty. Lituanas failed to comply with the order. Hence, the trial of his office. In the instant case, there is no averment or
court quashed the information. A motion for reconsideration allegation that the respondent Judge is bringing in the
was denied. Hence, this petition. Provincial Fiscal as a deputy of COMELEC. He wants the Fiscal
to "approve" the COMELEC's preliminary investigation.
Issue:
Does a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial The Commission may avail of the assistance of other
Election Supervisor involving election offenses have to be prosecuting arms of the government.
coursed through the Provincial Fiscal now Provincial
Prosecutor, before the Regional Trial Court may take It is only after a preliminary examination conducted by the
cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not COMELEC through its officials or its deputies that section 2,
probable cause exists? Article III of the 1987 Constitution comes in. This is so,
because, when the application for a warrant of arrest is made
Ruling: and the information is filed with the court, the judge will then

28
determine whether or not a probable cause exists for the vested the power of a public prosecutor with the exclusive
issuance of a warrant of arrest. authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and the
prosecution of election offenses punishable under the Code
before the competent court. Thus, when the COMELEC,
People vs Delgado through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the
GR No. 93419-32 preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon
September 18, 1990 a prima facie finding of a probable cause, files the information
in the proper court, said court thereby acquires jurisdiction
over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of
FACTS: said case must be subject to the approval of the court. The
Receiving a report-complaint for an alleged violation of the COMELEC cannot conduct a reinvestigation of the case
Omnibus Election Code. A preliminary investigation was without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by the
conducted by Election Supervisor and he submitted a report court.
finding a prima facie case and recommending the filing of an
information. COMELEC en banc, in a minute resolution, The records of the preliminary investigation required to be
resolved to file the information against the private produced by the court must be submitted by the COMELEC.
respondents as recommended. 15 informations were filed The trial court may rely on the resolution of the COMELEC to
against each of private respondents in the RTC. file the information, by the same token that it may rely on the
certification made by the prosecutor who conducted the
Respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the preliminary investigation, in the issuance of the warrant of
suspension of the warrant of arrest with the court on the arrest. Nevertheless the court may require that the record of
ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. An the preliminary investigation be submitted to it to satisfy itself
order was issued by respondent court directing the COMELEC that there is probable cause which will warrant the issuance
to conduct a reinvestigation of said cases. of a warrant of arrest.

COMELEC Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration and

opposition to the motion for reinvestigation alleging therein Kilosbayan vs COMELEC
that it is only the Supreme Court that may review the 280 SCRA 892
decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions of the COMELEC. (1997)
This was denied.

Respondents contend that since the cases were filed in court Facts:
by the COMELEC as a public prosecutor, and not in the Special Provision No. 1 of the Countrywide Development
exercise of its power to decide election contests, the trial court Fund (CDF) under Republic Act No. 7180, otherwise known
has authority to order a reinvestigation. as the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 1992 allocates a
specific amount of government funds for infrastructure and
ISSUE: other priority projects and activities. Pursuant to this, DILG
Whether or not the respondent Court has the power or Budget Officer Rafael Barata confirmed the above allotment
authority to order the COMELEC to conduct a reinvestigation as part of the amount of Three Hundred Thirty Million Pesos
of Criminal Cases (P330,000,000.00) that was released by DBM from the 1992
CDF, which Philippine Youth Health and Sports Development
HELD: Foundation, Inc. (PYHSDFI) under the chairmanship of
YES, the court has the power to order COMELEC to Reynato Puno, is a recipient.
reinvestigate
On December 14, 1993, public respondent Commission on
Under Section 2(6), of Article IX-C of the Constitution, the Election (Comelec) received from petitioner Kilosbayan a
COMELEC may "investigate and, where appropriate, letter informing of two serious violations of election laws:
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts 1. That Secretary of Budget Salvador Enriquez, in connivance
or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and with Puno, have allowed the disbursements to be used in
malpractices." Under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election election campaigns; and
Code, the COMELEC, through its duly authorized legal officers, 2. That there was illegal diversion of the CDF funds released
"have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary shortly before the election in 1992.
investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Hence, Kilosbayan requested that such offenses and
Code, and to prosecute the same." malpractices be investigated promptly, thoroughly,
impartially, without fear or favor.
Section 268 of the same Code provides that: "The regional
trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and Investigations were initiated by the Law Department of
decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this COMELEC but the informations were later dismissed for lack
Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register of evidence. Petitioner Kilosbayan, however brushed off
or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction of the responsibility for adducing evidence and adamantly
metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of demanded that the Comelec perform its constitutional duty of
the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases." prosecuting election offenses upon any, even meager,
information of alleged commission of election offenses.
From the foregoing provisions of the Constitution and
the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that aside from the Issue:
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC to decide
election contests and administrative questions, it is also

29
Is COMELEC responsible for prosecuting election law and/or interrelated acts, of Seventy Million Pesos from CDF
violations? And if it is, to what extent should they search for for electioneering activities in violation of its pertinent
evidence to prove the case before them? provision on election offenses as enumerated in the Omnibus
Election Code.
Ruling:
Yes, but petitioners must be able to establish probable In the dispensation of this obligation, however Kilosbayan
cause with sufficient evidence. utterly failed. The encompassing narration of the pertinent
facts and circumstances of this case in the early part of
Section 2 (7) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides this ponencia indubitably shows the complacency, at the
that the Comelec shall exercise the power to investigate and, least, and the gross and deliberate negligence, at most, of
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election petitioner Kilosbayan in presenting sufficient evidence in
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, support of its letter-complaint.
offenses, and malpractices. This constitutional grant of
prosecutorial power in the Comelec finds statutory expression The contention of petitioner Kilosbayan that it is the Comelec
under Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise that is duty-bound to search for evidence to prove its letter-
known as the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: complaint is downright erroneous. The task of the Comelec as
SEC. 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, investigator and prosecutor, acting upon any election offenses
through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive complaint, is not the physical searching and gathering of proof
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election in support of a complaint for an alleged commission of an
offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the election offense. A complainant, who in effect accuses
same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other another person of having committed an act constituting an
prosecuting arms of the government: Provided, election offense, has the burden, as it is his responsibility, to
however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act
follow through his accusation and prove his complaint. If the
on any complaint within four months from his filing, the
complainant fails to proffer the necessary evidence to show
complainant may file the complaint with the office of the
fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper investigation probable cause, notwithstanding the lack of denial or any
and prosecution, if warranted. evidence in controversion, of the accusation, the complaint
must be dismissed, since any person accused of a crime is
Insofar as the prosecution of election offenses is concerned, presumed innocent and does not at all have to make a
therefore, the Comelec is the public prosecutor with the response or reaction to charges against him.
exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation
and the prosecution of election offenses punishable under the The Comelec, acting upon an election offense complaint in the
[Omnibus Election] Code before the competent court. This course of preliminary investigation, initially facilitates the
constitutional and statutory mandate for Comelec to confrontation process between the complainant and the
investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election law respondents by requiring the submission of and interfacing,
translates, in effect, to the exclusive power to conduct their respective evidences. Ultimately, the Comelec passes
preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses upon the contending parties' respective submissions and
for the twin purpose of filing an information in court and proof and weighs the fact and circumstances established
helping the Judge determine, in the course of preliminary therefrom. Contrary to the asseveration of petitioner
inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued. Kilosbayan, the preliminary investigation is not an occasion
for Comelec to, as a duty, spoonfeed the complainant with
The Comelec, whenever any election offense charge is filed evidence needed to prove its case.
before it, must have first, before dismissing the same or filing
the corresponding information, conducted the preliminary
investigation proper of the case. At this initial stage of criminal COMELEC vs Tagle
prosecution, the primordial task of the Comelec is the GR No. 148948
determination of probable cause. February 17, 2003

It follows, therefore, that in the instant case, petitioner

Kilosbayan must have necessarily tendered evidence, FACTS:
independent of and in support of the allegations in its letter- During the 11 May 1998 elections, Florentino A. Bautista,
complaint, of such quality as to engender belief in an running for mayor in the Municipality of Kawit, Cavite, filed
ordinarily prudent and cautious man that the offense charged with the COMELEC a complaint against then incumbent mayor
therein has been committed by herein respondents. Indeed Atty. Federico Poblete, et al., for vote-buying in violation of
probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. The
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt complaint was supported by the separate affidavits of forty-
beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence four (44) witnesses attesting to the vote-buying activities of
establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly the respondents and was docketed as E.O. Case No. 98-219.
demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to
presupposition, conjuncture, or even convincing logic. The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution directing the filing of
effort of petitioner Kilosbayan, thus, in order to successfully the necessary information against the respondents before the
lead to the judicial indictment of respondents, should have RTC, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, docketed as Criminal Case No.
gone beyond a largely declamatory condemnation of 7034-99.
respondents and diligently focused on its two-fold obligation
of not only substantiating its charges against respondents but Before the trial of the criminal case, a complaint for vote-
also proffering before the Comelec substantial evidence of selling was subsequently filed by Innocencio Rodelas and
respondents utilization, through conspiratorial, cooperative Gerardo Macapagal with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor in Imus, Cavite, in violation of Section 261(a) of

30
the Omnibus Election Code against the witnesses in the their respective assistants are, however, given continuing
criminal case, docketed as I.S. No. 1-99-1080. The Office of authority, as deputies of the COMELEC, to conduct preliminary
the Provincial Prosecutor resolved to file separate investigation of complaints involving election offenses and to
informations for vote-selling in the various branches of the prosecute the same. This authority may be revoked or
RTC. withdrawn by the COMELEC anytime whenever, in its
judgment, such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to
Respondents in I.S. No. 1-99-1080 appealed before the protect the integrity of the COMELEC and to promote the
COMELEC, where it declared en banc null and void the common good, or when it believes that the successful
resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, holding prosecution of the case can be done by the COMELEC.
that respondents therein are exempt from criminal
prosecution pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Section 28 of In this case, when the COMELEC nullified the resolution of the
R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as “The Electoral Reforms Provincial Prosecutor, it, in effect, withdrew the deputation
Law of 1987,” which grants immunity from criminal granted to the prosecutor. Such withdrawal of the deputation
prosecution persons who voluntarily give information and was clearly in order, considering the circumstances obtaining
willingly testify against those liable for vote-buying or vote- in these cases where those who voluntarily executed affidavits
selling. attesting to the vote-buying incident and became witnesses
against the vote-buyers now stand as accused for the same
COMELEC Law Department filed a motion to dismiss the acts they had earlier denounced. What the Prosecutor did was
criminal cases but the RTC judge denied stating that, before to sabotage the prosecution of the criminal case against the
one can be exempt from prosecution under said provision, it vote-buyers and put in serious peril the integrity of the
is necessary that such person has already performed the overt COMELEC, which filed the said case for vote-buying. If the
act of voluntarily giving information or testifying in any official Prosecutor had listened to the command of prudence and
investigation or proceeding for the offense to which such good faith, he should have brought the matter to the attention
information or testimony was given. It was thus premature to of the COMELEC.
exempt the respondents from criminal prosecution, since they
have not yet testified. Petitioner COMELEC found that the respondents voluntarily
admitted that they were the recipients in the vote-buying
ISSUE: done by the accused in said case. It was precisely because of
Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion such voluntary admission and willingness to testify that the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in peremptorily COMELEC en banc declared null and void the resolution of the
denying the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the criminal Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and held that the
cases? respondents therein are exempt from criminal prosecution
pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646.
HELD: Yes
One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of Respondent judge lost sight of the fact that at the time the
vote-buying and of prosecuting those committing it is the complaint for vote-selling was filed with the Office of the
grant of immunity from criminal liability in favor of the party Provincial Prosecutor, the respondents had already executed
whose vote was bought. This grant of immunity will sworn statements attesting to the corrupt practice of vote-
encourage the recipient or acceptor to come into the open buying in the criminal case. It cannot then be denied that they
and denounce the culprit-candidate, and will ensure the had already voluntarily given information in the vote-buying
successful prosecution of the criminal case against the latter. case. In fact, they had already willingly testified.

Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 on Prosecution of Vote-Buying Clearly then, respondent judge committed grave abuse of
and Vote-Selling concludes with this paragraph: The giver, discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss the Criminal
offeror, the promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, Cases despite COMELECs determination that the accused
recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) therein are exempt from criminal prosecution for vote-selling
of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as pursuant to the proviso in the fourth paragraph of Section 28
principals: Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty under of R.A. No. 6646.
said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and
willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official
investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution
and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his Bernardo vs Abalos
information and testimony were given: Provided, GR No. 137266
further, That nothing herein shall exempt such person from December 5, 2001
criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.

However, to avoid possible fabrication of evidence against the

vote-buyers, especially by the latter’s opponents, Congress FACTS:
saw it fit to warn vote-sellers who denounce the vote-buying Respondent Benjamin Abalos, Sr. was the mayor of
that they could be liable for perjury or false testimony should Mandaluyong City and his son, Benjamin Abalos Jr. was a
they not tell the truth. candidate for city mayor of the same city for the May 1998
elections. Petitioners herein interposed that respondents
It must be stressed that the COMELEC has the exclusive conducted an all-expense-free affair at a resort in Quezon
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election Province for the Mandaluyong City public school teachers,
offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute registered voters of the said city and who are members of the
the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law. The Board of Election Inspectors therein. The said affair was
Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Prosecutors, or

31
alleged to be staged as a political campaign for Abalos Jr.,
where his political jingle was played all throughout and his Petitioner assails the following provisions of RA 9369:
shirts being worn by some participants. Moreover, Abalos Sr.
also made an offer and a promise then to increase the 1. Sections 37 and 38 - The 2 sections prescribe the
allowances of the teachers. In this regard, petitioners filed a procedures on pre-proclamation controversies in
criminal complaint with the COMELEC against Abalos Sr. and case of any discrepancy in the certificates of
Abalos Jr. for vote-buying, further alleging that they conspired canvass. The Congress and COMELEC in banc shall
with their co-respondents in violating the Omnibus Election determine the authenticity of the certificates of
Code. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Director of the canvass. No pre-proclamation contests shall be
Law Department of the COMELEC, the COMELEC en banc allowed for the elections for the President, Vice
dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. President, Senators, and members of the House of
Representatives. However, this does not preclude
ISSUE: the authority of the appropriate canvassing body to
Whether or not the petition before the Supreme Court must correct manifest errors in the election returns.
be given due course without the petitioners first submitting a 2. Section 43 - Provides that Comelec has the power to
motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC conduct preliminary investigations of election
offenses, and to prosecute the same.
RULING: 3. Section 34 - Amended the old law by giving poll
NO. The Court ruled that a petition for certiorari can only be watchers of the dominant majority and the
dominant minority parties a fixed per diem of
resorted to if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and
Php400. (Note that each registered political party
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the instant
or candidate is allowed to have one poll watcher in
case, it was said that filing of the motion for reconsideration the polling place/ canvassing center).
before the COMELEC is the most expeditious and inexpensive
recourse that petitioners can avail of as it was intended to
ISSUES:
give the COMELEC an opportunity to correct the error imputed
to it. As the petitioners then did not exhaust all the remedies 1. Whether RA 9369 violates Section 26(1), Article VI
available to them at the COMELEC level, it was held that their of the Constitution;
2. Whether Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17,
instant petition is certainly premature. Significantly, they have
Article VIand Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII6 of
not also raised any plausible reason for their direct recourse
the Constitution;
to the Supreme Court. As such, the instant petition was ruled 3. Whether Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-
to fail. C of the Constitution;and
4. Whether Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III
of the Constitution.

BANAT PARTY-LIST, represented by SALVADOR B. RULING:

BRITANICO,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
GR No. 177508
August 7, 2009 The petition has no merit. It is settled that every statute is
presumed to be constitutional. The presumption is that the
legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law.
Those who petition the Court to declare a law unconstitutional
FACTS: must show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the
RA 9369 is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Constitution, not merely a doubtful, speculative or
Bill No. 5352 passed by the Senate on 7 December 2006 and argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must fail.In this
the House of Representatives on 19 December 2006. On 23 case, petitioner failed to justify why RA 9369 and the assailed
January 2007, less than four months before the 14 May 2007 provisions should be declared unconstitutional.
local elections, the President signed RA 9369. Two
newspapers of general circulation, Malaya and Business 1. RA 9369 does not violate Section 26(1),
Mirror, published RA 9369 on 26 January 2007. RA 9369 thus Article VI of the Constitution.
took effect on 10 February 2007.

Petitioner alleges that the title of RA 9369 is misleading

On May 7, 2007, petitioner, a duly accredited multi-sectoral because it speaks of poll automation but contains substantial
organization, filed this petition for prohibition alleging that RA provisions dealing with the manual canvassing of election
9369 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the returns. Petitioner also alleges that Sections 34, 37, 38, and
Constitution.Petitioner also assails the constitutionality of 43 are neither embraced in the title nor germane to the
Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 of RA 9369. According to subject matter of RA 9369.Both the COMELEC and the OSG
petitioner, these provisions are of questionable application maintain that the title of RA 9369 is broad enough to
and doubtful validity for failing to comply with the provisions encompass topics which deal not only with the automation
of the Constitution. process but with everything related to its purpose
The COMELEC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) encouraging a transparent, credible, fair, and accurate
filed their respective Comments. At the outset, both maintain elections.The constitutional requirement that "every bill
that RA 9369 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, save passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which
for the prayer of the COMELEC to declare Section 43 as shall be expressed in the title thereof" has always been given
unconstitutional. a practical rather than a technical construction.The

32
requirement is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough In Pimentel III v. COMELEC, we already discussed the
to include subjects related to the general purpose which the implications of the amendments introduced by Sections 37
statute seeks to achieve.The title of a law does not have to and 38 to Sections 15 and 3019 of RA 7166, respectively and
be an index of its contents and will suffice if the matters we declared:Indeed, this Court recognizes that by virtue of
embodied in the text are relevant to each other and may be the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9369 to
inferred from the title.Moreover, a title which declares a Sections 15 and 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, pre-
statute to be an act to amend a specified code is sufficient proclamation cases involving the authenticity and due
and the precise nature of the amendatory act need not be execution of certificates of canvass are now allowed in
further stated. elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators. The
intention of Congress to treat a case falling under Section 30
of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No.
RA 9369 is an amendatory act entitled "An Act Amending 9369, as a pre-proclamation case is apparent in the fourth
Republic Act No. 8436, Entitled ‘An Act Authorizing the paragraph of the said provision which adopts and applies to
Commission on Elections to Use an Automated Election such a case the same procedure provided under Sections 17,
System in the May 11, 1998 National or Local Elections and in 18, 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 7166 on pre-proclamation
Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises, to controversies.
Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and Accuracy
of Elections, Amending for the Purpose Batas PambansaBlg.
881, as Amended, Republic Act No. 7166 and Other Related In sum, in the elections for President, Vice-President,
Election Laws, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, the
Purposes.’" Clearly, the subject matter of RA 9369 covers the general rule is still that pre-proclamation cases on matters
amendments to RA 8436, Batas PambansaBlg. 881 (BP 881), relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
Republic Act No. 7166 (RA 7166),and other related election appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass are
laws to achieve its purpose of promoting transparency, still prohibited. As with other general rules, there are
credibility, fairness, and accuracy in the elections. The recognized exceptions to the prohibition, namely: (1)
provisions of RA 9369 assailed by petitioner deal with correction of manifest errors; (2) questions affecting the
amendments to specific provisions of RA 7166 and BP 881, composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers; and
specifically: (1) Sections 34, 37 and 38 amend Sections 26, (3) determination of the authenticity and due execution of
30 and 15 of RA 7166, respectively; and (2) Section 43 of RA certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of Republic
9369 amends Section 265 of BP 881. Therefore, the assailed Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369.In the
provisions are germane to the subject matter of RA 9369 present case, Congress and the COMELEC en banc do
which is to amend RA 7166 and BP 881, among others. not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the
SET. There is no conflict of jurisdiction since the
2. Sections 37 and 38 do not violate Section 17, powers of Congress and the COMELEC en banc, on one
Article VI and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article hand, and the PET and the SET, on the other, are
VII of the Constitution. exercised on different occasions and for different
purposes. The PET is the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
Petitioner’s Arguments: that Sections 37 and 38 violate the President or Vice President. The SET is the sole
the Constitution by impairing the powers of the Presidential judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal and qualifications of members of the Senate. The
(SET). According to petitioner, under the amended provisions, jurisdiction of the PET and the SET can only be invoked
Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the election once the winning presidential, vice presidential or
of President and Vice President (Congress), and the COMELEC senatorial candidates have been proclaimed. On the
en banc as the National Board of Canvassers (COMELEC en other hand, under Section 37, Congress and the
banc), for the election of Senators may now entertain pre- COMELEC en banc shall determine only the
proclamation cases in the election of the President, Vice authenticity and due execution of the certificates of
President, and Senators. Petitioner concludes that in canvass. Congress and the COMELEC en banc shall
entertaining pre-proclamation cases, Congress and the exercise this power before the proclamation of the
COMELEC en banc undermine the independence and encroach winning presidential, vice presidential, and senatorial
upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET. candidates.

COMELEC and OSG’s Arguments: The COMELEC 3. Section 43 does not violate Section 2(6),
maintains that the amendments introduced by Section 37 Article IX-C of the Constitution
pertain only to the adoption and application of the procedures Both petitioner and the COMELEC argue that the Constitution
on pre-proclamation controversies in case of any discrepancy, vests in the COMELEC the "exclusive power" to investigate
incompleteness, erasure or alteration in the certificates of and prosecute cases of violations of election laws. Petitioner
canvass. The COMELEC adds that Section 37 does not provide and the COMELEC allege that Section 43 is unconstitutional
that Congress and the COMELEC en banc may now entertain because it gives the other prosecuting arms of the
pre-proclamation cases for national elective posts.OSG argues government concurrent power with the COMELEC to
that the Constitution does not prohibit pre-proclamation cases investigate and prosecute election offenses.We do not
involving national elective posts. According to the OSG,only agree with petitioner and the COMELEC that the
Section 15 of RA 7166 expressly disallows pre-proclamation Constitution gave the COMELEC the "exclusive power"
cases involving national elective posts but this provision was to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of
subsequently amended by Section 38 of RA 9369. election laws.Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution
vests in the COMELEC the power to "investigate and, where

33
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, because this only applies to previously perfected contracts. In
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, this case, there is no perfected contact and, therefore, no
offenses, and malpractices." The grant of the "exclusive obligation will be impaired.Both the COMELEC and the OSG
power" to the COMELEC can be found in Section 265 of BP argue that the law is a proper exercise of police power and it
881, which provides:The Commission shall, through its duly will prevail over a contract. According to the COMELEC, poll
authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct watching is not just an ordinary contract but is an agreement
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable with the solemn duty to ensure the sanctity of votes. The role
under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission of poll watchers is vested with public interest which can be
may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the regulated by Congress in the exercise of its police power. The
government: Provided, however, That in the event that the OSG further argues that the assurance that the poll watchers
Commission fails to act on any complaint within four months will receive fair and equitable compensation promotes the
from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint with general welfare. The OSG also states that this was a
the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper reasonable regulation considering that the dominant majority
investigation and prosecution, if warranted. and minority parties will secure a copy of the election returns
and are given the right to assign poll watchers inside the
polling precincts.
We also note that while Section 265 of BP 881 vests in the
COMELEC the "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary
investigations and prosecute election offenses, it likewise There is no violation of the non-impairment clause.
authorizes the COMELEC to avail itself of the assistance of a. First, the non- impairment clause is limited in
other prosecuting arms of the government. In the 1993 application to laws that derogate from prior acts or
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the authority of the COMELEC contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner
was subsequently qualified and explained.The 1993 COMELEC changing the intention of the parties.There is
Rules of Procedure provides in Rule 34 (Prosecution of impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms
Election Offenses) Section 1: Authority of the Commission to of a contract between the parties, imposes new
Prosecute Election Offenses. - The Commission shall have the conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the
election offenses punishable under the election laws and to rights of the parties.As observed by the OSG, there
prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by is no existing contract yet and, therefore, no
law.It is clear that the grant of the "exclusive power" to enforceable right or demandable obligation will be
investigate and prosecute election offenses to the COMELEC impaired. RA 9369 was enacted more than three
was not by virtue of the Constitution but by BP 881, a months prior to the 14 May 2007 elections. Hence,
legislative enactment. If the intention of the framers of the when the dominant majority and minority parties
Constitution were to give the COMELEC the "exclusive power" hired their respective poll watchers for the 14 May
to investigate and prosecute election offenses, the framers 2007 elections, they were deemed to have
would have expressly so stated in the Constitution. They did incorporated in their contracts all the provisions of
not. RA 9369.
b. Second, it is settled that police power is superior to
In People v. Basilla, we acknowledged that without the the non-impairment clause.34 The constitutional
assistance of provincial and city fiscals and their assistants guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is limited
and staff members, and of the state prosecutors of the by the exercise of the police power of the State, in
Department of Justice, the prompt and fair investigation and the interest of public health, safety, morals, and
prosecution of election offenses committed before or in the general welfare of the community.
course of nationwide elections would simply not be possible.In c. In Beltran v. Secretary of Health, we said:The
COMELEC v. Español, we also stated that enfeebled by lack of freedom to contract is not absolute; all
funds and the magnitude of its workload, the COMELEC did contracts and all rights are subject to the police
not have a sufficient number of legal officers to conduct such power of the State and not only may regulations
investigation and to prosecute such cases.The prompt which affect them be established by the State, but
investigation, prosecution, and disposition of election offenses all such regulations must be subject to change from
constitute an indispensable part of the task of securing free, time to time, as the general well-being of the
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.Thus, given community may require, or as the circumstances
the plenary power of the legislature to amend or may change, or as experience may demonstrate the
repeal laws, if Congress passes a law amending necessity.
Section 265 of BP 881, such law does not violate the Therefore, assuming there were existing contracts, Section 34
Constitution. would still be constitutional because the law was enacted in
the exercise of the police power of the State to promote the
general welfare of the people. We agree with the COMELEC
4. Section 34 does not violate Section 10, that the role of poll watchers is invested with public interest.
Article III of the Constitution In fact, even petitioner concedes that poll watchers not only
guard the votes of their respective candidates or political
Petitioner argues that this violates the freedom of the parties parties but also ensure that all the votes are properly counted.
to contract and their right to fix the terms and conditions of Ultimately, poll watchers aid in fair and honest elections. Poll
the contract they see as fair, equitable and just. Petitioner watchers help ensure that the elections are transparent,
adds that this is a purely private contract using private funds credible, fair, and accurate. The regulation of the per diem of
which cannot be regulated by law. The OSG argues that the poll watchers of the dominant majority and minority
petitioner erroneously invoked the non-impairment clause parties promotes the general welfare of the community and is

34
a valid exercise of police power. The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec
was reflected in Section 265 of BP Blg. 881 or the Omnibus
Election Code, to wit:
Arroyo vs Department of Justice,
GR No. 199082, 199085, 199118 SEC. 265.Prosecution. — The Commission shall, through its
September 18, 2012 duly authorized legalofficers, have the power, concurrent with
the other prosecuting arms of thegovernment, to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable
Facts: underthis Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission
The Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and may availof the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the government: Provided, however, That inthe event that the
2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and Commission fails to act on any complaint within four months
manipulation cases. In its Initial Report, the Fact-Finding from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint with
Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May the office of the fiscal or with the Ministryof Justice for proper
14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
South Cotabato, and Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated. It
recommended that Petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, Former Under the above provision of law, the power to conduct
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Mike Arroyo be preliminary investigation is vested exclusively with the
subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage Comelec. The latter, however, was given by the same
and manipulating the election results. provision of law with the authority to avail itself of the
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.
Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of
Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ are given continuing authority as deputies to conduct
of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint preliminary investigation of complaints involving election
Panel. offenses under the election laws and to prosecute the same.
The complaints may be filed directly with them or may be
Petitioners claim that in creating the Joint Panel, the Comelec indorsed to them by the petitioner or its duly authorized
has effectively abdicated its constitutional mandate to representatives.
investigate and, where appropriate, to prosecute cases of
violation of election laws including acts or omissions Section 1, 95 Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution expressly
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices in describes all the Constitutional Commissions
favor of the Executive Department acting through the DOJ as independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they
Secretary. Under the set-up, the Comelec personnel is placed are not under the control of the President ofthe Philippines in
under thesupervision and control of the DOJ. The chairperson the discharge of their respective functions. 96 The
is a DOJ official. Thus, the Comelec has willingly surrendered Constitution envisions a truly independentComelec committed
its independence to the DOJ and has acceded to share its to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
exercise of judgment and discretionwith the Executive Branch. elections and to serve as the guardian of the people's sacred
right of suffrage — the citizenry's vital weapon in effecting a
Issue: peaceful change of government and in achieving and
Does the creation of the Joint Committee, which fuses the promoting political stability.
Comelec (a constitutionally independent body) with the
Department of Justice (a political agent of the executive), The grant of exclusive power to investigate and prosecute
demolish the independence of the Comelec provided in Article casesof election offenses to the Comelec was not by virtue of
IX (A), Sections 1 and 2 and IX (C) of the Constitution? the Constitution but by the Omnibus Election Codewhich was
eventually amended by Section 43 of R.A. 9369. Thus, the
Held: DOJ now conducts preliminaryinvestigation of election
Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates offenses concurrently with the Comelec and no longer as mere
the powers and functions of the Comelec. deputies. If theprosecutors had been allowed to conduct
Paragraph (6) thereof vests in the Comelec the power to: preliminary investigation and file the necessary information
byvirtue only of a delegated authority, they now have better
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, grounds to perform such function by virtue of thestatutory
petitions in court for inclusion orexclusion of voters; grant of authority. If deputation was justified because of lack
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of of funds and legal officers to ensureprompt and fair
violations of electionlaws, including acts or omissions investigation and prosecution of election offenses, the same
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices. justification should be cited tojustify the grant to the other
prosecuting arms of the government of such concurrent
The grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and jurisdiction.
prosecute election offenses as an adjunct to theenforcement
and administration of all election laws is intended to enable The only arrangement constitutionally possible, given the
the Comelec to effectively insureto the people the free, independence of the COMELEC anddespite Section 42 of RA
orderly, and honest conduct of elections. The failure of the 9369, is for the DOJ to be a mere deputy or delegate of the
Comelec to exercise thispower could result in the frustration COMELEC andnot a co-equal partner in the investigation and
of the true will of the people and make a mere idle ceremony prosecution of election offenses WHENEVERTHE COMELEC
of thesacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. ITSELF DIRECTLY ACTS. While the COMELEC and the DOJ
have equal jurisdiction toinvestigate and prosecute election
offenses (subject to the rule that the body or agency that first

35
takescognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to media facilities, in connection with “public information
the exclusion of the others), 68 the COMELEC —whenever it campaigns and forums among candidates.”
directly acts in the fact-finding and preliminary investigation
of elections offences — can stillwork with the DOJ and seek It is frequently said that the rights of freedom of speech and
its assistance without violating its constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press are accorded preferred status in our
independence,but it can only do so as the principal in a constitutional hierarchy. However, such are not unlimited
principal-delegate relationship with the DOJ where thelatter rights for they are not the only important and relevant values
acts as the delegate. even in the most democratic of polities. Equality of
opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without regard
to the level of financial resources that one may have at one’s
disposal, is clearly an important value. One of the basic state
policies given constitutional rank by Article II, Section 26 of
National Press Club vs Comelec the Constitution is the egalitarian demand that "the State shall
GR No. 102653 guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and
March 5, 1992 prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

The technical effect of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution

Facts: may be seen to be that no presumption of invalidity arises in
Section 11(b) of Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 provides that respect of exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on
“it shall be unlawful for any newspapers, radio broadcasting the part of the Comelec for the purpose of securing equal
or television station, other mass media, or any person making opportunity among candidates for political office, although
use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print such supervision or regulation may result in some limitation
space or air time for campaign or other political purposes of the rights of free speech and free press.
except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and
92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, Section 11(b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of
commentator, announcer or personality who is a candidate for supervision or regulation of media operations during election
any elective public office shall take a leave of absence from periods. First, it is limited in the duration of its applicability
his work as such during the campaign period.” and enforceability. Secondly, it is limited in its scope of
application- it purports to apply only to the purchase and sale,
Petitioners argued that Section 11(b) of RA No. 6646 invades including purchase and sale disguised as a donation; Section
and violates the constitutional guarantees comprising 11 (b) is not to be read as reaching any report or commentary
freedom of expression. They maintained that the prohibition other coverage that, in responsible media, is not paid for by
imposed by said section amounts to censorship, and in candidates for political office, rather it should be read as
derogation of media’s role, function and duty to provide designed to cover only paid political advertisements of
adequate channels of public information and public opinion particular candidates.
relevant to election issues. Moreover, petitioners contended
that the said section abridges the freedom of speech of The limiting impact of Section 11(b) upon the right to free
candidates, and that the suppression of media-based speech of the candidates may be seen to be not unduly
campaign or political propaganda except those appearing in repressive or unreasonable for there is nothing in the said
the Comelec space of the newspapers and on Comelec time section to prevent media reporting of and commentary on
of radio and television broadcasts, would bring about a pronouncements, activities, written statements of the
substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of information candidates.
concerning candidates and issues in the election thereby
curtailing and limiting the right of voters to information and
opinion. Osmena vs Comelec
288 SCRA 447
Issue: March 31, 1998
Is Section 11(b) unconstitutional?

Ruling: Facts:
The objective which animates Section 11 (b) is the equalizing Emilio Osmena and other petitioners are candidates in the
the situations of rich and poor candidates by preventing the National Elections. R.A. No. 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law
former from enjoying the undue advantage offered by huge of 1987, prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of
campaign “war chests”. Such objective is of special charge print space or air time for campaign or other political
importance and urgency in a country which is characterized purposes, except to the Commission on Elections. They
by extreme disparity in income distribution between the contend that events after the ruling in National Press Club v.
economic elite and the rest of society. Commission on Elections “have called into question the
validity of the very premises of that decision. NPC v. COMELEC
Comelec, as provided in Article IX(C)(4) of the 1987 upheld the validity of R.A. No. 6646 against claims that it
Constitution, has been expressly authorized by the abridged freedom of speech and of the press. In urging a
Constitution to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or reexamination of that ruling, petitioners claim that experience
utilization of the franchises or permits for the operation of in the last five years since the decision in that case has shown
media of communication and information. The fundamental the “undesirable effects” of the law because “the ban on
purpose of such supervision or regulation is to ensure equal political advertising has not only failed to level the playing
opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, as well field, but actually worked to the grave disadvantage of the
as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such poor candidate[s]” by depriving them of a medium which they
can afford to pay for while their more affluent rivals can

36
always resort to other means of reaching voters like airplanes, be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates
boats, rallies, parades, and handbills. However, no empirical within the area of coverage of all radio and television
data were presented by the petitioners to back up their claim. stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio
They instead they make arguments from which it is clear that broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so
their disagreement is with the opinion of the Court on the as to provide radio or television time, free of charge, during
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6646 and that what they seek is the period of campaign.”
a reargument on the same issue already decided in that case.

Issue: Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law

Whether or not upholding the validity of RA 6646 actually requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and
worked in favor of richer candidates magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time
shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus it
Held: contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television
No, stations to provide free air time.
Petition DISMISSED
Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several
Ratio: million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with
It is incorrect to claim that the purpose of RA 6646 is equality the 1992 presidential election and 1995 senatorial election
of the candidates when what its provisions really speak of is and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to
equality in opportunity. do so again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary
source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the
The main purpose of the RA is regulatory. Any restriction on sale of air time to advertisers and to require these stations to
speech is only incidental, and it is no more than is necessary provide free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private
to achieve its purpose of promoting equality of opportunity in property. According to petitioners, in 1992 it lost
the use of mass media for political advertising. The restriction P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for one hour each
on speech, as pointed out in NPC, is limited both as to time day and, in this year’s elections, it stands to lost
and as to scope. P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELEC’s requirement that it
provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.
Assuming that rich candidates can spend for parades, rallies,
motorcades, airplanes and the like in order to campaign while Issue:
poor candidates can only afford political ads, the gap between Whether of not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and
the two will not necessarily be reduced by allowing unlimited television broadcast companies the equal protection of the
mass media advertising because rich candidates can spend for laws
other propaganda in addition to mass media Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking
advertising. Moreover, it is not true that §11(b) has of property without due process of law and without just
abolished the playing field. What it has done, as already compensation
stated, is merely to regulate its use through COMELEC-
sponsored advertising in place of advertisements paid for by Held:
candidates or donated by their supporters. Petitioner’s argument is without merit. All broadcasting,
whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the
government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as
there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the are frequencies to assign. Radio and television broadcasting
Phils. vs COMELEC companies, which are given franchises, do not own the
GR No. 132922 airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit
April 21, 1998 broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the
(289 SCRA 337) temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the
privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance
by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the
privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio
Facts: and television stations, the state spends considerable public
Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of funds in licensing and supervising them.
the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers
of radio and television broadcasting companies. It was The argument that the subject law singles out radio and
declared to be without legal standing to sue in this case as, television stations to provide free air time as against
among other reasons, it was not able to show that it was to newspapers and magazines which require payment of just
suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise
subject law. Petitioner GMA Network, on the other hand, had without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires
the requisite standing to bring the constitutional spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of
challenge. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast print media. To require the broadcast industry to provide free
stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry
Section 92, B.P. No. 881. gets.

Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the
which provides: airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that
“Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and they provide air time to the COMELEC.
television time to be known as the “Comelec Time” which shall

37
 of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any
Sarmiento vs Ong of it Divisions
212 SCRA 307
Held:
The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of
petitioners in the above mentioned Special Cases without first
Facts: referring them to any of its Divisions.
This Special civil action for certiorari seeks to set aside the
Resolutions of Respondent Commission on Elections Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution
(COMELEC) in the following Special Cases: expressly provides:

1) G.R. No. 105628 — SPC No. 92-266 granting the appeal Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in
from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac, two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
Catanduanes which ordered the exclusion from the canvass order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
of one (1) election return; proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
2) G.R. No. 105725 — SPC No. 92-323 reversing the ruling of reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
the City Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered the Commission en banc.
exclusion from the canvass of six (6) election returns and in Said Resolutions are therefore, null and void and must be set
UND No. 92-243 ordering the said Board of Canvassers to aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before
include in the canvass the election returns involved therein; the Commission for proper referral to a Division.

3) G.R. No. 105727 — SPC No. 92-288 dismissing the appeal A resolution directing the COMELEC to assign said Special
of petitioner from the ruling of the Provincial Board of Cases to the Divisions pursuant to Section 8, Rule 3 of its
Canvassers of Catanduanes which ordered the inclusion in the Rules on assignment of cases would, logically, be in order.
canvass the certificate of canvass for the municipality of Virac, However, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 6 provides that all pre-
excluding the returns from 48 precincts; proclamation cases pending before it shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved.
4) G.R. No. 105730 — SPC No. 92-315 affirming the ruling of The terms of the offices involved in the Special Cases subject
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban, of these petitions commenced at noon of June 30 1992. These
Camarines Norte which dismissed petitioner's opposition to cases have thus been rendered moot and such a resolution
the composition of the said Municipal Board of Canvassers; would only be an exercise in futility.

5) G.R. No. 105771 — SPC No. 92-271 affirming the ruling of Therefore, the instant petitions are DISMISSED but without
the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, Camarines Sur prejudice to the filing by petitioners of regular elections
which, among others, rejected petitioner's objection to certain protests. If the winning candidates for the positions involved
election returns; in the Special Cases subject of these petitions have already
been proclaimed, the running of the period to file the protests
6) G.R. No. 105778 — SPC No. 92-039 dismissing said case shall be deemed suspended by the pendency of such cases
for non-compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166; before the COMELEC and of these petitions before this Court.

7) G.R. No. 105797 — SPC No. 92-153 affirming the rulings of

the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Davao Oriental which Ong, Jr. vs Comelec
rejected petitioner's objections to the canvass of some GR No. 105717
certificates of canvass; December 23, 1992

8) G.R. No. 105919 — SPC No. 92-293 dismissing petitioner's

appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers
of UpiNuro, Maguindanao; Facts:
Petitioner Ong and private respondent Lucero were
9) G.R. No. 105977 — SPC No. 92-087 denying the amended candidates for the congressional seat of the 2nd district of
pre-proclamation petition, which is an appeal from the rulings Northern Samar during the May 1992 elections. Ong garnered
of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and 204 more votes than Lucero. Subsequently, Lucero filed a
denying a subsequent motion to resolve the issues raised in petition with the Comelec for the suspension of the
said amended petition. proclamation of Ong and for a recount of some precincts with
prayer for the holding of special elections. Acting on the
Petitioners impugn the challenged resolutions above saying petition, the Comelec en banc ordered the Provincial Board of
that they had been issued with grave abuse of discretion on Canvassers not to reconvene and to stop the canvassing of
the ground that the commission took cognisance of the votes, considering the “pendency of a pre-proclamation
appeals without first referring them to any of its divisions. controversy before the Comelec.” In a subsequent resolution,
the Comelec also granted Lucero’s prayer for a recounting of
Issue: votes. Hence, Ong filed a petition for certiorari on the ground
Whether the challenged Resolutions above specified (the SPC) that the Comelec en banc committed grave abuse of
as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in that, discretion in ordering the Chairman of the Provincial Board of
inter alia, the Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance Canvassers of Northern Samar not to reconvene and in
granting a recount of the ballots.

38
 The Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Sec. 3, Art. IX-
Held: C, of the Constitutionapplies only when the COMELEC acts in
Election cases involving pre-proclamation controversies must the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions and
first be heard and decided by a division of the Comelec, the not when it merely exercises purely administrative functions.
Comelec en banc having no authority to hear and decide them It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
in the first instance. powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide
cases first by Division and then, upon motion for
While we agree with petitioner with regard to the COMELEC
reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is
en banc's power to rule on the question of holding special
elections for precinct 13 as clearly provided by Section 4 of jurisdictional. In the instant case, the issues presented
Republic Act No. 7166, we rule that the COMELEC en banc demand only the exercise by the COMELEC of its
gravely abused its jurisdiction when it ordered a recount in administrative functions, because to reiterate the grounds
precincts 7 and 16 because these are matters which should cited by Canicosa in his petition are that: (a) the names of the
have been first referred to its division, thus contravening registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their
Section 3 (c) Article 9 of the 1987 Constitution which expressly respective precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate
provides: "Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en registered voters were not able to vote with strangers voting
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, actually received; (d) the control data of the election returns
including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election was not filled up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought
cases shall be heard and decided in a division, provided that to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e.,
motions for reconsideration of decision shall be decided by the
without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there
Commission en banc."
was delay in the delivery of election returns.
By now it is well-settled that election cases which include pre-
proclamation controversies must first be heard and decided Clearly, all these matters require the exercise by the COMELEC
by a division of the Commission. The Commission en banc of its administrative functions. Section 2, Art. IX-C, of the
does not have the authority to hear and decide it in the first 1987 Constitution grants extensive administrative powers to
instance. the COMELEC with regard to the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of elections.

Canicosa vs COMELEC
GR No. 120318 Ramirez vs Comelec
December 5, 1997 270 SCRA 590

FACTS:
Facts: Ramirez and Alfredo I. Go were candidates for vice mayor of
Petitioner Ricardo Canicosa and private respondent Giporlos, Eastern Samar in the election of May 8, 1995.
Petitioner was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of
SeverinoLajara were candidates for mayor in Calamba,
Canvassers (MBC) on the basis of results showing that he
Laguna during the May 8, 1995 elections. After the
obtained 1,367 votes against private respondents 1,235
canvassing, private respondent was proclaimed winner by the votes.On May 16, 1995, private respondent filed in the
Municipal Board of Canvasser. Thereafter, petitioner filed with COMELEC a petition for the correction of what he claimed was
the COMELEC a petition to declare failure of election and to manifest error in the Statement of Votes. By August 1995, the
declare null and void the canvass and proclamation because COMELEC en banc issued its first questioned resolution,
of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and directing the MBC to reconvene and recompute the votes in
accounting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence, the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning candidate
threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting for vice mayor of Giporlos, Eastern Samar accordingly.
and delay in the delivery of election documents and Petitioner Jose C. Ramirez and public respondent Municipal
paraphernalia from the precincts to the office of the Municipal Board of Canvassers then filed separate motions for
Treasurer. In its decision, the COMELEC En banc dismissed clarification. By the COMELEC en banc issued its second
the petition on the ground that the allegations therein did not questioned resolution, reiterating its earlier ruling. It rejected
the MBCs recommendation to resort to election returns.
justify a declaration of failure of election. Canicosa insists that
Hence this petition.
it was error on the part of COMELEC sitting En banc to rule on
his petition. He maintains that his petition should have first ISSUE:
been heard by a division of COMELEC and later by the Whether or not the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction over
COMELEC En banc upon motion for reconsideration, pursuant SPC No. 95-198 because the case was resolved by it without
to Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the Constitution. having been first acted upon by any of its divisions?

Issue: HELD:
Whether the petition of Canicosa should be first heard by a Art. IX, 3 of the Constitution provides:
division before raising it to COMELEC En Banc The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order
Ruling: to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-

39
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be GR No. 84297
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for December 8, 1988
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Comelec
en banc. (Emphasis added)
Facts:
On the other hand, Rule 27, 5 of the 1993 Rules of the Petitioner and private respondent were among the candidates
COMELEC expressly provides that pre-proclamation for Representative of the first district of Pampanga during the
controversies involving, inter alia, manifest errors in the elections of May 11, 1987. During the canvassing of the votes,
tabulation or tallying of the results may be filed directly with private respondent objected to the inclusion of certain
the COMELEC en banc.Accordinglyin Castromayor v. election returns. But since the Municipal Board of Canvassers
Commission on Elections, and Mentang v. Commission on did not rule on his objections, he brought his case to the
Elections,this Court approved the assumption of jurisdiction Commission on Elections. On May 19, 1987, the COMELEC
by the COMELEC en banc over petitions for correction of ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to suspend the
manifest error directly filed with it. Our decision today proclamation of the winning candidate for the first district of
in Torres v.COMELECagain gives imprimatur to the exercise Pampanga. However, on May 26, 1987, the COMELEC ordered
by the COMELEC en banc of the power to decide petition for the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the
correction of manifest error. canvassing of votes and to proclaim the winner. On May 27,
1987, petitioner was proclaimed as Congressman-elect.
In any event, petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of
jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc. Not only did he On September 15, 1987, the COMELEC declared petitioner's
participate in the proceedings below but he also sought proclamation void ab initio. Petitioner challenged the
affirmative relief from the COMELEC en banc by filing a COMELEC resolution before this Court in a petition entitled
Counter-Protest in which he asked that entr[ies] in the "Carmelo F. Lazatin v. The Commission on Elections,
statement of votes for Precinct Nos. 11, 11-A, 6, 1, 17, 7 and Francisco R. Buan, Jr. and Lorenzo G. Timbol," docketed
10, be properly corrected for the petitioner, to reflect the as G.R. No. 80007. In a decision promulgated on January 25,
correct mandate of the electorate of Giporlos, Eastern Samar. 1988, the Court set aside the COMELEC's revocation of
It is certainly not right for a party taking part in proceedings petitioner's proclamation. On February 8, 1988, private
and submitting his case for decision to attack the decision respondent filed in the House of Representatives Electoral
later for lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "HRET") an election
decision turns out to be adverse to him. protest, docketed as Case No. 46.

Petitioner moved to dismiss private respondent's protest on

the ground that it had been filed late, citing Sec. 250 of
Lazatin vs Comelec the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). However, the
GR No. L-80007 HRET ruled that the protest had been filed on time in
January 25, 1988 accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules.

Petitioner relies on Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code,

Facts: which provides:
Petitioner filed the instant petition assailing the jurisdiction of Sec. 250. Election contests for BatasangPambansa, regional,
the COMELEC to annul his proclamation after he had taken his provincial and city offices. — A sworn petition contesting the
oath of office, assumed office, and discharged the duties of election of any Member of the BatasangPambansa or any
Congressman of the First District of Pampanga. The petitioner regional, provincial or city official shall be filed with the
claims that the House Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC Commission by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate
is the sole judge of all election contests. (Sec. 17 Art. 6 of the of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within
1987 Constitution) ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

Issue: On the other hand, the HRET relied on Sec. 9 of its Rules, to
May the petition be given due course because there was a wit:
valid proclamation? Election contests arising from the 1987 Congressional
elections shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of the
Ruling: Tribunal or mailed at the post office as registered matter
The petition is impressed with merit because petitioner has addressed to the Secretary of the Tribunal, together with
been proclaimed winner of the Congressional elections in the twelve (12) legible copies thereof plus one (1) copy for each
first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath of office as such, protestee, within fifteen (15) days from the effectivity of these
and assumed his duties as Congressman. For this Court to Rules on November 22, 1987 where the proclamation has
take cognizance of the electoral protest against him would be been made prior to the effectivity of these Rules, otherwise,
to usurp the functions of the House Electoral Tribunal. The the same may be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date
alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which had been of the proclamation. Election contests arising from the 1987
previously ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged Congressional elections filed with the Secretary of the House
irregularities in connection therewith, and despite the of Representatives and transmitted by him to the Chairman of
pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a matter the Tribunal shall be deemed filed with the Tribunal as of the
that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound date of effectivity of these Rules, subject to payment of filing
judgment of the Electoral Tribunal. fees as prescribed in Section 15 hereof.

Issue:
Lazatin vs HRET Whether or not the petition was filed on time with HRET?

40
 in the non-recording or copying of the results in 14 election
Held: returns from 14 precincts into the statement of votes.
The Court is of the view that the protest had been filed on
time and, hence, the HRET acquired jurisdiction over it. At 4:15 in the afternoon on May 28, 1998, the district board
of canvassers convened at the Philippine International
Petitioner's reliance on Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Convention Center. It took up private respondent's petition to
Code is misplaced. Sec. 250 is couched in unambiguous terms correct the manifest error arising from the non-inclusion of 19
and needs no interpretation. It applies only to petitions election returns in the canvass. After examining the statement
filed before the COMELEC contesting the election of any of votes by precinct and the certificate of canvass signed and
Member of the BatasangPambansa, or any regional, provincial thumbmarked by three watchers from different parties, the
or city official. Furthermore, Sec. 250 should be read together district board of canvassers found that a total of 804 election
with Sec. 249 of the same code which provides that the returns were canvassed by the Malabon municipal board of
COMELEC "shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to canvassers.
the elections, returns and qualifications of all Members of the
BatasangPambansa, elective regional, provincial and city The district board of canvassers then proceeded to canvass
officials," reiterating Art. XII-C, Sec. 2(2) of the 1973 the certificates of canvass from the two municipalities. After
Constitution. It must be emphasized that under the 1973 canvassing the municipal certificates of canvass, the district
Constitution there was no provision for an Electoral Tribunal, board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the duly elected
the jurisdiction over election contests involving Members of congressman of the legislative district of Malabon-Navotas.
the BatasangPambansa having been vested in the COMELEC. Petitioner took his oath of office on the same day.

The power of the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests Private respondent filed with the COMELEC an Urgent Petition
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the docketed as SPC No.98-206. The petition sought the
Members of the House of Representatives, to promulgate annulment of, petitioner's proclamation as congressman. It
rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction, alleged that at about 4:00 in the afternoon on May 28, 1998,
including the period for filing election protests before it, is the COMELEC Chairman directed the district board of
beyond dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from canvassers to suspend the canvass and proclamation pending
the general power granted it by the Constitution. The the resolution of the petition for correction of manifest error
inescapable conclusion from the foregoing is that it is well in the municipal certificate of canvass of Malabon; that the
within the power of the HRET to prescribe the period within district board of canvassers still proceeded with the canvass
which protests may be filed before it. in spite of the order; that the proclamation was made despite
the non-inclusion of election returns from 19 precincts in
Malabon; and that the non-inclusion of these election returns
Sandoval vs Comelec will materially affect the result of the election. Private
GR No.133842 respondent prayed that the proclamation of petitioner as
January 26, 2000 congressman be annulled and that the municipal board of
canvassers of Malabon be ordered to reconvene to include the
19 election returns in the canvass.

FACTS: The COMELEC en banc issued an order setting aside the

Petitioner Federico S. Sandoval and private respondent proclamation of petitioner. The COMELEC ruled that the
Canuto Senen Greta, together with Pedro Domingo, Mariano proclamation by the district board of canvassers was void
Santiago, Symaco Benito and Warren Serna, vied for the because: (1) it was made in defiance of the verbal order by
congressional seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative district the COMELEC Chairman relayed through Executive Director
during the election held on May 11, 1998. On election day, Resurrection Z. Borra to suspend the proclamation of the
after the votes have been cast and counted in the various winner in the congressional election until the Commission has
precincts in the two municipalities, their respective board of resolved private respondent's petition for correction of
canvassers convened to canvass the election returns manifest error in the certificate of canvass; and (2) it was
forwarded by the board of election inspectors. based on an incomplete canvass.

On May 17, 1998, the Malabon municipal board of canvassers Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari seeking the
concluded its proceedings. The board issued a certificate of annulment and reversal of said order
canvass of votes stating that it canvassed 804 out of 805
precincts in the municipality. The certificate of canvass The COMELEC filed its comment invoked its power of direct
showed that private respondent obtained the highest number control and supervision over the board of canvassers, allowing
of votes in Malabon. it to review, revise and reverse the board's actions. It said
that it rendered the questioned order upon finding that
Private respondent filed with the COMELEC an Urgent Petition petitioner's proclamation was illegal and therefore void ab
entitled "In re: Petition to Correct Manifest Error in Tabulation initio. It cited two reasons to support its findings: first, it was
of Election Returns by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of made in disregard of the Chairman's verbal order to suspend
Malabon, NCR. Canuto Tito Oreta vs. Municipal Board of the canvass and proclamation, and second, it was based on
Canvassers of Malabon." The petition was docketed as SPC an incomplete canvass.
No.98-143. It alleged that while the certificate of canvass
showed that 804 election returns were canvassed and ISSUES:
tabulated, only 790 election returns were actually canvassed. I. whether the COMELEC has the power to take cognizance of
Private respondent contended that there was a manifest error SPC No. 98-143 and SPC No. 98-206, both alleging the
existence 'of manifest error in the certificate of canvass issued

41
by the Malabon municipal board of canvassers and seeking to nature. We reiterate the long-standing rule that
reconvene said board of canvassers to allow it to correct the jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined by
alleged error; and the allegations in the petition regardless of whether
II. whether the COMELEC's order to set aside petitioner's or not the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.
proclamation was valid.
The authority to rule on petitions for correction of manifest
RULING: error is vested in the COMELEC en banc. Section 7 of Rule
I. 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that if
We uphold the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. That the error is discovered before proclamation, the board of
the Commission has jurisdiction over SPC No. 98- 143 canvassers may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any
and SPC No.98-206, both filed by private respondent seeking candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political
to correct the alleged manifest error in the certificate of parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors
canvass issued by the Malabon municipal board of canvassers. committed. The aggrieved party may appeal the decision of
As a general rule, candidates and registered political parties the board to the Commission and said appeal shall be heard
involved in an election are allowed to file pre-proclamation and decided by the Commission en banc. Section 5, however
cases before the COMELEC. Pre-proclamation cases refer to of the same rule states that a petition for correction of
any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the manifest error may be filed directly with the Commission en
board of canvassers which may be raised by, any candidate banc provided that such errors could not have been
or by any registered political party or coalition of political discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due
parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or diligence and proclamation of, the winning candidate had
any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in already been made. Thus, we held in Ramirez vs.
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and COMELEC.
appreciation of election returns. The COMELEC has exclusive
jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. As "Although in Ong, Jr. v. COMELEC it was said that 'By now it
an exception, however, to the general rule, Section 15 of is settled that election cases which include pre-proclamation
Republic Act (RA) 7166. prohibits candidates in the controversies must first be heard and decided by a division of
presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional the Commission' -- and a petition for correction of manifest
elections from filing pre-proclamation cases. It states: error in the Statement of Votes, like SPC 95-198 is a pre-
proclamation ; controversy -- in none of the cases cited to
"Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in support this proposition was the issue the correction of a
Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and manifest error in the Statement of Votes under Sec. 231 of
Members of the House of Representatives.- the Omnibus Election Code (BP. Blg. 881) or Sec. 15 of R.A.
- For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, No.7166. On the other hand, Rule 27, Sec. 5 of the 1993
Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre- Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides that pre -
proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the proclamation controversies involving, inter alia, manifest
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results may be filed
of election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case directly with the COMELEC en banc x x x."
may be. However, this does not preclude the authority
of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or Petitioner nonetheless contends that SPC No. 98-143 and SPC
upon written complaint of an interested person to No. 98-206 must be dismissed because private respondent
correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or failed to raise the issue of manifest error before the
election returns before it." appropriate board of canvassers in accordance with the
second sentence of Section 15 of RA 7166.
The prohibition aims to avoid delay in the proclamation of the
winner in the election, which delay might result in a vacuum We disagree. The issue of manifest error in the certificate of
in these sensitive posts. The law, nonetheless, provides canvass for Malabon has been raised before the district board
an exception to the exception. The second sentence of of canvassers before petitioner could be proclaimed and said
Section 15 allows the filing of petitions for correction board has in fact ruled on the issue. We find this as sufficient
of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election compliance with the law. The facts show that it was
returns even in elections for president, vice- president and impossible for private respondent to raise the issue before the
members of the House of Representatives for Malabon municipal board of canvassers as it still did not have
the simple reason that the correction of manifest error will a copy of the statement of votes and the precinct list at the
not prolong the process of canvassing nor delay the time of the canvassing in the municipal level. At that time,
proclamation of the winner in the election. This rule is private respondent still had no knowledge of the alleged
consistent with and complements the authority of the manifest error. He, however, lost no time in notifying the
COMELEC under the Constitution to, "enforce and administer COMELEC Chairman and the district board of the alleged error
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an, election, upon discovery thereof. We find petitioner's argument,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" and its power to therefore, to be devoid of merit.
"decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections." II.
Although the COMELEC is clothed with jurisdiction over the
Applying the foregoing rule, these petitions essentially allege subject matter and issue of SPC No.98-143 and SPC No. 98-
that there exists a manifest error in said certificate of canvass 206, we find the exercise of its jurisdiction tainted with
as the board failed to include several election returns in the illegality. We hold that its order to set aside the proclamation
canvassing. Private respondent prays that the board be of petitioner is invalid for having been rendered without due
reconvened to correct said error. Section 15 of RA 7166 process of law. Procedural due process demands prior notice
vests the COMELEC with jurisdiction over cases of this and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that

42
the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling. In proclamation made by the district board of canvassers for the
other words, due process requires that a party be given an position of congressman upon finding that it was tainted with
opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the illegality.
case and that the evidence should be considered in the
adjudication of the case. The facts show that COMELEC set We cannot accept public respondent's argument.
aside the proclamation of petitioner , without the benefit of Taking cognizance of private respondent's petitions for
prior notice and hearing and it rendered the questioned order annulment of petitioner's proclamation, COMELEC was not
based solely on private respondent's allegations. We held merely performing an administrative function. The
in Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC: administrative powers of the COMELEC include the power to
"Petitioner cannot be deprived of his office without due determine the number and location of polling places, appoint
process of law. Although public office is not property under election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of
Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and one voters, deputize law enforcement agencies and government
cannot acquire a vested right to public office, it is, instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
nevertheless, a protected right. Due process in proceedings credible elections, register political parties, organizations or
before the COMELEC, exercising its quasi-judicial functions, coalitions, accredit citizens' arms of the Commission,
requires due notice and hearing, among others. Thus, prosecute election offenses, and recommend to the President
although the COMELEC possesses, in appropriate cases, the the removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action
power to annul or suspend the proclamation of any candidate, upon any officer or employee it has deputized for violation or
We had ruled in Farinas vs. Commission on Elections, Reyes disregard of its directive, order or decision. In addition, the
vs. Commission on Elections and Gallardo vs. Commission on Commission also has direct control and supervision over all
Elections that the COMELEC is without power to partially or personnel involved in the conduct of election. However , the
totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a resolution of the adverse claims of private respondent
proclamation without notice and hearing." and petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest
error in the questioned certificate of canvass requires
Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code reads: the COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It behooves the
"Sec. 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all Commission to hear both parties to determine the
pre-proclamation controversies.-- The Commission shall veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the
have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the resolution
controversies. It may motu proprio or upon written petition, of this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of
and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total its quasi- judicial power. It has been said that where a
suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial
annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of
made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance with the functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than
succeeding sections." a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial. The COMELEC
therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the
The phrase "motu proprio" does not refer to the annulment of requirements of procedural due process in resolving the
proclamation but to the manner of initiating the proceedings petitions filed by private respondent.
to annul a proclamation made by the board of canvassers.
The law provides two ways by which annulment proceedings
may be initiated. It may be at the own initiative of the
COMELEC (motu proprio) or by written petition. In either Estrella vs COMELEC
case, notice and hearing is required. GR No. 160465
(2004)
We likewise reject private respondent's assertion that the
hearing held on June 9, 1998 substantially satisfies the due
process requirement. The law requires that the hearing be FACTS:
held before the COMELEC rules on the petition. Here, the 1. Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a mayoralty
public respondent first issued an order annulling the race in May 14, 2001 elections. His opponent, Romeo Estrella,
proclamation of petitioner and then set the date of the filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) an election protest
hearing. We explained in Farinas vs. COMELEC[ the which consequently annulled Salvador‘s proclamation and
pernicious effect of such procedure: declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor and eventually
"As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, 'to sanction the issued writ of execution.
immediate annulment or even the suspension of the effects
of a proclamation before the petition seeking such annulment 2. While Salvador filed a petition for certiorari before the
or suspension of its effects shall have been heard would open Commission on Elections (COMELEC), raffled to the Second
the floodgates of unsubstantiated petitions after the results Division thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of Commissioner
are known, considering the propensity of the losing Ralph Lantion, but a Status Quo Ante Order was issued.
candidates to put up all sorts of obstacles in an open display However, Commissioner Lantion voluntarily inhibited himself
of unwillingness to accept defeat, or would encourage the and designated another Commissioner to substitute him.
filing of baseless petitions not only to the damage and
prejudice of winning candidates but also to the frustration of 3. The Second Division, with the new judge, affirmed with
the sovereign will of the electorate.'" modifications the RTC decision and declared Estrella as the
duly elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for
Public respondent submits that procedural due process need Reconsideration which was elevated to the COMELEC En
not be observed in this case because it was merely exercising Banc, in which this time, Commissioner Lantion participated
its administrative power to review, revise and reverse the by virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC
actions of the board of canvassers. It set aside the En Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may not

43
participate in the Division deliberations, he will vote when the date that the notice of promulgation was issued. The
case is elevated to COMELEC En Banc. Hence, Estrella filed a resolution was served on Mr.Ang Pings counsel on May 8,
Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court. 2004.

ISSUE: Compounding the woes of Mr.Ang Ping, and despite the

Can a COMELEC Commissioner who inhibited himself in deferment of the promulgation by Commissioner Borra at a
Division deliberations participate in its En Banc deliberation? hearing on May 5, 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued on
the same date an order denying Mr.Ang Pings motion to
Ruling: dismiss. It held that the motion to dismiss was
No. The Status Quo Ante Order dated November 5, 2003 filed after the promulgation of the April 30, 2004
issued by the COMELEC En Banc is nullified. Commissioner resolution granting the petition to deny due course to Mr.Ang
Lantion‘s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot be Pings COC.
countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow
a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To On May 9, 2004, and before the expiration of the five-day
allow him to participate in the En Banc proceedings when he reglementary period, Mr.Ang Ping moved for reconsideration
previously inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any of the April 30, 2004 resolution and the case was elevated to
satisfactory justification, not only judicially unethical but the COMELEC en banc.
legally improper and absurd.
While the case was still with the COMELEC First Division, or
Since Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in on May 8, 2004, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No.
the issuance of the questioned order, thus leaving three (3) 6823, declaring moot Mr.Ang Pings Affidavit of Withdrawal,
members concurring therewith, the necessary votes of four denying due course to the substitute COC of Mrs.Ang Ping and
(4) or majority of the members of the COMELEC was not ordering the Regional Election Director to delete Mr.Ang Pings
attained. The order thus failed to comply with the number of name from the certified list of candidates. Mr.Ang Ping had no
votes necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or knowledge of the resolution.
order.
Racing against time or on May 11, 2004, the spouses Ang
Ping repaired to this Court and filed a petition
Roces vs HRET for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order,
GR No. 167499 status quo order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
September 15, 2005 docketed as G.R. No. 163259, assailing COMELEC Resolution
No. 6823.The next day or on May 12, 2004, this Court issued
a resolution requiring Roces to comment and denied the
issuance of an order suspending the proclamation.
FACTS:
Petitioner Miles Roces (Roces) and former Congressman Harry On the election day itself, the Manila City Board of
Ang Ping (Mr.Ang Ping) filed their respective certificates of Canvassers resolved not to canvass the votes for Mr. or
candidacy (COCs) for the position of Representative for the Mrs.Ang Ping citing COMELEC Resolution No. 6823. On May
3rd Congressional District of Manila in the May 2004 elections. 15, 2004, after counting only 6,347 votes out of the 150,387
On January 5, 2004, a registered voter of Manila named registered voters in the district, it proclaimed Roces winner.
Alejandro Gomez questioned Mr.Ang Pings candidacy before The spouses Ang Ping appealed the Board resolution to the
the COMELEC through a petition to deny due course or cancel COMELEC en banc and filed a petition to annul the
his COC. The petition alleged that Mr.Ang Ping proclamation but these were dismissed by COMELECs
misrepresented himself to be a natural-born citizen, hence Resolution No. 7257 and Omnibus Order of July 6, 2004.
was disqualified for the position.
On May 24, 2004, Mrs.Ang Ping filed an Election Protest Ad
Mr.Ang Ping filed with the COMELEC a Sworn Declaration of Cautelam with the House of Representatives Electoral
Withdrawal of his COC. The next day, May 4, 2004, the Tribunal (HRET), which was docketed as HRET Case No. 04-
General Counsel for the Nationalist Peoples Coalition, the 004. In her election protest, Mrs.Ang Ping alleged, among
political party of Mr.Ang Ping, sought that Mr.Ang Pings wife, others, that COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 was a glaring case
Ma. ZenaidaAng Ping (Mrs.Ang Ping), substitute for of deprivation of Mr. and Mrs.Ang Pings right to elevate SPC
him. Mr.Ang Ping also filed a motion to cancel the scheduled 04-224 to the Commission en banc and that the COMELECs
promulgation and dismiss the petition to deny due course or April 30, 2004 resolution was irregularly promulgated. Roces
cancel his COC on the same date. On May 5, 2004, filed his answer alleging, among others, that the HRET has no
Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra deferred the jurisdiction over the case.
promulgation for lack of quorum as he was the sole
Commissioner in attendance. Mrs.Ang Ping explained that the issue of whether the
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
Despite all these developments, the COMELEC First COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 may be ventilated as one of
Division, through Commissioners Rufino S.B. Javier, the issues to be settled in the HRET Election Protest since the
Resurreccion Z. Borra, and Virgilio O. Garcilliano, issued non-canvassing of the Ang Ping votes and the proclamation
a resolution granting the petition to deny due course to of petitioner Roces were founded on COMELEC Resolution No.
Mr.Ang Pings COC and ordering the Board of Election 6823 and were raised as the principal issues in the HRET
Inspectors of Manila not to count any vote cast in his favor. It Election Protest.
ruled that the resolution which was originally scheduled for
promulgation by Commissioner Garcilliano on May 5, On August 10, 2004, this Court dismissed G.R. No. 163259 in
2004 was instead promulgated on April 30, 2004, the same view of the pending HRET protest filed by Mrs.Ang Ping. The

44
resolution eventually became final and executory. Thereafter, purpose, it cannot be said that the HRET usurped the
Mrs.Ang Ping filed in the HRET a motion to convert the ad jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
cautelam protest to a regular protest. The HRET granted the On the merits of the HRET ruling, we hold that the HRET did
motion on September 9, 2004. not abuse its discretion in holding that Mrs.Ang Ping is a
proper party to contest the election of Roces. Under COMELEC
After extensive oral arguments, the HRET denied Rocess rules, the procedure of promulgation of a decision or
motion to dismiss on March 3, 2005. It ruled that Mrs.Ang resolution is as follows:
Ping was a proper party to file the protest against Roces SECTION 5. Promulgation. The promulgation of a decision or
since: (1) there was no final COMELEC resolution disqualifying resolution of the Commission or a Division shall be made on a
or denying due course to the COC of Mr.Ang Ping, thus her date previously fixed, of which notice shall be served in
substitution for the latter was legally permissible under the advance upon the parties or their attorneys personally or by
Omnibus Election Code; (2) she was one of the candidates registered mail or by telegram.
voted for during election day in the 3rd District of Manila; and
(3) the COMELEC Order of May 5, 2004 was of questionable Promulgation is important because it determines when
validity for the reason that: (a) it was issued in violation of its the reglementary period begins to toll. In the case at
April 30, 2004 resolution setting the promulgation for May 5, bar, Commissioner Garcilliano fixed the promulgation of its
2004 and despite the fact that the records had not yet reached resolution whether to give due course to the candidacy of
the COMELEC en banc; and (b) there was no prior notice and Mr.Ang Ping on May 5, 2004.
hearing in violation of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. For mysterious reasons, the COMELEC First Division of
Commissioner Garcillano did not promulgate the
Roces then filed the present petition for certiorari assailing resolution on May 5, 2004 in accordance with its notice of
the two preceding resolutions of the HRET. promulgation. In violation of the abovecited rule, and despite
the deferment of the promulgation by Commissioner Borra to
ISSUE: a date to be set by the COMELEC First Division, the resolution
WON the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion was deemed promulgated by the COMELEC on April 30,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that 2004 when it was filed with the clerk of court. The April 30,
Mrs.Ang Ping is a proper party to file the election protest 2004 COMELEC resolution was received by Mr.Ang Pings
despite the denial in due course and cancellation of her COC counsel only on May 8, 2004.
under COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 and WON HRET has
jurisdiction to review a resolution or order of the COMELEC This premature COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 was then
and/or declare the same as void and disregard or set it aside. used on May 12, 2004, or on the election day itself, by the
Manila City Board of Canvassers as the basis of its
RULING: resolution not to canvass the votes for Mr. or Mrs.Ang Ping. It
HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to then proclaimed Roces the winner despite having counted
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioners only 6,347 votes out of the 150,387 registered voters of the
motion to dismiss for the following reasons: district. Following these highly suspect resolutions, Roces was
proclaimed winner on May 15, 2004. All told, it cannot be
First. The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the denied that the effect of COMELEC en banc Resolution No.
election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the 6823 was to execute the April 30, 2004 resolution of its First
House of Representatives and has the power to promulgate Division which, at that time, had not yet become final and
procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it. This executory.
exclusive jurisdiction includes the power to determine
whether it has the authority to hear and determine the In the case at bar, it ought to be emphasized that the private
controversy presented, and the right to decide whether that respondent was systematically denied the opportunity to be
state of facts exists which confers jurisdiction, as well as all heard. The resolution of the COMELECs First Division was
other matters which arise in the case legitimately before it. made before its priorily set date of promulgation, deemed
Accordingly, it has the power to hear and determine, or final and executory by the COMELEC en banc in Resolution
inquire into, the question of its own jurisdiction, both as to No. 6823 before expiry of the reglementary period, and
parties and as to subject matter, and to decide all questions, executed by the Manila City Board of Canvassers. The petition
whether of law or fact, the decision of which is necessary to for certiorari filed by Mrs.Ang Ping challenged these
determine the question of jurisdiction. One of the three resolutions and could not have cured these blatant violations
essential elements of jurisdiction is that proper parties must of her right to due process. In truth, this Court referred the
be present. Consequently, the HRET merely exercised its case of Mrs.Ang Ping to the HRET where she has filed a
exclusive jurisdiction when it ruled that Mrs.Ang Ping was a protest ad cautelam.
proper party to contest the election of Roces.
There is no iota of doubt that the COMELECs resolutions
Second. There is no dispute that to support his motion to are void ab initio for violating Mrs.AngPings constitutional
dismiss, Roces offered as evidence the COMELEC resolutions right to due process. Judgments entered in a proceeding
denying due course to Mrs.Ang Pings COC. In doing so, Roces failing to comply with procedural due process are void, as is
submitted to the HRET the admissibility and validity of these one entered by a court acting in a manner inconsistent with
resolutions and the HRET cannot be faulted in reviewing the due process. A void judgment is defined as one that, from its
said resolutions especially for the purpose of determining inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect. A void
whether Roces was able to discharge his burden of proving judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to, and is
that Mrs.Ang Ping is not the proper party to assail his election. attended by none of the consequences of, a valid
In passing upon the COMELEC resolutions especially for that adjudication. Indeed, a void judgment need not be recognized
by anyone, but may be entirely disregarded or declared

45
inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be
given to it. Needless to stress, the HRET did not commit On June 7, 1984, the same Second Division ordered the board
grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without
election protest as the COMELEC Resolution dated April 30, prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission.
2004, Order of May 5, 2004, and Resolution No. 6823 On certiorari before this Court, the proclamation made by the
were void ab initio. board of canvassers was set aside as premature, having been
made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal, which
Third. Petitioner contends that the HRET cannot review the petitioner had seasonably made.
decisions of the COMELEC and that COMELEC decisions,
orders, or rulings may be solely reviewed by the Supreme Finally, on July 23, 1984, the Second Division promulgated the
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days decision now subject of this petition which inter alia
from receipt of a copy thereof. It is true that generally, the proclaimed Arturo F. Pacificador the elected assemblyman of
method of assailing a judgment or order of the COMELEC the province of Antique. The petitioner then came to this
is via petition for certiorari. As aforestated, however, it was Court, asking to annul the said decision on the basis that it
petitioner who submitted these resolutions to the HRET as should have been decided by COMELEC en banc.
proofs that Mrs.Ang Ping was not a proper party. These same
resolutions were collaterally attacked by Mrs.Ang Ping before The case was still being considered when on February 11,
the HRET when she alleged that these violated her right to 1986, the petitioner was gunned down in cold blood and in
due process. A void judgment or resolution may be broad daylight. And a year later, Batasang Pambansa was
impeached through collateral attack. abolished with the advent of the 1987 Constitution.

Fourth. We hasten to add that judgments, orders and Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, contending it to
resolutions should only be declared void in the most be moot and academic.
exceptional circumstances due to detrimental effects on the
doctrine of finality of judgments. The circumstances of this ISSUES:
case, however, are unique in that the private respondent Is the Second Division of the Commission on Elections was
was denied due process and was forced to seek justice in the authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23, 1984,
HRET. In fact, it was this Court that referred the private proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the election?
respondent to the HRET when it dismissed the latters petition
in G.R. No. 163259 on the ground of the pendency of HRET
Case No. 04-004. To grant the petition now would effectively HELD:
foreclose the private respondents access to any remedy NO.The applicable provisions are found in Article XII-C,
despite violation of her right to due process. Sections 2 and 3, of the 1973 Constitution.

Section 2 confers on the Commission on Elections the

powerto:
Javier vs Tahoma
144 SCRA 194 (2) Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of all member of the
BatasangPambansa and elective provincial and city officials.
FACTS:
The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in Section 3 provides:
Antique for the BatasangPambansa in the May 1984 elections.
On May 13, 1984, the eve of the elections, the bitter contest The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three
between the two came to a head when several followers of divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by
the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by the divisions except contests involving members of the Batasang
latter’s men. Seven suspects, including respondent Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en banc. Unless
Pacificador, are now facing trial for these murders. otherwise provided by law, all election cases shall be decided
within ninety days from the date of their submission for
It was in this atmosphere that the voting was held, and the decision.
post-election developments were to run true to form. Owing
to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private We believe that in making the Commission on Elections the
respondent’s proclamation, the petitioner went to the sole judge of all contests involving the election, returns and
Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the qualifications of the members of the Batasang Pambansa and
election returns. His complaints were dismissed and the elective provincial and city officials, the Constitution intended
Second Division of the said body proclaimed the private to give it full authority to hear and decide these cases from
respondent winner. beginning to end and on all matters related thereto, including
those arising before the proclamation of the winners.
The petitioner thereupon came to this Court, arguing that the
proclamation was void because made only by a division and As correctly observed by the petitioner, the purpose of Section
not by the Commission on Elections en banc as required by 3 in requiring that cases involving members of the Batasang
the Constitution. Pambansa be heard and decided by the Commission en banc
was to insure the most careful consideration of such cases.
On May 18, 1984, the Second Division of the Commission on
Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of Obviously, that objective could not be achieved if the
Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the Commission could act en banc only after the proclamation had
proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. been made, for it might then be too late already. We are all-

46
too-familiar with the grab-the-proclamation-and-delay-the- place and that it did not result in a failure to elect.
protest strategy of many unscrupulous candidates, which has
resulted in the frustration of the popular will and the virtual Canicosa finally insists that it was error on the part of
defeat of the real winners in the election. COMELEC sitting en banc to rule on his petition. He maintains
that his petition should have first been heard by a division of
The respondent’s theory would make this gambit possible for COMELEC and later by the COMELEC en banc upon motion for
the pre- proclamation proceedings, being summary in nature, reconsideration, pursuant to Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the
could be hastily decided by only three members in division, Constitution. But this provision applies only when the
without the care and deliberation that would have otherwise COMELEC acts in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
been observed by the Commission en banc. judicial functions and not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions. To reiterate, the grounds cited by
WHEREFORE, let it be spread in the records of this case that Canicosa in his petition require the exercise by the COMELEC
were it not for the supervening events that have legally of its administrative functions. Section 2, Art. IX-C, of the 1987
rendered it moot and academic, this petition would have been Constitution grants extensive administrative powers to the
granted and the decision of the Commission on Elections COMELEC with regard to the enforcement and administration
dated July 23, 1984, set aside as violative of the Constitution. of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
Likewise, Sec. 52 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the
Omnibus Election Code, states:
Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections.
Canicosa vs COMELEC - In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by
292 SCRA 512 the Constitution, the Commission shall have exclusive charge
(1997) of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free,
orderly and honest elections x x x x
Facts
Canicosa and Lajara were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Quite obviously, it is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections. After obtaining a quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear
majority of some 24,000 votes Lajara was proclaimed winner and decide cases first by Division and then, upon motion for
by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Canicosa filed with the reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Declare jurisdictional. In the instant case, as aforestated, the issues
Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass presented demand only the exercise by the COMELEC of its
and Proclamation because of alleged widespread frauds and administrative functions.
anomalies in casting and counting of votes, preparation of
election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying,
unregistered voters voting, and delay in the delivery of Lazatin v. COMELEC
election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to GR No. 80007
the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. But the COMELEC en January 25, 1988
banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations
therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.

Issue Facts:
WON there was failure of election Petitioner filed the instant petition assailing the jurisdiction of
the COMELEC toannul his proclamation after he had taken his
Ruling oath of office, assumed office, and discharged the duties of
The grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration Congressman of the First District of Pampanga. The petitioner
of failure of election. There are only three (3) instances where claims that the House Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC
a failure of election may be declared, namely: (a) the election is the sole judge of all election contests. (Sec. 17 Art. 6 of the
in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on 1987 Constitution)
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place had Issue:
been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction to annul his
of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, proclamation after he had taken his oath of office, assumed
fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and office, and discharged the duties of Congressman
during the preparation and transmission of the election Whether or not COMELEC is the sole judge of all election
returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election contests
results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. Ruling:
No.

In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections we ruled that before Petitioner has been proclaimedwinner of the Congressional
COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a elections in the first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath
failure of election, at least two (2) conditions must concur: (a) of office as such, and assumed his duties as Congressman.
no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral protest
by law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless against him would be to usurp the functions of the House
resulted in failure to elect; and, (b) the votes that were not Electoral Tribunal. The alleged invalidity of the proclamation
cast would affect the result of the election. From the face of (which had been previously ordered by the COMELEC itself)
the instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and

47
despite the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, beyond dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from
is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, the general power granted it by the Constitution.
to the sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to hear and decide election
contests has been trimmed down under the 1987
Constitution. Whereas the 1973 Constitution vested the
Lazatin vs HRET and Timbol COMELEC with jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests
GR No. 84297 relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
December 8, 1988 Members of the BatasangPambansa and elective provincial
and city officials, the 1987 Constitution, while lodging in the
COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
Facts: relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
Petitioner and private respondent were among the candidates elective regional, provincial and city officials and appellate
for Representative of the first district of Pampanga during the jurisdiction over contests relating to the election of municipal
elections of May 11, 1987. During the canvassing of the votes, and barangay officials. expressly makes the Electoral
private respondent objected to the inclusion of certain Tribunals of the Senate and the House of Representatives the
election returns. The COMELEC ordered the suspension of the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
proclamation of the winning candidate. However, the qualifications of their respective Members.
COMELEC later ordered to proceed with the canvassing of
votes and to proclaim the winner. As a result, petitioner was The inescapable conclusion from the foregoing is that it is well
proclaimed as Congressman-elect. Private respondent thus within the power of the HRET to prescribe the period within
filed in the COMELEC a petition to declare petitioner’s which protests may be filed before it. This is founded not only
proclamation void ab initio. Petitioner assumed office on June on historical precedents and jurisprudence but, more
30, 1987. importantly, on the clear language of the Constitution itself.

On September 15, 1987, the COMELEC declared petitioner's Consequently, private respondent's election protest having
proclamation void ab initio. Petitioner challenged the been filed within the period prescribed by the HRET, the latter
COMELEC resolution before this Court. The Court set aside the cannot be charged with lack of jurisdiction to hear the case.
COMELEC's revocation of petitioner's proclamation. Private
respondent filed HRET an election protest. Petitioner moved
to dismiss the protest on the ground that it had been filed 235. Dungog
late. However, the HRET filed that the protest had been filed
on time in accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules. Flores vs COMELEC
Petitioner has come to this Court, challenging the jurisdiction GR No. 89604
of the HRET over the protest filed by private respondent. April 20, 1990
(184 SCRA 484)
Issue:
Was private respondent's protest filed seasonably?

Ruling: Yes FACTS:

The Court is of the view that the protest had been filed on Roque Flores was proclaimed as having the highest number
time and, hence, the HRET acquired jurisdiction over it. of votes as Barangay Kagawad in Brgy. Poblacion, Tayum,
Abra and thus became punong barangay. However his
On the basis of the foregoing Rule, the protest should have election was contested by second placer Rapisora who
been filed within fifteen (15) days from November 22, 1987, garnered 1 vote less than Flores. MTC of Tayum sustained
or not later than December 7, 1987. However, on September Rapisora and installed him as Punong Barangay after
15, 1987, the COMELEC acting upon a petition filed by the deducting two votes as stray from Flores. Flores appealed to
Protestant (private respondent herein), promulgated a the RTC, RTC affirmed the MTC decision noting that the four
Resolution declaring the proclamation void ab initio. This votes cast for "Flores" only, without any distinguishing first
resolution had the effect of nullifying the proclamation, and name or initial, should all have been considered invalid instead
such proclamation was not reinstated until Protestant of being divided equally between the petitioner and Anastacio
received a copy of the Supreme Court's decision annulling the Flores, another candidate for kagawad. The judge held that
COMELEC Resolution on January 28, 1988. For all intents and the original total credited to the petitioner was correctly
purposes, therefore, Protestee's proclamation became reduced by 2, to 462, demoting him to second place.
effective only on January 28, 1988, and the fifteen-day period
for Protestant to file his protest must be reckoned from that Flores went to COMELEC but was dismissed on the ground
date.Protestant filed his protest on February 8, 1988, or that COMELEC has no power to review the decision of the
eleven (11) days after January 28. The protest, therefore, was RTC. This ruling, embodied in its resolution dated 3 August
filed well within the reglementary period provided by the 1989, was presumably based on Section 9 of Rep. Act No.
Rules of this Tribunal. 6679, The COMELEC was obviously of the opinion that it
could not entertain the petitioner's appeal because of the
The power of the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests provision in Rep. Act No. 6679 that the decision of the regional
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the trial court in a protest appealed to it from the municipal trial
Members of the House of Representatives, to promulgate court in barangay elections "on questions of fact shall be final
rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction, and non-appealable
including the period for filing election protests before it, is

48
In this petition for certiorari, the Commission on Elections is respondent Election Registrar Claudio Concepcion, who, in
faulted for not taking cognizance of the petitioner's appeal turn, was transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte.
and for not ruling that all the four questioned votes should Correspondingly approved by the Civil Service Commission,
have been credited to him under the equity of the incumbent both appointments were to take effect upon assumption of
rule in Section 211(2) of the Omnibus Election Code. office. Concepcion, however, refused to transfer post as he
did not request for it. Garces, on the other hand, was directed
The solicitor general while supporting the dismissal on the by the Office of Assistant Director for Operations to assume
other hand, would justify it under an entirely different and the Gutalac post. But she was not able to do so because of a
more significant ground, to wit, Article IX-C, Section 2(2) Memorandum issued by respondent Provincial Election
of the Constitution, providing that the COMELEC shall: Supervisor Salvador Empeynado that prohibited her from
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests assuming office in Gutalac as the same is not vacant.
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate Garces was directed by the same Office of Assistant Director
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal to defer her assumption of the Gutalac post. She received a
officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or letter from the Acting Manager, Finance Service Department,
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of with an enclosed check to cover for the expenses on
limited jurisdiction. construction of polling booths. Garces interpreted it to mean
as superseding the deferment order. Meanwhile, since
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC contests respondent Concepcion continued occupying the Gutalac
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be office, the COMELEC en banc cancelled his appointment to
final, executory, and not appealable. Liloy.

The OSG submission is that MTC being courts of limited Garces filed before the RTC a petition for mandamus with
jurisdiction, their decisions in barangay election contests are preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and
subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC damages against Empeynado and Concepcion, among others.
under the afore-quoted section. Hence, the decision rendered Meantime, the COMELEC en banc through a Resolution,
by the MTC of Tayum, Abra, should have been appealed resolved to recognize respondent Concepcion as the Election
directly to the COMELEC and not to the RTC. Registrar of Gutalac, and ordered that the appointments of
Garces to Gutalac and of Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled. In
Issue: view thereof, respondent Empeynado moved to dismiss the
Whether or not the decisions of MTC in barangay election petition for mandamus alleging that the same was rendered
contests are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of moot and academic by the said COMELEC Resolution, and that
the COMELEC considering Section 9 of R.A. No. 6679? the case is cognizable only by the COMELEC. The RTC,
thereafter, dismissed the petition for mandamus. On appeal,
HELD: respondent CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the case.
The decision of the MTC should have been appealed directly Hence, this petition.
to the COMELEC. The dismissal of the appeal is justified, but
on an entirely different and more significant ground, to wit, ISSUE:
Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution, providing that First, is petitioner's action for mandamus proper? And,
the COMELEC shall “Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction second, is this case cognizable by the RTC or by the Supreme
over all contests relating to the elections, returns and Court?
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving HELD:
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general Petitioner Garces is mistaken considering that Concepcion
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by continuously occupies the disputed position and exercises the
trial courts of limited jurisdiction”. Municipal or Metropolitan corresponding functions therefor, the proper remedy should
Courts being courts of limited jurisdiction, their decisions in have been quo warranto and not mandamus. Quo warranto
barangay election contests are subject to the exclusive vests the title to one's office claimed by another and has as
appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC under the afore-quoted its object ouster of the holder from its enjoyment, while
section. Hence, the decision rendered by the Municipal Circuit mandamus avails to enforce clear legal duties and not to try
Trial Court, should have been appealed directly to the disputed titles.Mandamus, which petitioner filed, will not lie as
COMELEC and not to the RTC. Accordingly, Section 9 of Rep. this remedy applies only where petitioner's right is founded
Act No. 6679, insofar as it provides that the decision of the clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. It will not issue to
municipal or metropolitan court in a barangay election case give him something to which he is not clearly and conclusively
should be appealed to the RTC, must be declared entitled.
unconstitutional.
On the first issue, Garces claims that she has a clear legal
right to the Gutalac post which was deemed vacated at the
time of her appointment and qualification. Garces insists that
Garces vs Court of Appeals the vacancy was created by Section 2, Article III of the
GR No. 114795 Provisional Constitution. On the contrary, Concepcion posits
July 17, 1996 that he did not vacate his Gutalac post as he did not accept
the transfer to Liloy.
Article III, Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution provides:
FACTS:
Petitioner Lucita Garces was appointed Election Registrar of "All elective and appointive officials
Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte. She was to replace and employees under the 1973

49
 Constitution shall continue in office
until otherwise provided by On the second issue the jurisdiction of the RTC was
proclamation or executive order or challenged by respondent Empeynado contending that this is
upon the designation or appointment a "case" or "matter" cognizable by the COMELEC under the
and qualification of their successors, if 1987 Constitution. The COMELEC resolution cancelling the
such is made within a period of one appointment of Garces as Election Registrar of Gutalac, he
year from February 25, 1986." argues, should be raised only on certiorari before the
The above organic provision did not require any cause for Supreme Court and not before the RTC, else the latter court
removal of an appointive official under the 1973 Constitution. becomes a reviewer of an en banc COMELEC resolution
The transition period from the old to the new Constitution contrary to Sec. 7, Art. IX-A.
envisioned an "automatic" vacancy; hence the government is
not hard put to prove anything plainly and simply because the The contention is without merit.This provision is inapplicable
Constitution allows it. Mere appointment and qualification of as there was no case or matter filed before the COMELEC. On
the successor removes an incumbent from his post. the contrary, it was the COMELEC's resolution that triggered
Nevertheless, the government in an act of auto-limitation and this controversy. The "case" or "matter" referred to by the
to prevent indiscriminate dismissal of government personnel constitution must be something within the jurisdiction of the
issued on May 28, 1986, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 17. This COMELEC, i.e., must pertain to an election dispute. The
executive order, which applies in this case as it was passed settled rule is that "decision, rulings, order" of the
prior to the issuance of Concepcion's transfer order, COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme Court
enumerates five grounds for separation or replacement of on certiorari under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A are those relate to
elective and appointive officials authorized under Article III, the COMELEC's exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution, to wit: judicial powersinvolving"elective regional, provincial
and city officials". In this case, what is being assailed is the
"1. Existence of a case for summary COMELEC's choice of an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post
dismissal pursuant to Section 40 of the which is an administrative duty done for the operational set-
Civil Service Law; up of an agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not
2. Existence of the probable cause for an elective, official. Hardly can this matter call for the
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Practices Act as determined by the
Ministry Head concerned;
3. Gross incompetence or inefficiency in
the discharge of functions; Barbers vs Comelec
4. Misuse of public office for partisan GR No. 165691
political purposes; June 22, 2005
5. Any other analogous ground showing
that the incumbent is unfit to remain in
the service or his separation/replacement Facts:
is in the interest of the service." Robert Z. Barbers ("Barbers") and Biazon were candidates for
re-election to the Senate of the Philippines in the 10 May 2004
Not one of those grounds was alleged to exist, much less Synchronized National and Local Elections ("elections"). The
proven by petitioner when respondent Concepcion was first 11 senators were first proclaimed. The 12th senator was
transferred from Gutalac to Liloy. More, Concepcion was proclaimed later. Biazon was proclaimed the 12th Senator
transferred without his consent. A transfer requires a prior despite an incomplete canvass. Barbers filed a petition to
appointment. If the transfer was made without the consent annul the proclamation of Biazon with the COMELEC
of the official concerned, it is tantamount to removal contending that the proclamation was illegal and premature
without valid cause contrary to the fundamental guarantee because it was based on an incomplete canvass. Barbers said
on non-removal except for cause. Concepcion's transfer that the remaining uncanvassed COCs and votes and the
thus becomes legally infirm and without effect for results of the special elections, which were still to be
he was not validly terminated. His appointment to conducted, would undoubtedly affect the results of the
the Liloy post, in fact, was incomplete because he elections. Biazon filed an answer and contended that since the
did not accept it. Acceptance, it must be COMELEC has proclaimed him on 2 June 2004 in Resolution
emphasized, is indispensable to complete an No. NBC 04-005 as the duly elected 12th Senator and he has
appointment.Corollarily, Concepcion's post in Gutalac taken his oath of office on 30 June 2004, the Senate Electoral
never became vacant. It is a basic precept in the law of Tribunal, not the COMELEC, has jurisdiction to entertain the
public officers that "no person, no matter how qualified and present petition. The Comelec however rendered a decision in
eligible he is for a certain position may be appointed to an favour of Biazon. Barbers went to SC by way of petition for
office which is not vacant. There can be no appointment to certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
a non-vacant position. The incumbent must first be legally
removed, or his appointment validly terminated before one Issue:
could be validly installed to succeed him. Further, Garces' Who has jurisdiction over election contests relating to
appointment was ordered to be deferred by the COMELEC. members of the Senate?
The deferment order, we note, was not unequivocably
lifted. Worse, her appointment to Gutalac was even Ruling:
cancelled by the COMELEC en banc.These factors negate Senate Electoral Tribunal. The word "sole" in Section 17,
Garces' claim for a well-defined, clear, certain legal right to Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 12 of the Revised
the Gutalac post. On the contrary, her right to the said Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal ("SET") underscores the
office is manifestly doubtful and highly questionable. exclusivity of the SET’s jurisdiction over election contests

50
relating to members of the Senate. The authority conferred Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
upon the SET is categorical and complete. It is therefore clear petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner
that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant
petition. Since Barbers contests Biazon’s proclamation as the
12th winning senatorial candidate, it is the SET which has
exclusive jurisdiction to act on Barbers’ complaint. Held:

In Pangilinan, we ruled that "where the candidate has The COMELEC has jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 78, Art. IX
already been proclaimed winner in the congressional of the Omnibus Election Code, over a petition to deny due
elections, the remedy of petitioner is to file an electoral course to or cancel certificate of candidacy. In the exercise of
protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of the said jurisdiction, it is within the competence of the
Representatives." In like manner, where as in the present COMELEC to determine whether false representation as to
case, Barbers assails Biazon’s proclamation as the 12th duly material facts was made in the certificate of candidacy, that
elected Senator, Barbers’ proper recourse is to file a regular will include, among others, the residence of the candidate.
election protest with the SET.
The determination of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
Certiorari and prohibition will not lie in this case considering
City in the exclusion proceedings as to the right of Domino to
that there is an available and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law to annul the COMELEC’s assailed proceedings. be included or excluded from the list of voters in the precinct
We take pains to emphasize that after the proclamation, within its territorial jurisdiction, does not preclude the
Barbers should have filed an electoral protest before the SET. COMELEC, in the determination of DOMINO's qualification as
a candidate, to pass upon the issue of compliance with the
The alleged invalidity of Biazon’s proclamation involves a residency requirement.
dispute or contest relating to the election returns of members
of the Senate. Indisputably, the resolution of such dispute The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the
falls within the sole jurisdiction of the SET. For this Court to list of voters are summary in character. Thus, the factual
take cognizance of the electoral protest against Biazon would findings of the trial court and its resultant conclusions
usurp the constitutional functions of the SET. In addition, the in the exclusion proceedings on matters other than
COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in the right to vote in the precinct within its territorial
issuing the assailed Resolutions affirming Biazon’s
jurisdiction are not conclusive upon the COMELEC.
proclamation since the uncanvassed returns and the results
Although the court in inclusion or exclusion proceedings may
of the special elections to be held would not materially affect
the results of the elections. pass upon any question necessary to decide the issue raised
including the questions of citizenship and residence of the
challenged voter, the authority to order the inclusion in or
[65] DOMINO VS. COMELEC exclusion from the list of voters necessarily carries with it the
G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999 power to inquire into and settle all matters essential to the
exercise of said authority. However, except for the right to
remain in the list of voters or for being excluded therefrom for
Facts: the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had
been held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion proceeding,
Domino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for representative in even if final and unappealable, does not acquire the nature of
a district. He indicated that he resided in the constituency res judicata. In this sense, it does not operate as a bar to any
where he seeks to be elected for 1yr and 2mos. Immediately future action that a party may take concerning the subject
preceding the election, private respondent filed a petition to passed upon in the proceeding.
see the cancellation of Domino’s COC on the ground that he
is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the province Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would
of Sarangani where he seeks election. neither be conclusive on the voter's political status,
nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be
registered as a voter in any other election.
Issue:
Moreover, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in its
Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court 18 January decision exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared
of Quezon City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani Domino a resident of the Province of Sarangani, approved and
and not of Quezon City is final, conclusive and binding upon ordered the transfer of his voter's registration from Precinct
the whole world, including the Commission on Elections No. 4400-A of Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City to precinct
14A1 of Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani. It is not within
the competence of the trial court, in an exclusion proceedings,
to declare the challenged voter a resident of another
Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject
municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court over
congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately
exclusion cases is limited only to determining the right
preceding the May 11, 1998 elections; and
of voter to remain in the list of voters or to declare that
the challenged voter is not qualified to vote in the
precinct in which he is registered, specifying the

51
ground of the voter's disqualification. The trial court presumption of residence especially in this case where
has no power to order the change or transfer of DOMINO registered in his former barangay.
registration from one place of residence to another for
it is the function of the election Registration Board as
provided under Section 12 of R.A. No. 8189. While, Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani
can be gleaned from the fact that be bought the house he
The only effect of the decision of the lower court excluding was renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought cancellation
the challenged voter from the list of voters, is for the Election of his previous registration in Quezon City on 22 October
Registration Board, upon receipt of the final decision, to 1997, and that he applied for transfer of registration from
remove the voter's registration record from the corresponding Quezon City to Sarangani by reason of change of residence
book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein, and on 30 August 1997, Domino still falls short of the one year
thereafter place the record in the inactive file. residency requirement under the Constitution. In showing
compliance with the residency requirement, both intent and
OTHER ISSUES: actual presence in the district one intends to represent must
satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law.
Domino's failure to do so rendered him ineligible and his
election to office null and void.
Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon,
Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new
domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old
Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy DOMINO's contention that the COMELEC has no
for the position of representative of the 3rd District of Quezon jurisdiction in the present petition is bereft of merit.
City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that
he had effectively abandoned his "residence" in Quezon City
and has established a new "domicile" of choice at the Province As previously mentioned, the COMELEC, under Sec. 78, Art.
of Sarangani. IX of the Omnibus Election Code, has jurisdiction over a
petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate of
candidacy. The fact of obtaining the highest number of votes
A person's "domicile" once established is considered to in an election does not automatically vest the position in the
continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is winning candidate. A candidate must be proclaimed and must
established. To successfully effect a change of domicile one have taken his oath of office before he can be considered a
must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of member of the House of Representatives.
domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts
which correspond with the purpose. In other words, there Domino has not been proclaimed as Congressman-elect in the
must basically be animus manendi coupled with animusn on Lone Congressional District of the Province of Sarangani he
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of cannot be deemed a member of the House of
choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of Representatives. Hence, it is the COMELEC and not the
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place Electoral Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the issue of his
chosen for the new domicile must be actual. ineligibility as a candidate.

The lease contract entered into sometime in January [66] PAPANDAYAN JR VS COMELEC AND BALT
1997, does not adequately support a change of
domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of DOMINO's GR. No. 147909 April 16, 2002
intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender the
kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's
original domicile. The mere absence of individual from his
Facts:
permanent residence, no matter how long, without the
intention to abandon it does not result in loss or change of In the May 14, 2001 elections, three candidates ran for the
domicile. 30 Thus the date of the contract of lease of a house position of mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur, namely:
and lot located in the province of Sarangani, i.e., 15 January petitioner Papandayan Jr., respondent Balt, who was the
1997, cannot be used, in the absence of other circumstances, incumbent mayor seeking reelection, and Bantuas.
as the reckoning period of the one-year residence Respondent Balt sought the disqualification of petitioner
requirement. alleging that petitioner was not a resident of Barangay
Tangcal in Tubaran, Lanao del Sur but a permanent resident
of Bayang, Lanao del Sur.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence
in Quezon City is further strengthened by his act of registering
as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City. While voting
is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong

52
Petitioner claimed that he was a resident of Tangcal, Tubaran; secretary of the mayor of Bayang, he went home to Tubaran
that in 1990, he transferred his domicile from Bayang to everyday after work. This is proof of animus manendi.
Tangcal and stayed there with his wife, a native of Tangcal;
that he managed an agricultural land in Tubaran; and that he Petitioner’s statement that [he] was living in Marawi City
filed in 1998 his COC for the position of municipal mayor of cannot be read as saying he was a resident of Marawi City,
Tubaran, which he later withdraw. because, when asked whether he was residing in Bayang,
Lanao del Sur, he replied: No, Im in Tubaran, Lanao del Sur.
What he seems to be saying is that although he worked as a
private secretary of the Mayor of Bayang, he was not a
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its resident of Bayang, because he was living in Tubaran.
discretion in declaring him disqualified in a resolution by
having his name stricken off from the list of candidates for When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence
mayor, on the ground that he is not a resident of Tubaran. qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak or
inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of the law
would not be thwarted by upholding the victors right to the
office, the will of the electorate should be respected.[27] For
Issue:
the purpose of election laws is to give effect to, rather than
Whether or not petitioner is disqualified to run as an elective frustrate, the will of the voters. To successfully challenge
official petitioners disqualification, respondent must clearly
demonstrate that petitioners ineligibility is so patently
antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that
overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the
Held: apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater
prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic
No. The petitioner has duly proven that, although he was
traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect
formerly a resident of Bayang, he later transferred residence
and promote. Respondent failed to substantiate her claim that
to Tangcal, Tubaran as shown by his actual and physical
petitioner is ineligible to be mayor of Tubaran.
presence therein for 10 years prior to the May 14, 2001
elections.

[67] MANUEL B. JAPZON VS COMELEC and JAIME S.

TY
Par. 39, Chapter 1, Title 2 of the Local Government Code (RA
7160) provides that an elective official must be a “…resident G.R No. 180088. January 19, 2009
therein (barangay, municipality, city or province) for at least
1 year immediately preceding the day of the election…”

Facts:

Domicile and residence are synonymous. The term residence Japzon and Ty were Mayoralty candidates of the Municipality
as used in election law, imports not only an intention to reside of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, in the 2007 local
in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, elections. Japzon questioned Ty’s Certificate of Candidacy on
couple with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile the ground of material misrepresentation. Allegedly, when Ty
denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent filed his COC, he falsely represented that he was a resident of
for business, pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for
return. one year before 14 May 2007 but Japzon averred that Ty
never actually resided in said address for a period of one year
immediately preceding the date of election as required under
the law. In fact, Ty continued to make trips to the USA.
In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, the following
Moreover, although Ty already took his Oath of Allegiance to
must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new
the Republic of the Philippines, he allegedly continued to
locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention
comport himself as an American citizen as proven by his travel
to abandon the old domicile. There must be animus manendi
records.
coupled with animus non revertendi.

The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Raida
Guina Dimaporo got married in 1990, they resided in Tangcal, Admittedly, Ty was a natural-born Filipino then residing in the
Tubaran. From then on, there was manifest intention on the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.
part of petitioner to reside in Tubaran, which he deemed to However, he left to work in the USA and eventually became
be the place of his conjugal abode with his wife. The fact that an American citizen. On 2 October 2005, Ty reacquired his
he and his wife transferred residence from Bayang to Tubaran Philippine citizenship by taking his Oath of Allegiance to the
shows that petitioner was relinquishing his former place of Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul of the Philippine
residence in Bayang and that he intended Tubaran to be his Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, USA, in
place of domicile. Although petitioner worked as a private accordance with the provisions of RA No. 9225. Ty

53
subsequently applied for a Philippine passport indicating in his Tys reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under RA No.
application that his residence in the Philippines was at A. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his
Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the
Samar. For the years 2006 and 2007, Ty voluntarily submitted USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the
himself to the local tax jurisdiction of the Municipality of Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by paying community tax Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile in the
and securing CTCs from the said municipality stating therein Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines,
his address as A. Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion, General said place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of
Macarthur, Eastern Samar. Thereafter, Ty applied for and was his residence therein shall be determined from the time he
registered as a voter on 17 July 2006 in Precinct 0013A, made it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the
Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. It time of his birth.
was only on 19 March 2007 that Ty renounced his American
citizenship before a notary public and, resultantly, became a
pure Philippine citizen again.
Tys intent to establish a new domicile of choice in the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines,
became apparent when, immediately after reacquiring his
Issue: Philippine citizenship on 2 October 2005, he applied for a
Philippine passport indicating in his application that his
Did Ty comply with the one-year residency requirement under residence in the Philippines was at A. Mabini St., Barangay 6,
the law? Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. For the years
2006 and 2007, Ty voluntarily submitted himself to the local
tax jurisdiction of the Municipality of General Macarthur,
Held: Eastern Samar, by paying community tax and securing CTCs
from the said municipality stating therein his address as A.
Yes, Ty was already residing in the Philippines for more than Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern
a period of one year immediately preceding the 2007 election. Samar. Thereafter, Ty applied for and was registered as a
voter on 17 July 2006 in Precinct 0013A, Barangay 6,
Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.

Republic Act No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of

residence. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same
time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may In addition, Ty has also been bodily present in the Municipality
establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, since his
country of which he is also a citizen. Residency in the arrival on 4 May 2006, inarguably, just a little over a year prior
Philippines only becomes relevant when the natural-born to the 14 May 2007 local elections. Japzon maintains that Tys
Filipino with dual citizenship decides to run for public office. trips abroad during said period, i.e., to Bangkok, Thailand
For a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his (from 14 to 18 July 2006), and to the USA (from 31 October
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for 2006 to 19 January 2007), indicate that Ty had no intention
public office, he must: (1) meet the qualifications for holding to permanently reside in the Municipality of General
such public office as required by the Constitution and existing Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. However, the fact that
laws; and (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any Ty did come back to Philippines, after said trips, is a further
and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized manifestation of his animus manendi and animus revertendi.
to administer an oath.

There is no basis for this Court to require Ty to stay in and

While Ty complied with the second requirement when he never leave at all the Municipality of General Macarthur,
personally executed a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship Eastern Samar, for the full one-year period prior to the 14 May
before a notary public on 19 March 2007 and by the time he 2007 local elections so that he could be considered a resident
filed his Certificate of Candidacy, he had already effectively thereof. Absence from residence to pursue studies or practice
renounced his American citizenship, keeping solely his a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place
Philippine citizenship. where one is elected does not constitute loss of residence.
The Court also notes, that even with his trips to other
countries, Ty was actually present in the Municipality of
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, for at least
The other requirement pertains to the qualifications required
nine of the 12 months preceding the 14 May 2007 local
by the Constitution and existing laws, i.e. the LGC of 1991,
elections. Even if length of actual stay in a place is not
and the law requires one-year residency in the municipality
necessarily determinative of the fact of residence therein, it
where he run for office.
does strongly support and is only consistent with Tys avowed
intent in the instant case to establish residence/domicile in the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.

54
[68] OGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, v. COMMISSION ON Caballero was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised
ELECTIONS AND JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. NANUD, JR. in Uyugan, Batanes and this may be considered as his domicile
of origin. However, he later worked in Canada and became a
Canadian citizen. Naturalization in a foreign country may
result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines
Facts:
(Coquilla v. COMELEC) and this holds true in Caballero's case
Caballero and Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr. were both as permanent resident status in Canada is required for the
candidates for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of acquisition of Canadian citizenship. Hence, Caballero had
Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections. effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and
Nanud Jr. questioned the candidacy of Caballero alleging that transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent
the latter made a false representation when he declared in his visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work in
COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such
despite being a Canadian citizen and a non¬-resident thereof. abandonment.
Per Caballero, prior to the filing of his COC on October 3,
2012, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Despite his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under
Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual Filipino Republic Act No. 9225, it had no automatic impact or effect
and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9225. on his residence/domicile (Japzon vs COMELEC). Thus,
Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and Caballero must still prove that after becoming a Philippine
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan,
in Batanes on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section 5(2) Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from
of RA No. 9225. He claimed that he did not lose his domicile the time he made it as such.
of origin in Uyugan, Batanes despite becoming a Canadian
citizen as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a But in this, he fails. The COMELEC found that it was only after
brighter future for him and his family; and that he went back reacquiring his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on
to Uyugan during his vacation while working in Nigeria, September 13, 2012 that Caballero can rightfully claim that
California, and finally in Canada. he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was
accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an
actual intent to reestablish his domicile there. However, the
period from September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even
Issue: Did Caballero comply with the one-year residency
less than the one year residency required by law.
requirement?

[69] POE-LLAMANZARES vs. COMMISSION ON

Held: No, Caballero did not comply with the one-year
ELECTIONS
residency requirement. RA No. 9225, which is known as the G.R. No. 221697 March 8, 2016
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares
that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost Facts:
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was
citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or retain his found abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.21 The Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar. When petitioner was
law does not provide for residency requirement for the five (5) years old, celebrity spouses Fernando Poe, Jr. and
reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it Susan Roces filed a petition for her adoption with the
mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan City. The trial court
Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the granted their petition and ordered that petitioner's name be
changed from "Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar" to
concerned natural-born Filipino.
"Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe." Initially, the petitioner
enrolled and pursued a degree in Development Studies at the
University of the Philippines but she opted to continue her
RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. studies abroad and left for the United States of America (U.S.)
Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both in 1988. In 1991, petitioner married Teodoro Misael Daniel V.
Llamanzares (Llamanzares), a citizen of both the Philippines
Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence
and the U.S., at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan
either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he
City. On 18 October 2001, petitioner became a naturalized
is also a citizen.24 However, when a natural-born Filipino with
American citizen.
dual citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency
in the Philippines now becomes material since the Local The untimely demise of her father (FPJ ran for president in
Government Code requires that the candidate must be a the 2004 elections but lost to GMA…months after the election,
resident of the place where he seeks to be elected at least FPJ died of a stroke) was a severe blow to her entire family.
one year immediately preceding the election day. In her earnest desire to be with her grieving mother, the
petitioner and her husband decided to move and reside

55
permanently in the Philippines sometime in the first quarter the position, if, as in this case, such issue is yet undecided or
of 2005. undetermined by the proper authority. The COMELEC cannot
itself, in the same cancellation case, decide the qualification
The couple began preparing for their resettlement including or lack thereof of the candidate.
notification of their children's schools that they will be
transferring to Philippine schools for the next semester; The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the
coordination with property movers for the relocation of their qualifications of the President, the Vice-President, Senators
household goods, furniture and cars from the U.S. to the and the Members of the House of Representatives was made
Philippines; and inquiry with Philippine authorities as to the clear by the Constitution. There is no such provision for
proper procedure to be followed in bringing their pet dog into candidates for these positions. There is an absence of an
the country. As early as 2004, the petitioner already quit her authorized proceeding for determining before election the
job in the U.S. Finally, petitioner came home to the Philippines qualifications of candidate. Such that, as presently required,
on 24 May 2005 and without delay, secured a Tax to disqualify a candidate there must be a declaration by a final
Identification Number from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to
Her three (3) children immediately followed while her be disqualified is guilty of or found by the Commission to be
husband was forced to stay in the U.S. to complete pending suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the
projects as well as to arrange the sale of their family home Constitution.
there. The petitioner and her children briefly stayed at her
mother's place until she and her husband purchased a If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior finding
condominium unit with a parking slot at One Wilson Place that he or she is suffering from a disqualification "provided by
Condominium in San Juan City. law or the Constitution," neither can the certificate of
candidacy be cancelled or denied due course on grounds of
On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the false representations regarding his or her qualifications,
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is not
9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of qualified, such prior authority being the necessary measure
2003. Petitioner executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of by which the falsity of the representation can be found.
Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation
of American Citizenship" before a notary public in Pasig City 2. Yes, Grace Poe is a natural-born citizen.
on 20 October 2010 and was appointed chairman of the a. Statistics/Probability/Presumptions - The Solicitor
MTRCB by PNoy. General offered official statistics from the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of
When petitioner filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of foreigners born in the Philippines was 15,986 while the total
Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the 2013 Elections, she number of Filipinos born in the country was 10,558,278. The
answered "6 years and 6 months" to the question of period of statistical probability that any child born in the Philippines in
residence in the Philippines. She topped the senatorial that decade is natural-born Filipino was 99.83%. A person
elections of 2013. with typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church
in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is
On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than
Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her COC, the a 99% chance that a child born in the province would be a
petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not
that her residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 statistical certainty, that petitioner's parents are Filipinos.
May 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) b. The Intent of the Framers of the 1935
months counted from 24 May 2005. Constitution (the fundamental law applicable during the birth
of Grace Poe) - As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class,
Issues: natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution's
1. Whether the COMELEC has the power to enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive
adjudicate on the qualifications of a language which would definitely exclude foundlings either.
presidential candidate. The deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show
2. Whether Grace Poe, a foundling, is a natural- that the framers intended foundlings to be covered by the
born citizen. enumeration. During the debates on this provision, Delegate
3. Whether Grace Poe’s repatriation in 2006 Rafols presented an amendment to include as Filipino citizens
resulted in her reacquisition of her natural- the illegitimate children with a foreign father of a mother who
born status. was a citizen of the Philippines, and also foundlings; but this
4. Whether Grace Poe has satisfied the 10-year amendment was defeated primarily because the Convention
residency requirement under the Constitution. believed that the cases of foundlings, being too few, there is
no more need to expressly declare foundlings as
Held: Filipinos because they are already impliedly so
1. No, the COMELEC has no power to decide on recognized.
issues of qualifications of a presidential candidate. Such c. Adoption Laws - Domestic laws on adoption also
power is lodged with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Art. support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws
VII sec.4, 1987 Constitution). The issue before the COMELEC do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the
is whether or not the COC of petitioner should be denied due adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first
course or cancelled "on the exclusive ground" that she made place to be adopted.
in the certificate a false material representation about her d. International Law - Foundlings are likewise
citizenship and residency. The exclusivity of the ground should citizens under international law. The principles found in two
hedge in the discretion of the COMELEC and restrain it from conventions, while yet unratified by the Philippines, are
going into the issue of the qualifications of the candidate for generally accepted principles of international law. The first is

56
Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions The COMELEC ruled that petitioner's claim of residence of ten
Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a (10) years and eleven (11) months by 9 May 2016 in her 2015
foundling is presumed to have the "nationality of the country COC was false because she put six (6) years and six (6)
of birth,” The second is the principle that a foundling is months as "period of residence before May 13, 2013" in her
presumed born of citizens of the country where he is found, 2012 COC for Senator. As explained by petitioner in her
contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations Convention verified pleadings, she misunderstood the date required in the
on the Reduction of Statelessness. That the Philippines is not 2013 COC as the period of residence as of the day she
a party to the 1930 Hague Convention nor to the 1961 submitted that COC in 2012. She said that she reckoned
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness does not mean residency from April-May 2006 which was the period when the
that their principles are not binding. Current legislation reveals U.S. house was sold and her husband returned to the
the adherence of the Philippines to this generally accepted Philippines. In that regard, she was advised by her lawyers in
principle of international law. 2015 that residence could be counted from 25 May 2005.
3. Yes, Grace Poe reacquired her natural-born There is precedent after all where a candidate's mistake as to
status upon repatriation. R.A. No. 9225 was passed in line period of residence made in a COC was overcome by
with Congress' sole prerogative to determine how citizenship evidence. In Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, the candidate
may be lost or reacquired. Congress saw it fit to decree that mistakenly put seven (7) months as her period of residence
natural-born citizenship may be reacquired even if it had been where the required period was a minimum of one year.
once lost. It is not for the COMELEC to disagree with the
Congress' determination.
4. Yes, Grace Poe has satisfied the residency [70] SINACA vs. MULA
requirement to run for president. Petitioner's claim that she G.R. No. 135691 September 27, 1999
will have been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11)
months on the day before the 2016 elections, is true Facts:
beginning 25 May 2005 when she returned for good from In the1998 elections, the two opposing factions of the ruling
the U.S. party LAKAS-NUCD-UMPD filled in separate candidates for the
position of mayor of the Municipality of Malimano, Surigao del
When petitioner immigrated to the U.S. in 1991, she lost her Norte. One faction headed by Senator Robert Z. Barbers
original domicile, which is the Philippines. There are three nominated Grachil G. Canoy, while the other group lead by
requisites to acquire a new domicile: 1. Residence or bodily Governor Francisco T. MATUGAS endorsed the candidacy of
presence in a new locality; 2. an intention to remain there; Teodoro F. Sinaca, Jr.
and 3. an intention to abandon the old domicile. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, one must Miguel H. Mula, a candidate for vice-mayor and belonging to
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of the "BARBERS Wing," filed before the COMELEC a petition for
domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place disqualification against TEODORO. The Second Division of the
of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts COMELEC issued a resolution disqualifying TEODORO as
which correspond with the purpose. In other words, there candidate for mayor of the Municipality of Malimono, Surigao
must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus del Norte and ordering the cancellation of his certificate of
non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile candidacy because of prior conviction of bigamy, a crime
of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change involving moral turpitude.
of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual. Petitioner Emmanuel D. Sinaca, an independent candidate,
withdrew his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan
Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she Member, joined and became a member of the LAKAS party
and her family abandoned their U.S. domicile and relocated to and was nominated by the LAKAS "MATUGAS Wing" as the
the Philippines for good. These evidence include petitioner's substitute mayoralty candidate for the Municipality of
former U.S. passport showing her arrival on 24 May 2005 and Malimono, Surigao del Norte. On the basis of said nomination,
her return to the Philippines every time she travelled abroad. EMMANUEL filed his certificate of candidacy, attached thereto
The evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and taken is his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate
together leads to no other conclusion that she decided to signed by Governor Francisco T. MATUGAS (hereafter
permanently abandon her U.S. residence (selling the house, MATUGAS), as party provincial chairman together with
taking the children from U.S. schools, getting quotes from the EMMANUEL's written acceptance of the party's nomination.
freight company, notifying the U.S. Post Office of the
abandonment of their address in the U.S., donating excess Mula, likewise sought the disqualification of the substitute
items to the Salvation Army, her husband resigning from U.S. Emmanuel. While the case was pending before the COMELEC,
employment right after selling the U.S. house) and Emmanuel won as mayor.
permanently relocate to the Philippines and actually re-
established her residence here on 24 May 2005 (securing Issues:
T.I.N., enrolling her children in Philippine schools, buying 1. Whether the substitution was valid.
property here, constructing a residence here, returning to the 2. Whether Governor MATUGAS has authority to
Philippines after all trips abroad, her husband getting nominate a candidate without the concurrence
employed here). Indeed, coupled with her eventual of Senator BARBERS.
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her family's 3. Whether the decision as to which member a
actual continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is party shall nominate as its candidate is a party
clear that when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was for concern which is not cognizable by the courts.
good. 4. Whether the validity of EMMANUEL's
nomination as substitute candidate has been
rendered moot and academic by his

57
 proclamation by the Board of Canvassers of Members, City Councilors, Municipal Mayors, Vice-mayors and
Malimono as the duly elected municipal mayor councilors for the Province of Surigao del Norte. Both
and after he has assumed into office. BARBERS and MATUGAS were given separate and distinct
authorizations when the mother of BARBERS ran for governor
Held: against MATUGAS.
1. Yes, the substitution was valid. The rule on
substitution of an official candidate of a registered or 3. Yes, the decision as to which member a party
accredited political party who dies, withdraws or is disqualified shall nominate as its candidate is a party concern which is not
for any cause after the last day for the filing of certificates of cognizable by the courts. Political parties are generally free to
candidacy is governed by Sec. 77 of the Omnibus Election conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision;
Code which provides: this common-law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the
If after the last day for the filing of certificates of constitutionally protected right of free association, serves the
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or public interest by allowing the political processes to operate
accredited political party dies, withdraws or is without undue interference. Thus, the rule is that the
disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging determination of disputes as to party nominations rests with
to, and certified by, the same political party may file the party, in the absence of statutes giving the court's
a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate jurisdiction.
who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The
substitute candidate nominated by the political 4. Yes, the validity of EMMANUEL's nomination as
party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy substitute candidate has been rendered moot and academic
for the office affected in accordance with the by his proclamation by the Board of Canvassers of Malimono
preceding sections not later than mid-day of the as the duly elected municipal mayor and after he has assumed
day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or into office. The fact that the nomination of a substitute lacks
disqualification should occur between the day the signature of one of the authorized signatory is but a
before the election and mid-day of election day, technicality which cannot be used to frustrate the will of the
said certificate maybe filed with any board of electorate.
election inspectors in the political subdivision where
he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to It has been held that the provisions of the election law
be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing and
with the Commission. swearing on the same, as well as the information required to
be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the
In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory.
above said requirements. EMMANUEL was properly Thus, even if the certificate of candidacy was not duly signed
nominated as substitute candidate by the LAKAS party or if it does not contain the required data, the proclamation
"MATUGAS wing" to which TEODORO, the disqualified of the candidate as winner may not be nullified on such
candidate, belongs, as evidenced by the Certificate of ground. The defects in the certificate should have been
Nomination and Acceptance signed by MATUGAS, the Party's' questioned before the election; they may not be questioned
provincial chairman. That EMMANUEL is a bona fide member after the election without invalidating the will of the
of the LAKAS party is shown not only by the certificate of electorate, which should not be done.
membership, but more importantly by his certificate of
candidacy filed before the COMELEC stating therein that he [71] PLR - Vivero vs Murillo
belongs to the LAKAS party.
1929 En Banc
The fact that EMMANUEL was an independent candidate prior
to his nomination is immaterial. What is more significant is
that he had previously withdrawn his certificate of candidacy
as independent candidate for Sangguniang member before he Facts:
filed his certificate of candidacy as a substitute for TEODORO
at which time he was, for all intents and purposes, already Mateo G. Murillo, the defendant-appellee, was born in the
deemed a member of the LAKAS party "MATUGAS wing." barrio of Paliway, municipality of La Paz, of the Province of
There is nothing in the Constitution or the statute which Leyte, where he lived with his parents and received his
requires as a condition precedent that a substitute candidate primary education. In order to continue his studies he
must have been a member of the party concerned for a removed first to Tacloban, Leyte, and later to Calbayog,
certain period of time before he can be nominated as such. Samar, and finally to Manila until the year 1927, at the same
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates that time acting as private secretary to Senator Veloso. Every year
a substitute candidate should be a person belonging to and he return to his native town to spend his vacations which
certified by the same political party as the candidate to be usually lasted from two weeks to one month, remaining
replaced. alternately in his parents' house and in that of his brothers.
While he studied he was supported by his parents. With the
2. Yes, Governor Matugas has authority to
approach of the general elections of 1925 Senator Veloso
nominate a candidate even without concurrence of Barbers.
assigned him to Burauen, Leyte, for the purpose of
MATUGAS, was designated by the LAKAS National
Headquarters through its Deputy Secretary General and compaigning for him. While in that municipality, he registered
National Secretariat Executive Director Reynaldo L. Maclang, there as voter.
as the party officer authorized to nominate, sign, attest under
oath, and issue Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance for
the Party's official candidates for the positions of Board

58
In December 1926, he went back to La Paz and formally, his parents while studying, he was dependent on them and
though verbally, announced his candidacy for the office of their residence was his and it does not appear that he
municipal president of said municipality at the general acquired an independent legal residence anywhere else.
elections of 1928. In the same year 1926, he ordered some
wood to be prepared or sawed to be used in the construction
of a house for his residence. Later on Murillo returned to
While it is true that the defendant-appellee registered as a
Manila and then wrote to his friends, relatives, and
voter in Burauen in the general elections of 1925, yet he did
acquaintances, telling them of his candidacy for the office of
so without any thereto, for it does not appear that he resided
municipal president of La Paz.
in Burauen at any time after the separation of the barrio of La
Paz from said municipality and its organization as an
independent municipality, nor that he transferred his
In the month of February, 1927, he brought his family there, residence to the former abandoning that of his parents. On
leaving them in his parents' house when he went back to the contrary, having continued his studies in Manila,
Manila. In the month of July of the same year he returned to supported by his parents, returning to the latter's home during
La Paz and lived there with his aforesaid family and later came his vacations, it is presumed that he continued to reside with
to manila. Lastly, in the month of November, 1927, he them until the month of November, 1927, when he
returned to his said municipality, and did not leave it until the established his residence in the town of La Paz.
general elections in, June, 1928.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and

On April 4, 1928, Mateo G. Murillo went to Pascual Esplanada, so hold, that a student living with his parents in a certain
a notary public in the town of the municipality of Burauen, barrio of a municipality, which barrio is later separated to be
Leyte, to subscribe to a petition under oath which was organized as an independent municipality, who for several
presented to the municipal treasurer of that municipality to years pursues his studies in several provinces of the
have his name as a voter in Burauen cancelled. On April 14 of archipelago, supported by his parents, returning to the latters'
the same year, in registering as a voter in the second precinct home during his vacations in the newly organized
of La Paz, said defendant Mateo G. Murillo presented a copy municipality, does not loose his residence in said municipality,
of his petition for cancellation to the chairman of the board of either on account of having resided in different provinces as
inspectors of said municipality, Pedro Tubio. The municipality a student, or of having registered as a voter in the former
of La Paz was formely a barrio of the municipality of Burauen, municipality and is eligible as municipal president of the new
having been organized as an independent municipality in municipality even if his registration as a voter in the
1918. municipality to which the new one originally belong has not
been cancelled.

Issue:
By virtue wherof, and finding no error in the judgment
W/N the defendant-appellee, Mateo G. Murillo, had a legal appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in its entirely,
residence in the municipality of La Paz before the general with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
elections of 1928 in order to be eligible to the office of the
president of said municipality.

[72] PLR – Ramirez v. COMELEC

1997; En Banc
Held:
Facts:
Yes. The defendant-appellee, Mateo G. Murillo, had a legal Petitioner Jose C. Ramirez and private respondent Alfredo I.
residence in the municipality of La Paz before the general Go were candidates for vice mayor of Giporlos, Eastern Samar
elections of 1928 in order to be eligible to the office of the in the election of May 8, 1995. Petitioner was proclaimed
president of said municipality. winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) on the
basis of results showing that he obtained 1,367 votes against
private respondents 1,235 votes.

It will be seen that Mateo G. Murillo has always, since his On May 16, 1995, private respondent filed in the COMELEC a
childhood, been a resident of La Paz, not only while it was still petition for the correction of what he claimed was manifest
a barrio of the Municipality of Burauen, but also after it error in the Statement of Votes (SPC No. 95-198). He alleged
became an independent municipality, and he did not absent that, based on the entries in the Statement of Votes, he
himself therefrom except when studying, first in Tacloban, obtained 1,515 votes as against petitioners 1,367 votes but
Leyte, later in Calbayog, Samar, and finally in Manila. By the that because of error in addition, he was credited with 1,235
mere fact of having lived in Tacloban, Leyte, In Calbayog, votes.
Samar, and in Manila, as a student, the defendant-appellee
In his Answer with Counter-Protest, petitioner Jose C. Ramirez
did not acquire legal residence in said towns, nor lose his
disputed private respondents claim. He said that instead of
residence in La Paz, because, being single, and supported by

59
the total of the votes for private respondent Alfredo Go, it was been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of
actually the entries relating to the number of votes credited due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had
to him in Precinct Nos. 11, 11-A, 6, 1, 17, 7, and 10 which already been made.
were erroneously reflected in the Statement of Votes.
According to petitioner, the entries in the Statement of Votes (e) The petition shall be heard and decided by the Commission
actually referred to the number of votes obtained by Rodito en banc.
Fabillar, a mayoralty candidate, and not to the votes obtained
by private respondent. Accordingly in Castromayor v. Commission on Elections, and
Mentang v. Commission on Elections, this Court approved the
On August 1, 1995, the COMELEC en banc issued its first assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC en banc over
questioned resolution, directing the MBC to reconvene and petitions for correction of manifest error directly filed with it.
recompute the votes in the Statement of Votes and proclaim Our decision today in Torres v COMELEC again gives
the winning candidate for vice mayor of Giporlos, Eastern imprimatur to the exercise by the COMELEC en banc of the
Samar accordingly. power to decide petition for correction of manifest error.

Petitioner Jose C. Ramirez and public respondent Municipal In any event, petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of
Board of Canvassers filed separate motions for clarification. jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc. Not only did he
On September 26, 1995, the COMELEC en banc issued its participate in the proceedings below but he also sought
second questioned resolution, reiterating its earlier ruling. affirmative relief from the COMELEC en banc by filing a
Counter-Protest in which he asked that entr[ies] in the
Petitioner contends that (1) the COMELEC acted without statement of votes for Precinct Nos. 11, 11-A, 6, 1, 17, 7 and
jurisdiction over SPC No. 95-198 because the case was 10, be properly corrected for the petitioner, to reflect the
resolved by it without having been first acted upon by any of correct mandate of the electorate of Giporlos, Eastern Samar.
its divisions, and (2) the MBC had already made motu proprio It is certainly not right for a party taking part in proceedings
a correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes in its and submitting his case for decision to attack the decision
certification dated May 22, 1995, showing the actual number later for lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the
of votes garnered by the candidates and it was a grave abuse decision turns out to be adverse to him.
of its discretion for the COMELEC to order a recomputation of
votes based on the allegedly uncorrected Statement of Votes. [73] VILLANUEVA V. COMELEC

Issue: Facts:
W/N the Comelec en Banc has the jurisdiction over manifest During the 1980 local elections, a certain Narciso Mendoza,
error in the tabulation or tallying of the results. Jr. filed, on the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy,
his sworn certificate of candidacy as independent for the
Held: office of vice-mayor of the municipality of Dolores, Quezon.
Yes. The Comelec en Banc has the jurisdiction over manifest But later on the very same day, he filed an unsworn letter in
error in the tabulation or tallying of the results. his own handwriting withdrawing his said certificate of
candidacy "for personal reasons."
Although in Ong, Jr. v. COMELEC it was said that By now it is Later on, petitioner Crisologo Villanueva, upon learning of his
settled that election cases which include pre-proclamation companion Mendoza's withdrawal, filed his own sworn
controversies must first be heard and decided by a division of "Certificate of Candidacy in substitution" of Mendoza's for the
the Commission and a petition for correction of manifest error said office of vice mayor as a one-man independent ticket.
in the Statement of Votes, like SPC No. 95-198 is a pre-
proclamation controversy in none of the cases cited to support Villanueva won over Lirio with a margin of 452 votes, but the
this proposition was the issue the correction of a manifest Municipal Board of Canvassers disregarded all votes cast in
error in the Statement of Votes under 231 of the Omnibus favor of Villanueva as stray votes on the basis of the Provincial
Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) or 15 of R.A. No. 7166. On the Election Officer's erroneous opinion that since petitioner's
other hand, Rule 27, 5 of the 1993 Rules of the COMELEC name does not appear in the Comelec's certified list of
expressly provides that pre-proclamation controversies candidates for that municipality, it could be presumed that his
involving, inter alia, manifest errors in the tabulation or candidacy was not duly approved by the Comelec so that his
tallying of the results may be filed directly with the COMELEC votes could not be "legally counted."
en banc, thus
Respondent COMELEC also denied Villanueva’s petition for the
5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly annulment of Lirio’s proclamation on the ground that
With the Commission. (a) The following pre-proclamation Mendoza's withdrawal of his certificate is not under oath, as
controversies may be filed directly with the Commission: required under Section 27 of the Code; hence it produces no
legal effect. In addition, said withdrawal was made not after
2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors the last day (January 4, 1980) for filing certificates of
in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the candidacy, as contemplated under Sec. 28 of the Code, but
canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns or on that very same day.
certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once, (2) two
or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two Issue:
or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated Was Villanueva correctly disqualified?
separately, (3) there had been a mistake in the copying of the
figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of Held:
canvass, or (4) so-called returns from non-existent precincts No.
were included in the canvass, and such errors could not have

60
The fact that Mendoza's withdrawal was not sworn is but a files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the
technicality which should not be used to frustrate the people's period fixed herein.
will in favor of petitioner as the substitute candidate.
In Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers, the Supreme Court held By its express language, the foregoing provision of law is
that "(T)he will of the people cannot be frustrated by a absolutely mandatory. It is but logical to say that any person
technicality that the certificate of candidacy had not been who attempts to run for an elective office but does not file a
properly sworn to. This legal provision is mandatory and non- certificate of candidacy, is not a candidate at all. No amount
compliance therewith before the election would be fatal to the of votes would catapult him into office.
status of the candidate before the electorate, but after the Also, in Gador vs. Comelec, the Court held that a certificate of
people have expressed their will, the result of the election candidacy filed beyond the period fixed by law is void, and the
cannot be defeated by the fact that the candidate has not person who filed it is not, in law, a candidate. Much in the
sworn to his certificate or candidacy." same manner as a person who filed no certificate of candidacy
Also, the Comelec's post-election act of denying petitioner's at all and a person who filed it out of time, a person whose
substitute candidacy certainly does not seem to be in certificate of candidacy is cancelled or denied due course is
consonance with the substance and spirit of the law. Section no candidate at all. No amount of votes should entitle him to
28 of the 1978 Election Code provides for such substitute the elective office aspired for.
candidates in case of death, withdrawal or disqualification up A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a
to mid-day of the very day of the elections. Mendoza's valid certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if the
withdrawal was filed on the last hour of the last day for regular disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably
filing of candidacies on January 4, 1980, which he had filed filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at
earlier that same day. For all intents and purposes, such all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted
withdrawal should therefore be considered as having been under Section 77 of the Code. Besides, if we were to allow the
made substantially and in truth after the last day, even going so-called "substitute" to file a "new" and "original" certificate
by the literal reading of the provision by the Comelec. of candidacy beyond the period for the filing thereof, it would
be a crystalline case of unequal protection of the law, an act
[74] MIRANDA V. ABAYA abhorred by our Constitution.

Facts: 2) No.
Jose "Pempe" Miranda, then incumbent mayor of Santiago The Court recalled its ruling in Nolasco vs. Commission
City, Isabela, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same on Elections, such that, “in a mayoralty election, the
mayoralty post for the synchronized 1998 elections. However, candidate who obtained the second highest number of
private respondent Antonio M. Abaya filed a Petition to Deny votes, in this case Alarilla, cannot be proclaimed winner
Due Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy, which in case the winning candidate is disqualified.
was granted by the Comelec in its resolution.The Comelec It also reiterated the rule in the fairly recent case of
further ruled to disqualify Jose "Pempe" Miranda. Reyes v. Comelec `That the candidate who obtains the
second highest number of votes be proclaimed winner in
However, way beyond the deadline of the filing of candidacy, case the winning candidate is disqualified is now settled.
petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed his certificate of candidacy for The doctrinal instability caused by seesawing rulings has
the mayoralty post, supposedly as a substitute for his father, since been removed. In the latest ruling on the question,
Jose "Pempe" Miranda. this Court said:
During the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner and private To simplistically assume that the second placer
respondent vied for the mayoralty seat, with petitioner would have received the other votes would be to
garnering 22,002 votes, 1,666 more votes than private substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter.
respondent who got only 20,336 votes. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He
Abaya then filed a Petition to Declare Null and Void lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a
Substitution with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary majority or plurality of voters. He could not be
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, praying for considered the first among qualified candidates
the nullification of petitioner's certificate of candidacy for because in a field which excludes the disqualified
being void ab initio because the certificate of candidacy of candidate, the conditions would have substantially
Jose "Pempe" Miranda, whom petitioner was supposed to changed.
substitute, had already been cancelled and denied due course. The SC found that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion insofar as it failed to follow the above-cited settled
Issue: ruling consistently applied by the Court since the case of Labo
1) Was Joel Miranda qualified to substitute Jose vs. Comelec, Aquino vs. Comelec, Reyes vs. Comelec , and
“Pempe” Miranda? Nolasco vs. Comelec.
2) If not, was Abaya validly proclaimed as mayor? The Court noted that the election results point to the fact that
private respondent was not then the choice of the people of
Held: Santiago City, Isabela. The Court has no authority under any
1) No. law to impose upon and compel the people of Santiago City
In Bautista vs. Comelec, the SC explicitly ruled that "a to accept private respondent as their mayor. The law on
cancelled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy". succession under section 44 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise
A person without a valid certificate of candidacy cannot be known as the Local Government Code, would then apply.
considered a candidate in much the same way as any person
who has not filed any certificate of candidacy at all cannot, by [75] VICTORINO SALCEDO II VS. COMMISSION ON
any stretch of the imagination, be a candidate at all. ELECTIONS AND ERMELITA CACAO SALCEDO
SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy — No person shall
be eligible for any elective public office unless he August 16, 1999

61
 misrepresentation under Section 78 in relation to Section 74
of the Omnibus Election Code.
FACTS:

Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes Celiz, which marriage was

evidenced by a certified true copy of the marriage contract HELD: No. Private respondent did not commit any material
issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Ajuy, Iloilo. Without misrepresentation by the use of the surname "Salcedo" in her
his first marriage having been dissolved, Neptali P. Salcedo certificate of candidacy.
married private respondent Ermelita Cacao in a civil
ceremony. Two days later, Ermelita Cacao contracted another
marriage with a certain Jesus Aguirre, as shown by a marriage
A false representation under section 78 must consist of a
certificate filed with the Office of the Civil Registrar.
"deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible." It must be
made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one's
Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and private respondent qualifications for public office. The use of a surname, when
Ermelita Cacao Salcedo both ran for the position of mayor of not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to one's
the municipality of Sara, Iloilo in the May 11, 1998 elections, identity, is not within the scope of the provision. There is
both of them having filed their respective certificates of absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were
candidacy However, petitioner filed with the Comelec a deceived by the use of such surname by private respondent.
petition seeking the cancellation of private respondent's Petitioner does not allege that the electorate did not know
certificate of candidacy on the ground that she had made a who they were voting for when they cast their ballots in favor
false representation therein by stating that her surname was of "Ermelita Cacao Salcedo" or that they were fooled into
"Salcedo." Petitioner contended that private respondent had voting for someone else by the use of such name.
no right to use said surname because she was not legally
married to Neptali Salcedo. Private respondent was
proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Sara, Iloilo.
The Court AFFIRMS the en banc Resolution of the Commission
on Elections denying the petition to cancel private
respondent's certificate of candidacy.
In her answer, private respondent claimed that she had no
information or knowledge at the time she married Neptali
Salcedo that he was in fact already married; that, upon [76] TECSON VS. COMELEC
learning of his existing marriage, she encouraged her husband
to take steps to annul his marriage with Agnes Celiz because
the latter had abandoned their marital home. Neptali Salcedo Facts:
filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death which was
granted by the court that Neptali Salcedo and Jesus Aguirre Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando
are one and the same person; and that since 1986 up to the Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December
present she has been using the surname "Salcedo" in all her 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of
personal, commercial and public transactions. the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections. In his
certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to
Comelec's Second Division ruled that since there is an existing
be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila.
valid marriage between Neptali Salcedo and Agnes Celiz, the
subsequent marriage of the former with private respondent is
null and void. Consequently, the use by private respondent of
the surname "Salcedo" constitutes material misrepresentation Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to
and is a ground for the cancellation of her certificate of disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by
candidacy. claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his
parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was
an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish
national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.
However, in its en banc Resolution, the Comelec overturned
its previous resolution, ruling that private respondent's
certificate of candidacy did not contain any material
misrepresentation. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
petitioner was affirmed by the division which gives rise to the
petition to review such promulgation.
Issue:

ISSUE: Whether or not the use by respondent of the surname Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
"Salcedo" in her certificate of candidacy constitutes material

62
 facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy.
Held: Yes. b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall
not be considered resigned upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy for the same or any other
elective office or position.
Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:
Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from
their offices the moment they file their CoCs, petitioners, who
hold appointive positions in the government and who intend
No person may be elected President unless he is
to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition for
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a prohibition and certiorari, seeking the provisions as null and
registered voter, able to read and write, at least void.
forty years of age on the day of the election, and Issue: whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of
a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section 4(a) of COMELEC
immediately preceding such election. Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection
clause

Issue:
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens Is the contested provision unconstitutional?
of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Held:
Philippine citizenship.
Yes. Four requisites of a valid classification:
(1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
Based on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
as viable is the fact that the death certificate of Lorenzo Poe, (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.
father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private
respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso
September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos, facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs,
Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence but not considering as resigned all other civil servants,
of Lorenzo Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates
against the first class. The fact alone that there is substantial
distinction between those who hold appointive positions and
those occupying elective posts, does not justify such
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be differential treatment if it is not germane to the purpose of
sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of the law. The last requirement, the classification would be
residence of a person at the time of his death was also his regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not
residence before death. Considering that the allegations of treated similarly, both as to rights conferred and obligations
petitioners are not substantiated with proof and since Lorenzo imposed. Applying the four requisites to the instant case, the
Court finds that the differential treatment is not germane to
Poe may have been benefited from the “en masse
the purposes of the law.
Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902,
there is no doubt that Allan Poe father of private respondent The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent
Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter the use of a governmental position to promote one’s
was born on August 20, 1939, governed under 1935 candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence
Constitution, which constitution considers as citizens of the on the electorate. The measure is further aimed at promoting
Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by
Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of the eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty
Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or would be motivated by political considerations rather than the
illegitimate welfare of the public. The restriction is also justified by the
proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electoral
arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency
in the performance of duty because they would be attending
to their campaign rather than to their office work. Glaringly
[77] QUINTO VS COMELEC absent is the requisite that the classification must be germane
G.R. No. 189698 December 1 2009 to the purposes of the law. Indeed, whether one holds an
Facts: appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to be
COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution prevented by the measure remain. With the fact that they
provide: both head executive offices, there is no valid justification to
SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy.—a) Any treat them differently when both file their CoCs for the
person holding a public appointive office or position elections.
including active members of the Armed Forces of the As to the danger of neglect, inefficiency or partisanship in the
Philippines, and other officers and employees in government- discharge of the functions of his appointive office, the inverse
owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso could be just as true and compelling. The public officer who
files his certificate of candidacy would be driven by a greater

63
impetus for excellent performance to show his fitness for the submitted only a letter requires to the COMELEC and did not
position aspired for. file a COC.

There is thus no valid justification to treat appointive officials Petronila won the election, but the Board of Canvassers
differently from the elective ones. proclaimed Placido as the winner as it ruled that there was no
valid substitution.

[78] QUINTO VS COMELEC Issue:

GR. 189698 February 22, 2010) WON there can be a valid substitution in a barangay election

Facts: Held:
This is a Motion for Reconsideration from the 2009 case. An Yes.
individual sought to declare as unconstitutional the 2nd
proviso in the 3rd ar. Of Sec. 13 of RA 9369, Sec. 66 of OEC Private respondent contended that under Sec. 77 of the
and Sec. 4(a) of COMELEC resolution. Mainly on the ground Omnibus Elections Code, substitution of candidates is not
that they violate the equal protection clause because of the allowed; that inasmuch as the barangay election is
differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices nonpartisan, there can be no substitution because there is no
and those holding elective positions and suffer overbreath in political party from which to designate the substitute as the
so far as they prohibit the candidacy of civil servants holding provision requires.
appointive post.
The Court ruled that such interpretation, aside from being non
Sec. 13 of RA 9369 states that any person holding public sequitur, ignored the purpose of election laws which is to give
appointive office or position, including active members of the effect to the will of the voters. The absence of a specific
AFP, and officers and employees in GOCCs, shall be provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said
of his CoC. On the other hand, Sec. 14 of RA 9006 provides substitution.
that an incumbent elective official is only considered as
resigned only upon the start of the campaign period
corresponding to the positions they are running; hence, they Private respondent likewise contends that the votes in
are not deemed resigned from office upon filing of CoC. petitioner's favor cannot be counted because she did not file
any certificate of candidacy. In other words, he was the only
Issue: candidate for Barangay Chairman. His claim is refuted by the
WON such provisions are constitutional. Memorandum of the COMELEC Law Department as well as the
assailed Resolution No. 5217, wherein it indubitably appears
Held: that petitioner's letter-request to be allowed to run as
It is constitutional. Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband
was treated as a certificate of candidacy.
There is an unmistakable purpose of the law for the
distinction. To note, sec. 261 f OEC prohibits such acts of Further, technicalities and procedural niceties in election
intervention of public officers and employees. On the other cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will
hand, Sec. 2(4) of Art. 9-B f the 1987 Constitution, bans only of the electorate. Petitioner should be proclaimed as the duly
political offices and thus does not cover elected officials. Such elected Barangay Chairman.
is the case because elected public officials, by the very nature
of their office, engage in partisan political activities almost all Hence Petronilla Rulloda should be proclaimed winner.
year round, even outside campaign period.
[80] FEDERICO vs. COMELEC
Hence, the dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective
officials is therefore germane to the purpose of the law. For Facts:
the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity, Edna Sanchez ran for mayor against respondent Maligaya in
efficiency and disciplining of the public service; the the May 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.
Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial However, in April 2010, her husband, Armando Sanchez, who
scrutiny, also thought it wise to balance this with the was also running for governor died. She withdrew her COC for
competing, yet equally compelling, interest of deferring to the mayor and filed a new COC substituting her husband for
sovereign will. governor.

Subsequently the petitioner, Federico, filed his COC

[79] RULLODA VS COMELEC substituting Edna as candidate for mayor.

Facts: Respondent Maligaya moved to declare Federico as ineligible

In the barangay elections of July, 2002, Romeo Rulloda and because he filed his COC beyond the deadline for filing of
Remegio Placido were the contending candidates for COCs se by Comelec Resolution 8678.
Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.
Federico however posits that the resolution cannot go against
Before elections were held, however, Romeo died and the law under the omnibus election code which provides that
petitioner, his wife, Petronila Rulloda sought to run as substitutes can file their COC up to midday of the election.
candidate in lieu of her late husband. To do this, Petronilla

64
The Comelec ruled in favour of Maligaya and annulled On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as taxpayers and citizens, filed a
Federicos proclamation as the winner. Petition to enjoin the signing of the Contract or its
implementation and to compel disclosure of the terms of the
Issue: Contract and other agreements between the Provider and its
Whether or not the Comelec can set the deadline for Filing of subcontractors. Petitioners sought the Contract's invalidation
COCs against the deadlines set in the Omnibus election code. for non-compliance with the requirement in Section 5 of RA
8436, as amended, mandating the partial use of an
Held: automated election system before deploying it nationwide.
Yes. The Automation law gave Comelec the power to set new
deadlines for filing of COCs that can be different from the ones To further support their claim on the Contract's invalidity,
set in the Omnibus election code. petitioners alleged that (1) the optical scanners leased by the
COMELEC do not satisfy the minimum systems capabilities"
The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in setting under RA 8436, as amended and (2) the Provider not only
the deadline for filing. The Comelec is empowered by law to failed to submit relevant documents during the bidding but
prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful also failed to show "community of interest" among its
the conduct of the first national automated election. RA 9369 constituent corporations as required in Information
which governs the conduct of automated elections specifically Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Comelec
allows COMELEC to set deadlines for the filing of certificates (Infotech).
of candidacy etc.
Issue:
Under Sec. 15, “the Comelec, which has the constitutional Did Comelec gravely abuse its discretion in awarding the
mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations automation project with Smartmatic TIM Corporation?
relative to the conduct of an election,”
Held:
In resolving that the deadline for all substitutions must be No.
made on or before Dec. 15, 2009 pursuant to Comelec Assayed against the provisions of the Constitution, the
Resolution No. 8678, COMELEC did not abuse its discretion. enabling automation law, RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369,
the RFP and even the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners
Thus, the substitution of Petitioner Federico was made out of invoked as an afterthought, the Court finds the project award
time and was thus void. to have complied with legal prescriptions, and the terms and
conditions of the corresponding automation contract in
[81] HARRY ROQUE V. COMELEC question to be valid. No grave abuse of discretion, therefore,
GR No. 188456, September 10, 2009 can be laid on the doorsteps of respondent Comelec.

RE: Automated Election System (AES) The Comelec is an independent constitutional body with a
distinct and pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the
Facts: discharge of its awesome functions as overseer of fair
On 23 January 2007, Congress passed RA 9369 amending the elections, administrator and lead implementer of laws relative
first automated election law, RA 8436. Section 5 of RA 8436, to the conduct of elections, it should not be stymied with
as amended by RA 9369, which amendment took effect on 10 restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an
February 2007, authorized the COMELEC to: organization of lesser responsibility. It should be afforded
ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising means
“Use an automated election system or systems in and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great
the same election in different provinces, whether objective for which it was created--to promote free, orderly,
paper-based or a direct recording automated honest and peaceful elections.
election system as it may deem appropriate and
practical for the process of voting, counting of This is as it should be for, too often, Comelec has to make
votes and canvassing/consolidation and decisions under difficult conditions to address unforeseen
transmittal of results of electoral exercises: events to preserve the integrity of the election and in the
Provided, that for the regular national and local process the voice of the people. Thus, in the past, the Court
election, which shall be held immediately after has steered away from interfering with the Comelec’s exercise
effectivity of this Act, the AES shall be used in at of its power which, by law and by the nature of its office
least two highly urbanized cities and two properly pertain to it. Absent, therefore, a clear showing of
provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, grave abuse of discretion on Comelec’s part, as here, the
to be chosen by the Commission…In succeeding Court should refrain from utilizing the corrective hand of
regular national or local elections, the AES shall certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts of that body.
be implemented nationwide.”
This independent constitutional commission, it is true,
On 10 July 2009, the Comelec on the one hand, and TIM and possesses extraordinary powers and enjoys a considerable
Smartmatic (Provider), on the other, signed the Contract for latitude in the discharge of its functions. The road, however,
the automated tallying and recording of votes cast nationwide towards successful 2010 automation elections would certainly
in the 10 May 2010 elections. For P7,191,484,739.48, the be rough and bumpy. The Comelec is laboring under very tight
COMELEC leased for use in the 10 May 2010 elections 82,200 timelines. It would accordingly need the help of all advocates
optical scanners (and related equipment) and hired ancillary of orderly and honest elections, of all men and women of
services of the Provider. goodwill, to smoothen the way and assist Comelec personnel
address the fears expressed about the integrity of the system.

65
Like anyone else, the Court would like and wish automated political activity outside the campaign period, Penera must be
elections to succeed, credibly. disqualified from holding the office of Mayor of Sta. Monica.

[82] ROSALINDA PENERA V. COMELEC *Note: This decision was reversed upon Motion for
GR No. 181613, September 11, 2009 Reconsideration by Penera. See next case dated
November 25, 2009.
RE: Automated Election System (AES)
[83] PENERA V. COMELEC
Facts: G.R. No. 181613, Novermber 25, 2009
Penera and Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta.
Monica during the May 14, 2007 elections. On April 2, 2007, Facts:
Andanar filed a Petition for Disqualification against Penera for This case is pursuant to motion for reconsideration of the
unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan earlier decision of the Supreme Court disqualifying petitioner
political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign Penera from running for the office of Mayor in Sta. Monica,
period. Surigao del Norte. This was ruled after the court’s finding that
she engaged in premature campaigning as she participated in
Penera averred that the charge of premature campaigning a motorcade after filing her COC but before the start of the
was not true. Although she admitted that a motorcade did campaign period. Petitioner argues that she was not yet a
take place, she explained that it was simply in accordance with candidate based on Section 11 of RA 8436 as amended by
the usual practice in nearby cities and provinces, where the Section 13 of RA 9369.
filing of certificates of candidacy (COCs) was preceded by a
motorcade, which dispersed soon after the completion of such Issue:
filing. Does a person commit premature election campaigning
should she engage in a motorcade after filing her COC but
Later, Comelec issued a Resolution disqualifying Penera for before the start of the campaign period?
engaging in premature campaigning.
Held:
Issue: No. This later decision granted the petitioner’s Motion for
Does the conduct of a motorcade prior to the campaign period Reconsideration and reversed the earlier decision of the court.
constitute premature campaigning?
In the original automated election law, RA 8436, there was no
Held: express provision stating that one who files a certificate of
Yes. candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign
period. However, when Congress amended the law through
The prohibited act of premature campaigning is defined under RA 9369, it expressly provides that any person who files his
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: certificate of candidacy within such period shall only be
considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period
“Section 80. Election campaign or for which he filed his COC.
partisan political activity outside
campaign period. — It shall be unlawful In this case, when petitioner participated in the motorcade,
for any person, whether or not a voter she was still not deemed a candidate for purposes other than
or candidate, or for any party, or the printing of the ballots. As a result, any act committed by
association of persons, to engage in an her prior to the campaign period, even if constituting election
election campaign or partisan political campaigning or partisan political activities, is not punishable
activity except during the campaign under the Omnibus Election Code. It is rather within the realm
period.” of a citizen’s protected freedom of expression.

In the case at bar, it had been sufficiently established, not [84] BATABOR V. COMELEC
just by Andanar's evidence, but also those of Penera herself, G.R. No. 160428
that Penera and her party-mates, after filing their COCs on 29 July 21, 2004
March 2007, participated in a motorcade which passed
through the different barangays of Sta. Monica, waived their Facts:
hands to the public, and threw candies to the onlookers.
Petitioner ran for Punong Barangay but lost to his opponent.
Penera and her witnesses admitted that the vehicles, He filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare a failure of
consisting of two jeepneys and ten motorcycles, were election in 3 precincts, alleging that during the election, the
festooned with multi-colored balloons; the motorcade went voting in those precincts were stopped at 1pm and
around three barangays in Sta. Monica; and Penera and her subsequently, the Chairman of the BEI tore all the unused
partymates waved their hands and threw sweet candies to the ballots. Allegedly, the latter did not allow the remaining voters
crowd. With vehicles, balloons, and even candies on hand, to vote. Thus, the petitioner’s relatives and followers,
Penera can hardly persuade us that the motorcade was numbering more than 100, were not able to cast their votes.
spontaneous and unplanned.
Issue:
In view of the foregoing admissions by Penera and her Is there failure of election?
witnesses, Penera cannot now be allowed to adopt a
conflicting position. For violating Section 80 of the Omnibus Held:
Election Code, proscribing election campaign or partisan

66
None. For there to be failure of elections, 2 conditions must annulment of the election can be justified because the
exist: (1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts remaining votes do not constitute a valid constituency. We
due to fraud, force majeure, violence or terrorism; and (2) the have held that: "To declare a failure of election, two (2)
votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the conditions must occur: first, no voting has taken place in the
election. The cause of such failure may arise before or after precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there
the casting of votes or on the day of the election. were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to
elect; and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result
In this case, while the alleged 100 votes of petitioner’s
of the election." Neither of these conditions was present in
relatives and supporters, if cast during the election, are
sufficient to affects its result, however, he failed to prove that the case at bar. More recently, we clarified that, "Under the
the voting did not take place in the 3 precincts. As found by pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there
COMELEC, the Statement of Votes and the Certificate of are only three (3) instances where a failure of elections may
Canvass of Votes show that out of the 316 registered voters, be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has
at least 220 actually voted. This simply shows that there was not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure,
no failure of election in the subject precincts. Moreover, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the
petitioner’s allegation that the voting was not resumed, election in any polling place had been suspended before the
preventing 100 voters, is better ventilated in an election hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of
contest. force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes; or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and
[85] CARLOS V. ANGELES
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or
GR No. 142907, November 29, 2000. canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
Facts: analogous causes.”

On May 21, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers,

Valenzuela, Metro Manila, proclaimed petitioner Jose
Emmanuel L. Carlos as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela Moreover, the trial court has no jurisdiction to declare a failure
having obtained 102,688 votes, the highest number of votes, of election. It is the Commission (Comelec) sitting en banc
over that of respondent Antonio M. Serapio who obtained that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of
77,270 votes. On June 1, 1998, respondent filed with the election. Assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction to
Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, an election declare a failure of election, the extent of that power is limited
protest challenging the election results. The RTC of Caloocan to the annulment of the election and the calling of special
City, Branch 125, rendered its decision and set aside the final elections. The result is a failure of election for that particular
tally of valid votes because of its finding of "significant badges office. In such case, the court can not declare a winner. A
of fraud and failure of election." Despite the plurality of valid permanent vacancy is thus created. In such eventuality, the
votes in favor of protestee Carlos, the trial court set aside his duly elected vice-mayor shall succeed as provided by law. We
proclamation and declared protestant Serapio as duly elected find that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion
mayor of Valenzuela City. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

[86] POE V. ARROYO

Issue:
PET Case No. 002, March 29, 2005
Was the RTC correct in declaring a failure of election?

Facts:
Held:
Election protest was filed by FPJ against GMA. In the middle
No. In this case, the petitioner admittedly received 17,007 of the case, FPJ died and Susan Roces filed a motion to
valid votes more than the protestee, and therefore the substitute FPJ in the election protest. GMA asserts that Susan
nullification of the election would not lie. The power to nullify cannot substitute since a public office is personal and not a
an election must be exercised with the greatest care with a property that passes on to the heirs and that it is only the 2nd
view not to disenfranchise the voters, and only under and 3rd highest votes for the presidency who may contest the
circumstances that clearly call for such drastic remedial election and Susan did not receive such votes nor she even
measure. ran for presidency.

In a petition to annul an election under Section 6, Batas Issue:

Pambansa Blg. 881, two conditions must be averred in order
May a widow substitute/intervene for the protestant who died
to support a sufficient cause of action. These are: (1) the
during the pendency of the protest?
illegality must affect more than 50% of the votes cast and (2)
the good votes can be distinguished from the bad ones. It is
only when these two conditions are established that the

67
Held:

No. Under Rule 14 of PET Rules, it is only the 2nd and 3rd
highest voters who can contest the election. This Tribunal,
however, does not have any rule on substitution nor
intervention but it does allow for the analogous and
suppletory application of the Rules of Court, decisions of the
Supreme Court, and the decisions of the electoral tribunals.
Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of
Court. This rule allows substitution by a legal representative.
However, in our application of this rule to an election contest,
we have every time ruled that a public office is personal to
the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs
upon death. This is not to say that death of the protestant
necessarily abates the pending action. We have held as early
as Vda. de De Mesa (1966) that while the right to a public
office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an
election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the
protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either
would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. Hence, we have allowed substitution and
intervention but only by a real party in interest. A real party
in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by
the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of
the suit. Mrs. FPJ will not immediately and directly benefit
from the outcome should it be determined that the declared
president did not truly get the highest number of votes and
thus far, in this case, no real parties such as the vice-
presidential aspirants in the 2004 elections, have come
forward to intervene, or to be substituted for the deceased
protestant.

68