Lico v COMELEC

Facts:
Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the
House of Representatives, on the one... hand; and from his party-list organization, on the other.
Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization... registered... under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, also known
as the Party-List System Act (Party-List Law).
Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation for the 10 May
2010 Elections.
it filed with the COMELEC the list of its nominees, with petitioner Lico as first... nominee
OMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning party-list groups.
Ating Koop earned a seat in the House... of Representatives. Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of office...
and thereafter assumed office.
Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list organizations,... Ating Koop issued Central
Committee Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by its nominees
Under the agreement,... petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list Representative for the first year of the three-year
term
Ating Koop... introduced amendm... ents to its Constitution and By-laws. Among the salient changes was the
composition of the Central Committee,... The amendments likewise mandated the holding of an election of Central
Committee members within six months after the Second National
Convention.
In effect, the amendments cut short the three-year term of the incumbent members (referred to hereafter as the
Interim Central Committee) of the Central Committee.
The Interim Central Committee was dominated by members of the Rimas Group.
almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office, the Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating
Koop for disloyalty.
Apart from allegations of malversation and graft and corruption, the Committee cited petitioner
Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under
Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.
Rimas Group... h COMELEC a Petition against petitioner Lico... prayed that petitioner Lico... be ordered to vacate
the office of Ating Koop in the House of Representatives
COMELEC
RESOLVES... to:
DISMISS the instant Petition to Expel Respondent Atty. Isidro Q. Lico in the House of Representatives and to
Sanction the Immediate Succession of the Second Nominee of ATING KOOP Party List, Mr. Roberto C. Mascarina
as its Party Representative, for lack of... jurisdiction

Issues:
Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the
House of Representatives, on the one... hand; and from his party-list organization, on the other.

Ruling:
the COMELEC En Banc held that it had no jurisdiction to expel Congressman Lico from the House of
Representatives, considering that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his qualifications as member of the House,
and therefore it was... the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that had jurisdiction over the Petition.
the COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim
Central Committee ousted him from Ating Koop, the said Committee's members remained in hold-over capacity
even after their terms had... expired;... and that the COMELEC was not in a position to substitute its judgment for
that of Ating Koop with respect to the cause of the expulsion.
We find that while the COMELEC correctly dismissed the Petition to expel petitioner Lico from the House of
Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his expulsion
from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution... ndows the HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the
qualifications of members of Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over
a disqualification case... upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of
office as member of the House of Representative
In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath;
and... he assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has
jurisdiction over the disqualification case.
We find to be without legal basis, however, is the action of the COMELEC in upholding the validity of the expulsion
of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that the HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification
issue. These findings already touch upon... the qualification requiring a party-list nominee to be a bona fide member
of the party-list group sought to be represented.
The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect.
Rather, the operation of the rule on intra-party matters is circumscribed by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and jurisprudence on the... jurisdiction of electoral tribunals. The jurisdiction of the HRET is exclusive.
It is given full authority to hear and decide the cases on any matter touching on the validity of the title of the
proclaimed winner.
In the pre
The Court held that it was for the HRET to interpret the meaning of the requirement of... bona fide membership in a
party-list organization. It reasoned that under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge
of all contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 31
January 2013 and the COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated 18 July 2012 in E.M. No. 12-039 are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it... declares valid the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop
and it upholds the ATING KOOP Party-list Group represented by its President, Amparo T. Rimas, as the legitimate
Party-list Group.

Lokin v COMELEC

Estrella v COMELEC

Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a mayoralty race in May 14, 2001 elections. His opponent,
Romeo Estrella, filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) an election protest which consequently annulled Salvador‘s
proclamation and declaredEstrella as the duly elected mayor and eventually issued writ of execution. While Salvador
filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), raffled to the Second Division
thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of Commissioner Ralph Lantion, but a Status Quo Ante Order was issued.
However, Commissioner Lantion voluntarily inhibited himself and designated another Commissioner to substitute
him. The Second Division, with the new judge, affirmed with modifications the
RTC decision and declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, in which this time, Commissioner Lantion participated by virtue of Status
Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC En Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may not participate in the
Division deliberations, he will vote when the case is elevated to COMELEC En Banc. Hence, Estrella filed a Petition
for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether a COMELEC Commissioner who inhibited himself in Division deliberations may participate in its
En Banc deliberation.
HELD:
The Status Quo Ante Order dated November 5, 2003 issued by the COMELEC En Banc is nullified. Commissioner
Lantion‘s voluntary piecemeal inhibitioncannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow a
Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc proceedings when
he previously inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any satisfactory justification, not only judicially unethical
but legally improper and absurd. Since Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in the issuance of the
questioned order, thus leaving three (3) members concurring therewith, the necessary votes of four (4) or majority of
the members of the COMELEC was not attained. The order thus failed to comply with the number of votes necessary
for the pronouncement of a decisionor order.

Sevilla v COMELEC

SUMMARY
: Sevilla questions the appreciation of ballots by the COMELEC. The SC affirmed the COMELEC ruling.
DOCTRINE
: In order to ascertain and carry out such will, their ballots must be read and appreciated according to the rule that
every ballot is presumed valid, unless there is clear and good reason to justify its ejection. The Neighborhood Rule
states that, where the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the ballot, but is preceded by the name
of the office for which he is a candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for said candidate. "The Intent Rule
originates from the principle that, in the appreciation of the ballot, the objective should be to ascertain and carry into
effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable certainty. The Written by Two Rule states
that ballots which clearly appeared to have been filled by two persons before being deposited in the ballot box are
null and void, in the absence of evidence aliunde that the second handwriting was placed on the ballot after it was
deposited in the ballot box, since the presumption is that the entries on the ballot were made prior to the casting of
the vote.

FACTS
:Sevilla and Gupit were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte,
during the 2013 Barangay Elections. After the canvass of results, Sevilla was proclaimed the winning candidate.
Sevilla received 466 votes, while Gupit garnered 465 votes. Notably, there was a margin of only one vote. Gupit
contested his defeat by filing an election protest, which the MCTC granted. The Comelec in division
and en banc affirmed the MCTC’s ruling.

ISSUES
:

WoN the lower tribunals have properly appreciated the ballots in favor of Gupit

o
YES. The will of the voters is embodied in the ballots. In order to ascertain and carry out such will, their ballots
must be read and appreciated according to the rule that every ballot is presumed valid, unless there is clear and good
reason to justify its rejection.
o
Sevilla contends that the intention to vote for Gupit was absent in the ballot marked as Exhibit"I"
and hence, should be considered as a stray vote.

The Court begs to differ. The COMELEC En Banc correctly credited the contested ballot in favor of Gupit based on
the
Idem Sonans Rule.
The aforesaid rule states that when a name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a sound similar to
the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in such candidate's favor. The Idem
Sonans Rule is particularly provided for under
Section 211(7) of the Omnibus Election Code
, viz: “ Section 211. Rules for the appreciation of ballots. - In the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot
shall be presumed to be valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. The board of election
inspectors shall observe the following rules, bearing in mind that the object of the election is to obtain the expression
of the voter's will

7. A name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a sound similar to the name or surname of a
candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his favor."

The name
"Nanie G"
written on the space allotted for Punong Barangay in the questioned ballot was validly credited to Gupit. "Nanie"
undoubtedly sounds like the name of Gupit ,i.e., "Ranie". Moreover, the surname of Gupit, i.e., Gupit, starts with a
G. While the Court notes that there was a candidate for Barangay Kagawad under the name of "Nanie" Ballangca y
Gubat, such fact alone is insufficient to invalidate the ballot. As pointed out bythe COMELEC First Division,
counting the questioned ballot in favor of Gupit is in line more with the basic principle that the primary objective of
ballot appreciation is to discover and give effect to, rather than frustrate, the intention of the voter.
o
With respect to the ballot marked as
Exhibit "F,"
Sevilla alleges that it should have been counted in his favor based on the Neighborhood and Intent Rules.

The
Neighborhood Rule
states that, where the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the ballot, but is preceded by the name
of the office for which he is a candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for said candidate."

The
Intent Rule
originates from the principle that, in the appreciation of the ballot, the objective should be to ascertain and carry into
effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable certainty.


The COMELEC En Banc rightly ruled that both the Neighborhood and Intent Rulesfind no application in the present
case,
considering that there was a name written in the space provided for Punong Barangay and regardless of the fact that
such name does not belong to any candidate vying for the said position.
Section 211(19) of the Omnibus Election Code states that any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate
of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a
stray vote
. Hence, the vote was properly considered by the COMELEC En Banc as a stray vote.
o
Sevilla alleges that the ballot marked as
Exhibit "R-4"
should have been appreciated in his favor ,because such was accomplished by only one person."

The applicable rule, with respect to the contested ballot, is the
Written by Two Rule
. According to the aforesaid rule, ballots which clearly appeared to have been filled by two persons before being
deposited in the ballot box are null and void, in the absence of evidence aliunde that the second handwriting was
placed on the ballot after it was deposited in the ballot box, since the presumption is that the entries on the ballot
were made prior to the casting of the vote. It further holds that, where it appears that there is a marked disparity or
dissimilarity between the handwriting in one part of the ballot and the handwriting in another part and that the votes
had clearly not been written by the same hand, the ballot will be rejected.


Contrary to the stand of Sevilla, a review of the contested ballot clearly shows thatsuch was written by two different
persons
. As properly held by the COMELEC En

Banc, the penmanship for Punong Barangay was distinctly different from the penmanship of those written for
Barangay Kagawad. The COMELEC En Banc rightly ruled that suchglaring dissimilarity can be seen by the fact that
the name of the candidate for Punong Barangay was in all caps and straightly written, except for the last name, while
those for Barangay Kagawad was written in italics and not in all caps. Hence, the COMELEC EnBanc rightly did not
credit the subject ballot in favor of Sevilla.

Ibrahim v COMELEC

FACTS:
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order assailing the resolutions of the COMELEC disqualifying petitioner from the 2010
Vice-Mayoralty race in Datu Unsay, Maguindanao
Ibrahim filed his certificate of candidacy for the May 2010 elections
Buagas (acting Election Officer) then submitted names of 20 candidates who were not registered voters to the
COMELEC’S Law Department – the list included the name of Ibrahim
COMELEC en banc issued the resolution disqualifying Ibrahim for not being registered voters
Opposition of Ibrahim:
Ibrahim had participated in the 2004 and 2007 elections
Were permanent residents and domiciled in the place sought to be elected
COMELEC denied the Petition/Opposition – Ibrahim was not a registered voter as certified by Buagas
In the 2010 Elections, Ibrahim got majority vote but Buagas suspended Ibrahim’s proclamation

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it issued the Resolutions.
DECISION
Petition granted
COMELEC resolutions set aside
Ibrahim to be proclaimed

RATIONALE:
The COMELEC en banc is devoid of authority to disqualify Ibrahim as a candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor of
Datu Unsay
Section 3(C), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure
in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases
shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
Garvida v. Salas Jr. – held that it is the COMELEC sitting in division and not the COMELEC en banc which has
jurisdiction over petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy:
Sec.78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time
not later than twenty-five days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due
notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before election. (Omnibus Rules)
Under the same Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the
COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en
banc when the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the
Division. Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in
Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc.
In the case at bar, the COMELEC en banc, through the herein assailed resolutions, ordered Ibrahim’s disqualification
even when no complaint or petition was filed against him yet.
A proper petition should have been filed before the conduct of elections
Moreover, even if we were to assume that a proper petition had been filed, the COMELEC en banc still acted with
grave abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of a matter, which by both constitutional prescription and
jurisprudential declaration, instead aptly pertains to one of its divisions

Cagas v COMELEC

Att. Francisco v COMELEC and Nieto