Javier v COMELEC, GR No.
215847, January 12, 2016
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Commission erred in ruling that RA 7890 did not remove coercion as
a ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code?
RULING:
YES. COMELEC’s reasoning that coercion remains to be a ground for disqualification
under Section 68 of the OEC despite the passage of RA 7890 is erroneous. RA 7890
expressly repealed Section 261 (d) (1) and (2) of the OEC, rendering these provisions
inoperative. The effect of this repeal is to remove Section 261(d) from among those
listed as ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the OEC.
In the case, the act of Governor Javier in preventively suspending Mayor Roquero
during the election period ban falls within the contemplation of Section 261(d) which is a
ground for disqualification under Section 68. That is, Governor Javier issued Executive
Order No. 003 suspending Mayor Roquero to coerce, intimidate, compel, or influence
the latter to collaborate with or campaign for the former, or to punish the latter for having
manifested political opposition against the former. For that, he must be disqualified. But
with the express repeal of Section 261(d), the basis for disqualifying Javier no longer
existed.
Chiong v Senate, GR No. 217725, May 31, 2016
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 9 of RA
9369, insofar as they provide for the creation of the Advisory Council (AC) and the
Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), are unconstitutional for allegedly being violative
of Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, on the ground that it encroaches
on the COMELEC’s mandate to administer and enforce all laws relating to the
elections?
RULING:
(copy index card)
Bungcaras v COMELEC, GR Nos. 209415-17, November 15, 2016
ISSUE:
Can moral damages and attorney’s fees be awarded in election protests?
RULING:
Moral damages cannot be awarded in election protests. Presently, the award of
damages in election contests is provided under Section 259 of the OEC. What is
patently clear from this provision is that only actual or compensatory damages may be
awarded in election contests. The above provision is a stark contrast to the provisions in
the past election codes that expressly permit the award of moral and exemplary
damages. The omission of the provisions allowing for moral and exemplary damages in
the current OEC clearly underscores the legislative intent to do away with the award of
damages other than those specified in Section 259.
Attorney’s fees can be awarded in election protests. Section 2, Rule 15 of AM No. 10-4-
1-SC mandates that “in all election contests, the court may adjudicate damages and
attorney's fees as it may deem just and as established by the evidence, if the aggrieved
party has included these claims in the pleadings.” In the case, while the private
respondents did include their claim for attorney's fees in their memorandum before the
trial court, the Court finds that they did not adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate
their entitlement to said claim. Moreover, the fact that the private respondents were
compelled to litigate does not, by itself, merit the award of attorney's fees. The failure of
the petitioners to adduce substantial evidence to sustain their election protests does not
necessarily lead to a conclusion that they were guilty of bad faith in the filing of said
cases.
ISSUE:
How are appeals in election cases involving elective municipal and barangay officials,
perfected?
RULING:
The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court's decision in election contests involving
municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon (1) the filing of the notice of appeal
and the payment of the P1,000 appeal fee to the court that rendered the decision within
the five-day reglementary period pursuant to AM No. 07-4-15-SC; and (2) the payment
of the additional appeal fee of P3,200 to the COMELEC Cash Division within 15 days
from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal with the lower court pursuant to
COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. Errors in the matter of nonpayment or incomplete
payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable.
Legazpi v COMELEC, GR No. 216572, September 1, 2015
ISSUE:
Was the COMELEC en banc correct in dismissing the electoral protest after it failed to
obtain the required majority during “re-hearing” of the motion for reconsideration?
RULING:
(copy index card)
Legazpi v COMELEC, GR No. 216572, April 19, 2016 [MR]
ISSUE:
Did the interpretation of Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in
Mendoza and in the September 1, 2015 Decision render the rule unconstitutional?
RULING:
(copy index card)
ISSUE:
Is the motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc an "incidental matter"?
RULING:
(copy index card)
ISSUE:
Is there sufficient basis to re-visit and modify the Mendoza doctrine and the September
1, 2015 Decision?
RULING:
(copy index card)
Ejercito v COMELEC, GR No. 212398, November 25, 2014
ISSUE:
Did Ejercito commit the election offense of election overspending?
RULING:
YES. Ejercito committed the election offense of spending in his election campaign an
amount in excess of what is allowed by the OEC, and should be disqualified for it.
Section 13 of RA 7166 sets the current allowable limit on expenses of candidates and
political parties for election campaign. Included in the aggregate limit are those incurred
by the contributor/supporter/donor. To rule otherwise would practically result in an
unlimited expenditure for political advertising, which skews the political process and
subverts the essence of a truly democratic form of government.
Accordingly, a candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only
authorized to incur an election expense amounting to P4,576,566. However, in total
disregard and violation of the law, Ejercito exceeded his expenditures in relation to his
campaign for the 2013 election. For television campaign commercials alone, he already
spent P23,730,784. Even assuming that he was given 30% discount as prescribed
under the Fair Election Act, he still exceeded the total allowable expenditures for which
he paid the sum of P16,611,549.
Causing v COMELEC, Biron, GR No. 199139, September 9, 2014
ISSUE:
Whether or not the relocation of the petitioner by respondent Municipal Mayor during the
election period from her office as the Local Civil Registrar to the Office of the Mayor just
a few steps away constituted a prohibited act under the Omnibus Election Code and the
relevant Resolution of the COMELEC?
RULING:
(copy index card)
SWS and Pulse Asia v COMELEC, GR No. 208062, April 7, 2015
ISSUE:
For failure to submit the names of subscribers, including those who did not commission
or pay for a specific survey or caused its publication, did SWS and Pulse Asia commit
an election offense?
RULING:
(copy index card)
