G.R. No.

L-22335      December 31, 1965 member with a difference of 1857 votes against

Purisima
AMANTE P. PURISIMA, petitioner,   After multiple attempts of Purisima again to call to attention
vs. the erasure and discrepancies and asked for the suspension-
HON. ANGELINO C. SALANGA, Judge of the Court of then denied- he filed a petition in COMELEC to annul the
First Instance of Ilocos Sur. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD canvass and proclamation which issued the annulment of the
OF CANVASSERS, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS canvass and proclamation as regards to Purisima and
and GREGORIO CORDERO, respondents. Cordero.
 CFI RULLING:
FACTS
 Purisima filed a petition for recount under 163 of the
Revised Election Code where motions to dismiss were
 1963 November, Purisima and Gregorio Cordeo were among
filed by both Cordero and the board of Canvassers. After
the candidates running for Provincial Board Members
preliminary hearing, the motion was dismissed- Cordero
of Ilocos Sur. Nov 25 the provincial board and canvassers
then filed to COMELEC a motion for resumption of
met and started canvassing the returns for the said office
canvass [Cordero admitted that there were erasures but
 Purisima noted that during the canvass the returns from denied tampering]
41 precincts showed that the words and figures for
 He then filed a MOR, in the same case he also filed a
Corderos vote have been “obviously and manifestly
petition for preliminary injunction against the canvassing.
erased” and superimposed with other words and figures.
He also filed in COMELEC an opposition for resumption
For purposes of comparison it was found that
of canvass (bes tatlong kaso isang problema)
a discrepancy of 5042 votes in favor of Cordero was
thereby found.  Alleging the COMELEC was about to resume canvassing
Purisima went to SC who asked for opposition to file an
 A request for suspension was made by Purisima which
answer
was denied by the board of canvassers on the ground
that it was not yet ascertained if the discrepancies would ISSUE: Whether a recounting of the ballots was in order?
materially affect the result. Canvass proceeded.
 After the returns has been read the results showed that for HELD: YES. The SC explained the requisites of judicial
the Cordero won the LAST SLOT for board recount in Sec 163 of the Revised Election Code which are:
 1. that it appears to the provincial board of canvassers that a G.R. No. L-25467             April 27, 1967
discrepancy exists;
2. that said discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the LUCAS V. CAUTON, petitioner, 
board and another authentic copy thereof; vs.
3. that said authentic copy must also be submitted to the board. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and PABLO
SANIDAD, respondents.
The CFI judge erred (respondent) in stating that the requisites
were not present since:
Facts:
1. it is not disputed that a candidate affected can file the
petition for recount, even if he does so alone, without the  Petitioner Lucas V. Cauton and respondent Pablo Sanidad,
concurrence of the provincial board of canvassers along with Godofredo S. Reyes, were candidates for
2. Purisima first called attention to the discrepancy between Representative in the second congressional district of Ilocos
the Nacionalista Party copies and the Provincial Treasurer’s Sur in the Nov. 9, 1965 national elections.
copies, the board of canvassers admitted the discrepancy  During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers,
3. In the motion to dismiss filed by the board of canvassers, the particularly after the Board had opened the envelopes
existence of the discrepancy is not disputed, and the board containing the copies of the election returns from the
merely raises the defense that the recount is up to the court election precincts in the municipalities of Candon, Santiago
and not to said board and Sta. Cruz, Sanidad brought to the attention of the Board
that the entries of votes for the candidates for Representative
in those copies of the election returns that came from the
envelopes presented by the provincial treasurer differed
from the entries in the copies of the returns that were in the
possession of the Liberal Party.
 Sanidad filed a petition with the Commission on Elections
praying for the opening of the ballot boxes in all the
precincts of Candon, Santiago and Sta. Cruz, to canvass of
the votes, and that in the meantime the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Ilocos Sur be ordered to refrain from
 proclaiming the winning candidate for the office of preliminary injunction, praying that the Comelec Resolution
Representative in said district. Comelec issued the ordering the opening of the ballot boxes used in all the
restraining order and set his petition for hearing. precincts of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago in the elections
 After hearing, the Commission on Elections found that the be annulled and set aside, and that Comelec be restrained
copies of the election returns for the Municipal Treasurer, from opening the envelopes containing the election returns,
Comelec and Provincial Treasurer for Santa Cruz have alleging that Comelec acted without or in excess of its
uniform alterations and showed different numbers jurisdiction in issuing the resolution.
compared with the Liberal Party copies. The returns  Cauton contends that under Section 157 of the Revised
for Candon and Santiago were never verified as the Election Code the Commission on Elections has authority to
municipal treasurers of the two municipalities did not order the opening of the ballot boxes only in connection with
comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by an investigation conducted for the purpose of helping in the
the Commission on Elections directing them to bring to prosecution of any violation of the election laws or for purely
the Commission the copies of the election returns of the administrative purpose but not when the sole purpose is to
precincts in their respective municipalities. assist a party in trying to win the election, and that the mere
 On December 22, 1965, Comelec issued an order directing fact that the copies of the returns of the Liberal Party do not
the opening of the ballot boxes of the municipalities of tally with the returns in the possession of the Provincial
Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago to retrieve the Treasurer, the Comelec and the Nacionalista Party does not
corresponding election returns in all the precincts of said legally support the validity of the resolution.
municipalities. The ballot boxes were opened by the Chief of
the Law Enforcement Division of the Commission, Atty. Issue: Whether Comelec had the authority to order the
Fernando Gorospe, and the envelopes containing the election opening of the ballot boxes
returns were brought to Manila. Ruling: Yes. In issuing the resolution in question, the Commission
 On December 28, 1965, the envelopes that were taken from on Elections simply performed a function as authorized by the
the ballot boxes were opened and the election returns were Constitution to have exclusive charge of the enforcement and
taken out and their contents examined and recorded by a administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and
committee appointed by the Commission in a formal hearing exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law.
with notice to the parties concerned Comelec has the power to decide all administrative questions
 On the same day, petitioner Lucas Cauton filed before the affecting elections, except the question involving the right to vote.
Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
Comelec has the power to investigate and act on the Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, on which petitioner
propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns herein relies in support of his stand in the present case, authorizes
made by the board of canvassers. In Albano v. Arranz, the the opening of the ballot box whenever it is the subject of an
Court held that: official investigation. Under this section, the ballot boxes may be
The suspension of the proclamation of the winning opened in case there is an election contest, or even if there is no
candidate pending an inquiry into irregularities brought election contest when their contents have to be used as evidence in
to the attention of the Commission on Elections was well the prosecution of election frauds. Moreover, they may be opened
within its administrative jurisdiction, in view of the when they are the subject of any official investigation which may
exclusive authority conferred upon it by the Constitution be ordered by a competent court or other competent authority,
(Art. X) for the administration and enforcement of all which necessarily includes the Commission on Elections which is
laws relative to elections. The Commission certainly had charged with the administration and enforcement of the laws
the right to inquire whether or not discrepancies existed relative to the conduct of elections.
between the various copies of election returns for the
precincts in question and suspend the canvass in the
meantime so the parties could ask for a recount in case of
variance.
Comelec issued the questioned resolution after hearing the
arguments of the petitioner and the opposition thereto, and
considering that it has been clearly established that the copies of
the election returns for the Municipal Treasurer, for the Comelec
and for the Provincial Treasurer for the municipality of Sta. Cruz
have uniform alteration in the entries of the votes cast for
representative, showing different number of votes compared with
the Liberal Party copies, while the copies of the election returns for
the Commission of Elections and the Provincial Treasurer for the
municipalities of Candon and Santiago have likewise uniform
alterations and showing different numbers compared with the
Liberal Party copies.
 concerned citizens, seek to nullify respondent Comelec’s award of
the 2010 Elections Automation Project (automation project) to the
G.R. No. 188456               September 10, 2009 joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation
(TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic)
H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL and to permanently prohibit the Comelec, TIM and Smartmatic
R. BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT from signing and/or implementing the corresponding contract-
T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. award. They contend the mechanism of the PCOS machines would
MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P. infringe the constitutional right of the people to the secrecy of the
MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS, Petitioners,  ballot which, according to the petitioners, is provided in Sec. 2,
vs. Art. V of the Constitution.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by HON.
CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS and
ISSUE:
AWARDS COMMITTEE, represented by its CHAIRMAN
HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET and MANAGEMENT, represented by HON. Is the Poll Automation Law unconstitutional for infringing the
ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL INFORMATION constitutional right of the people to the secrecy of the ballot?
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and SMARTMATIC
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondents.  
PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, Petitioner-in-Intervention.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its RULING:
President, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Movant-Intervenor.
No. Parenthetically, the contention that the PCOS would infringe
on the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot because, as petitioners
would put it, the voter would be confronted with a “three feet” long
FACTS:
ballot, does not commend itself for concurrence. Surely, the
Comelec can put up such infrastructure as to insure that the voter
In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with can write his preference in relative privacy. And as demonstrated
prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, during the oral arguments, the voter himself will personally feed
petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al., suing as taxpayers and the ballot into the machine. A voter, if so minded to preserve the
secrecy of his ballot, will always devise a way to do so. By the same G.R. No. 188456               February 10, 2010
token, one with least regard for secrecy will likewise have a way to
make his vote known. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL
R. BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT
T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T.
MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P.
MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by HON.
CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS and
AWARDS COMMITTEE, represented by its CHAIRMAN
HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET and MANAGEMENT, represented by HON.
ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and SMARTMATIC
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondents.
PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, Petitioner-in-Intervention.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its
President, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Movant-Intervenor.

Facts:
In this MR, petitioners Roque, et al. are again before the Supreme
Court asking that the
contract award be declared null and void on the stated ground that
it was made in
violation of the Constitution, statutes, and jurisprudence.
Intervening petitioner also
interposed a similar motion, but only to pray that the Board of the Comelec’s bidding rules.
Election Inspectors be
ordered to manually count the ballots after the printing and
electronic transmission of the
election returns. Petitioners Roque, et al., as movants herein, seek Issue :
a reconsideration of the
September 10, 2009 Decision on the following issues or grounds: Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious?

1. The Comelec’s public pronouncements show that there is a

"high probability" that there will be failure of automated Held:
elections; Petitioners’ threshold argument delves on possibilities, on matters
2. Comelec abdicated its constitutional functions in favor of that may or may not occur. Speculations and conjectures are not
Smartmatic; equivalent to proof; they
3. There is no legal framework to guide the Comelec in have little, if any, probative value and, surely, cannot be the
appreciating automated ballots in case the PCOS machines basis of a sound judgment. While a motion for reconsideration
fail; may tend to dwell on issues
4. Respondents cannot comply with the requirements of RA already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered—
8436 for a source code and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration—the
review; hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters
5. Certifications submitted by private respondents as to the substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant
successful use of the the desired course of action. Without delving on its wisdom and
machines in elections abroad do not fulfill the requirement of Sec. validity, the view of Justice
12 of RA 8436; Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting opinion.
6. Private respondents will not be able to provide As such, it is without binding effect, a dissenting opinion being a
telecommunications facilities mere expression of the individual view of a member of the Court or
that will assure 100% communications coverage at all times during other collegial adjudicating body
the conduct of the 2010 elections; and Petitioners have obviously inserted, at this stage of the case,
7. Subcontracting themanufacture of PCOS machines to Quisdi an entirely new factual dimension to their cause. These we
violates
cannot allow for compelling reasons. For starters, the Court cannot G.R. No. 199082               September 18, 2012
plausibly validate this factual assertion of petitioners. Moreover, as
a matter of sound established practice, points of law, theories, JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, 
issues, and arguments not raised in the original proceedings vs.
cannot be brought out on review. Basic considerations of fair play DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON
impel this rule. The imperatives of ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as
orderly, if not speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal presentation of Secretary of the Department of Justice; HON. SIXTO
evidence and on the practice of parties of going to trial BRILLANTES, .JR., in his capacity as Chairperson of the
haphazardly. Moving still to another issue, petitioners claim that Commission on Elections; and the JOINT DOJ-COMELEC
"there are very strong indications that Private Respondents will PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE and
not be FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents.
able to provide for telecommunication facilities for areas
without these facilities." This argument, being again highly x-----------------------x
speculative, is without evidentiary value and hardly provides a
ground for the Court to nullify the automation contract.Surely, a G.R. No. 199085
possible breach of a contractual stipulation is not a legal reason to
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, 
prematurely rescind, much less annul, the contract. The argument
vs.
is untenable, based as it is again on news
HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of
reports. Surely, petitioners cannot expect the Court to act on
Justice; HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity
unverified reports foisted on it.
as COMELEC Chairperson; RENE V. SARMIENTO,
LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. VELASCO, ELIAS R.
YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO
C. LAGMAN, in their capacity as COMELEC
COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEOUGE C.
DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO B. FORTES AND
MICHAEL D. VILLARET, in their capacity as
CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF
THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION COMMITEE ON THE 2004 AND 2007 x-----------------------x
ELECTION FRAUD,Respondents.
G.R. No. 199085
x-----------------------x
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, 
G.R. No.199118 vs.
HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in capacity as Secretary of
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner,  Justice; HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity
vs. as COMELEC Chairperson; RENE V. SARMIENTO,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. VELASCO, ELIAS R.
Chairperson Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO
JUSTICE, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima, C. LAGMAN, in their capacity as COMELEC
JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEORGE C.
COMMITTEE, SENATOR AQUILINO M. PIMENTEL III, DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO B. FORTES AND
and DOJ-COMELEC FACT FINDING TEAM, Respondents. MICHAEL D. VILLARET, in their capacity as
CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF
THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY
AND INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON THE 2004 AND 2007
ELECTION FRAUD, Respondents.
G.R. No. 199082               July 23, 2013
x-----------------------x
JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, 
vs. G.R. No. 199118
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, 
Secretary of the Department of Justice; HON. SIXTO vs.
BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity as Chairperson of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by
Commission on Elections; and the JOINT DOJ-COMELEC Chairperson Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE and JUSTICE, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima,
FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents. JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
 COMMITTEE, SENATOR AQUILINO M. PIMENTEL III, of Preliminary Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the
and DOJ-COMELEC FACT FINDING TEAM, Respondents. 2004 and 2007 National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for
lack of publication.
FACTS:
2.    The Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in
On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order
accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and
creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding
Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the
Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and
preliminary investigation is hereby declared VALID.
manipulation cases

In its Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team concluded that

manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial ISSUES:
elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and
1.    Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the
Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated. It recommended that
decisional independence of the Comelec.
Petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, GMA, and Mike Arroyo be
subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage and 2.    Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary
manipulating the election results. investigation only when deputized by the Comelec but not exercise
concurrent jurisdiction
Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for
Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. HELD:

On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered the assailed Decision. 1.    The grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ
It ruled that: nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order
whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable
1.    Fact- Finding Team’s Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, are cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in
declared VALID. However, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure.45 With more
 reason, therefore, that we the the court cannot consider the G.R. No. 207264               June 25, 2013
creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication of the Comelec’s
independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, 
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO
B. TAN, Respondents.
2.     The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the
concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by the amendatory
law The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal
Facts:
jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary to the
Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position
contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on of Representative of the lone district of Marinduque. Respondent,
simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate bodies. a registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos,
What is prohibited is the situation where one files a complaint Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition for the
against a respondent initially with one office (such as the Comelec) cancellation of petitioner’s COC. On October 31, 2012, the
for preliminary investigation which was immediately acted upon respondent filed the amended petition on the ground that the
by said office and the re-filing of substantially the same complaint petitioner’s COC contained material misrepresentations regarding
the petitioner’s marital status, residency, date of birth and
with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption citizenship. Respondent alleged that the petitioner is an American
of jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed will not be citizen and filed in February 8, 2013 a manifestation with motion
allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that to admit newly discovered evidence and amended last exhibit.
first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to
the exclusion of the others. On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a
Resolution cancelling the petitioner’s COC on the basis that
petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her failure
to comply with the requirements of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.
FALLO: petition is denied
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 8, 2013.
But on May 14, 2013 the COMELEC en banc promulgated a
 Resolution denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for election returns and qualification of the members of House of
lack of merit. Representative.
2. In R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire Filipino
On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 13, citizenship and become eligible for public office, the law requires
2013 elections and on June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before that she must have accomplished the following 1) take the oath of
the Speaker of House of Representatives. She has yet to assume allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the consul-
office at noon of June 30, 2013. general of the Philippine Consulate in the USA, and 2) make a
personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship
On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. In the
Finality declaring the May 14, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC case at bar, there is no showing that petitioner complied with the
en banc final and executory. requirements. Petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial
Administrator cannot be considered as the oath of allegiance in
Petitioner then filed before the court Petition for Certiorari with compliance with RA 9225. As to the issue of residency, the court
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante approved the ruling if the COMELEC that a Filipino citizen who
Order. becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile
of origin. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, he must still
Issues: show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines
through positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the jurisdiction over the
counted from the time he made it his domicile of choice. In this
petitioner who is a duly proclaimed winner and who has already
case, there is no showing that the petitioner reacquired her
taken her oath of office for the position of member of the House of
Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude  that the
Representative.
petitioner renounced her American citizenship, it follows that she
2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its ruling that the has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. Petitioner
petitioner is illegible to run for office claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province
Discussion: of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011 is not
sufficient to prove her one-year residency for she has never
1. Pursuant to Section 17, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the recognized her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an
House of Representative Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive American citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can
jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of
choice in the USA.
Held:
The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding no grave abuse of
G.R. No. 207264               October 22, 2013
discretion on the part of the COMELEC.
REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, 
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO
B. TAN, Respondents.

FACTS: This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the En Banc

Resolution of June 25, 2013 which found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections and
affirmed the March 27, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division.

Petitioner raised the issue in the petition which is: Whether or not
Respondent COMELEC is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who
is duly proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of
office for the position of Member of the House of Representatives
for the lone congressional district of Marinduque. Petitioner is a
duly proclaimed winner and having taken her oath of office as
member of the House of Representatives, all questions regarding
her qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
and are within the HRET exclusive jurisdiction.

The averred proclamation is the critical pointer to the correctness

of petitioner submission.The crucial question is whether or not
petitioner could be proclaimed on May 18, 2013. Differently stated, evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of
was there basis for the proclamation of petitioner on May 18 , Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to achieve just,
2013. expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought before the Commission." In
The June 25, 2013 resolution held that before May 18, 2013, the view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due
COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the issue of course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature,
petitioner lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its then the "newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by
resolution dated May 14, 2013, cancelling petitioner certificate of respondent COMELEC.
candidacy. The proclamation which petitioner secured on May 18,
2013 was without any basis. On June 10, 2013, petitioner went to Furthermore, there was no denial of due process in the case at bar
the Supreme Court questioning the COMELEC First Division as petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before
ruling and the May 14, 2013 COMELEC En Banc decision, baseless the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012 when Tan's petition was
proclamation on 18 May 2013 did not by that fact of promulgation filed up to 27 March 2013 when the First Division rendered its
alone become valid and legal. resolution, petitioner had a period of five (5) months to adduce
evidence. Unfortunately, she did not avail herself of the
ISSUE: Was Reyes denied of due process? opportunity given her.

HELD: Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its

discretion when it took cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" In administrative proceedings, procedural due process only
without the same having been testified on and offered and requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be
admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog article heard. As held in the case of Sahali v. COMELEC: The petitioners
of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification should be reminded that due process does not necessarily mean or
from the Bureau of Immigration. She likewise contends that there require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard.
was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
not given the opportunity to question and present controverting perhaps many times more creditably and predictable than oral
evidence. argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings
moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated
adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of with due process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of
due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was
given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.

In moving for the cancellation of petitioner's COC, respondent

submitted records of the Bureau of Immigration showing that G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015
petitioner is a holder of a US passport, and that her status is that of
a "balikbayan." At this point, the burden of proof shifted to ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A. PUENTESPINA,
petitioner, imposing upon her the duty to prove that she is a PROCULO T. SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA,
natural-born Filipino citizen and has not lost the same, or that she
WILLIAM C. YBANEZ, SILVERIO J. SANCHEZ, GLORIA
has re-acquired such status in accordance with the provisions of
R.A. No. 9225. Aside from the bare allegation that she is a natural- G. FUTALAN, HILARIO DE GUZMAN, EUGENE M.
born citizen, however, petitioner submitted no proof to support PABUALAN, RODOLFO E. PEREZ, HIPOLITO R.
such contention. Neither did she submit any proof as to the QUILLAN, MARIO ARENAS, TIRSO C. BUENAVENTURA,
inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her. DENIED. LYDIA B. TUBELLA, REYNALDO C. GOLO& JONATHAN
DEQUINA IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, AND AS
LEGITIMATE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF
ADHIKAING TINATAGUYOD NG KOOPERATIBA (ATING
KOOP PARTY LIST),Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC AND THE SELF-STYLED SHAM
ATING KOOP PARTYLIST REPRESENTED BY AMPARO
T. RIMAS, Respondents.

FACTS:  Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64[1] in relation to

Rule 65,[2] seeking to annul the Resolutions in E.M. No. 12-039
dated 18 July 2012 and 31 January 2013 of the COMELEC.  Ating of Representatives, on the one... hand; and from his party-list
Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization  On 30 November organization, on the other 
2009, Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in
the Party-List System of Representation for the 10 May 2010 DECISION:  Granted 
Elections.[4] On 6 March 2010, it filed with the COMELEC the list
of its nominees, with petitioner Lico as first... nominee and RATIO DECIDENDI:  We find that while the COMELEC
Roberto Mascarina as second nominee.  On 8 December 2010, correctly dismissed the Petition to expel petitioner Lico from the
COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning party-list House of Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it
groups  Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of office on 9 nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his expulsion
December 2010 before the Secretary-General of the House of from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview.  The COMELEC
Representatives,[7] and thereafter assumed office.  Several months notably characterized the Petition for expulsion of petitioner Lico
prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list from the House of Representatives and for the succession of the
organizations, or on 9 June 2010, Ating Koop issued Central second nominee as party-list representative as a disqualification
Committee Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term- case. For this reason, the COMELEC dismissed the petition for
sharing agreement signed by its nominees.[8] Under the lack of... jurisdiction, insofar as it relates to the question of
agreement,... petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list unseating petitioner Lico from the House of Representatives. 
Representative for the first year of the three-year term.  On 5 Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution[34] endows the
December 2011, or almost one year after petitioner Lico had HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications
assumed office, the Interim Central Committee expelled him from of members of Congress. In the case of party-list representatives,
Ating Koop for disloyalty.  The said Petition, which was the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case... upon
subsequently raffled to the Second Division, prayed that petitioner proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee,
Lico... be ordered to vacate the office of Ating Koop in the House of and assumption of office as member of the House of
Representatives, and for the succession of the second nominee, Representatives.[35] In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating
Roberto Mascarina as Ating Koop's representative in the House.  Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath;
Ating Koop had expelled Congressman Lico for acts inimical to the and... he assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it
party-list group, such as malversation, graft and corruption  is the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the
disqualification case  The jurisdiction of the HRET is exclusive. It
ISSUE:  Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over is given full authority to hear and decide the cases on any matter
the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the House touching on the validity of the title of the proclaimed winner.
 G.R. No. 160465             May 27, 2004
G.R. No.193808 June 26, 2012
ROMEO M. ESTRELLA, petitioner, 
LUISK. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. vs.
PLANAS, Petitioners,  COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. COMMISSIONER
vs. RALPH C. LANTION and ROLANDO F.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ SALVADOR,respondents.
BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST
represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE SHERWIN N. TUGNA,
and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents,
FACTS:

(This case stemmed from the case of Romeo Estrella vs. Rolando
Salvador: 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 declared
Estrella as the duly elected mayor and eventually issued writ of
execution.)

In this case, Petitioner Romeo M. Estrella sought the

nullification of the Status Quo Ante Order issued by
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in “Romeo M.
Estrella v. Rolando F. Salvador,” directing the “parties to maintain
the status quo ante order, which is the condition prevailing before
the issuance” by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos of a writ of justification, not only judicially unethical but legally improper and
execution for the enforcement of said court’s decision declaring absurd.
petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Baliwag, Bulacan.
Since Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in the
In the issuance of the questioned COMELEC En Banc Status Quo issuance of the questioned order, thus leaving three (3) members
Ante Order, five (5) of the then incumbent seven 7 members of the concurring therewith, the necessary votes of four (4) or majority of
COMELEC participated: Commissioners Benjamin Abalos, Sr., the members of the COMELEC was not attained. The order thus
Luzviminda Tangcangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Resurreccion Z. failed to comply with the number of votes necessary for the
Borra and Ralph C. Lantion. pronouncement of a decision or order, as required under Rule 3,
Section 5(a) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Commissioners Abalos, Tangcangco, Javier and Lantion voted for
the issuance of said order, while Commissioner Borra dissented. In seeking a reconsideration of the above-quoted Resolution,
private respondent cites Cua v. Commission on Elections, which
In the COMELEC En Banc Status Quo Ante Order, Commissioner
provides three (3) votes would have been sufficient to constitute a
Lantion stated in his handwriting that “his previous voluntary
majority to carry the decision of the COMELEC En Banc as
inhibition is only in the SPR cases and not in the EAC” and that “as
provided by the Constitution and the appropriate rules.
further agreed in the Second Division, [he] will not participate in
the Division deliberations but will vote when the case is elevated ISSUE:
[to the] en banc.”
Whether or not cases filed before the COMELEC should be decided
In this Court’s Resolution, now the subject of private respondent’s by a majority vote of all it’s members.
Motion for Reconsideration, it was held that:
HELD:
Commissioner Lantion’s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot be
YES. Section 5(a) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure was lifted
countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow a
from Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution which provides:
Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To allow him
to participate in theEn Banc proceedings when he previously
inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any satisfactory
SECTION 7.  Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of
all its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty
days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. . . . (Emphasis and italics supplied)

The provision of the Constitution is clear that it should be the

G.R. No. 203833               March 19, 2013
majority vote of all its members and not only those who
participated and took part in the deliberations. Under the rules of MAMERTO T. SEVILLA, JR. Petitioner, 
statutory construction, it is to be assumed that the words in which vs.
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RENATO R.
to be attained. 5 Since the above-quoted constitutional provision SO, Respondents.
states “all of its members,” without any qualification, it should be
interpreted as such.

In the case at bar, following the clear provision of the Constitution,

counting out Commissioner Lantion’s vote from the questioned
COMELEC En Banc resolution would leave just three (3) votes out
of “all” seven (7) members of the COMELEC and “[t]hree is not the
majority of seven.”

For the foregoing reasons then, this Court hereby abandons the
doctrine laid down in Cua and holds that the COMELEC En Banc
shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of
“all its members,” and NOT majority of the members who
deliberated and voted thereon. 
 this resolution, the COMELEC declared that the Resolution dated
December 22, 2009 was anchored on the certification, which was
issued by Buagas and Acting Provincial Election Supervisor of
Maguindanao, Estelita B. Orbase, stating that Ibrahim was not a
registered voter of the municipality where he seeks to be elected.

On the day of the election, during which time the Resolution dated
G.R. No. 192289               January 8, 2013 May 6, 2010 had not yet attained finality, Ibrahim obtained the
highest number cast for the Vice-Mayoralty race. However, the
KAMARUDIN K. IBRAHIM, Petitioner,  Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC), which was then chaired
vs. by Buagas, suspended Ibrahims proclamation. Thus, this petition.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROLAN G.
BUAGAS, Respondents. ISSUE: Did the COMELEC en banc act with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions?
FACTS: Petitioner Kamarudin Ibrahim (Ibrahim) filed his HELD: The COMELEC en banc is devoid of authority to disqualify
certificate of candidacy to run as municipal Vice-Mayor. Ibrahim as a candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor.
Thereafter, respondent Rolan G. Buagas (Buagas), then Acting
Election Officer in the said municipality, forwarded to the
COMELECs Law Department (Law Department) the names of In the case at bar, the COMELEC en banc, through the herein
candidates who were not registered voters therein. The list assailed resolutions, ordered Ibrahim's disqualification even when
included Ibrahims name. no complaint or petition was filed against him yet. Let it be
stressed that if filed before the conduct of the elections, a petition
Consequently, COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution dated
December 22, 2009 disqualifying Ibrahim for not being a to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under
registered voter of the municipality where he seeks to be elected Section 78 of the OEC is the appropriate petition which should
without prejudice to his filing of an opposition. It prompted
have been instituted against Ibrahim considering that his allegedly
Ibrahim to file Petition/Opposition but was denied by the
COMELEC en banc through a Resolution dated May 6, 2010. In being an unregistered voter of his municipality disqualified him
from running as Vice-Mayor. His supposed misrepresentation as
an eligible candidate was an act falling within the purview of
Section 78 of the OEC. 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. G.R. No. 155717             October 23, 2003

ALBERTO JARAMILLA, petitioner, 
Ibrahim properly resorted to the instant Petition filed under Rule vs.
64 of the Rules of Court to assail the Resolutions dated December COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO SUYAT,
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF STA. CRUZ,
22, 2009 and May 6, 2010 of the COMELEC en banc.
ILOCOS SUR, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS (COMELEC), AND IRENEO
CORTEZ,respondents.

FACTS:

Antonio Suyat and Alberto J. Jaramilla both ran for the position of
Member of the SangguniangBayan in the Municipality of Sta. Cruz,
Ilocos Sur in the 14 May 2001 elections. On 16 May 2001,
theMunicipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, proclaimed the
winning candidates for the offices of Mayor,Vice
Mayor and 8 members of the Sangguniang Bayan. The Certificate o
f Canvass of Votes andProclamation shows the following results
and ranking with respect to the members of the
SangguniangBayan, to wit: (1) RAGUCOS, Ma. Luisa Laxamana certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order and
(6,324); (2) ABAYA, Juan Jr., Andaquig (6,013);(3) GINES, Fidel preliminary injunction ascribing grave abuse of discretion.
Cudiamat (5,789); (4) QUILOP, Renato Avila (5,227); (5)
BILIGAN, Osias
Depdepen(5,130); (6) RUIZ, Agustin Turgano (4,972); (7) JARAMI ISSUE: Whether the Commission on Elections en banc properly
LLA, Alberto Jimeno (4,815); and (8)CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon assumed original jurisdiction over the Petition for Correction of
(4,807). In the tabulated results issued by the Election Officer and Manifest Errors.
Chairpersonof the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, it is
shown that Suyat obtained 4,779 votes and wasranked 9. Upon
review by Suyat, he discovered that Jaramilla was credited with HELD:
only 23 votes per Election Return from Precinct 34A1. However,
when the figures were forwarded to the Statement of Votes by Article IX-C of the Constitution states in part that "The
Precinct, Jaramilla was credited with 73 votes for Precinct 34A1 or Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
50 votes more than what heactually obtained. If the entry were to shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
be corrected, the affected candidates would be ranked as follows: disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
(7) CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon (4,807); (8) SUYAT, Antonio (4,779); controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
and (9) JARAMILLA, Alberto(4,765). On 13 June 2001, Suyat filed division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
before the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion for Issuance shall be decided by the Commission en banc." As stated in the
of Order to Reconvene, which the latter treated as a Petition for provision, and in line with the Court’s recent pronouncement in
Correction of Manifest Error. Jaramillacountered in his Answer Milla v. Balmores- Laxa, election cases including pre-proclamation
that said petition should be dismissed for having been filed out of controversies should first be heard
time and for lack of the required certification of non-forum anddecided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the commi
shopping. On 24 October 2002, COMELEC en banc issued a ssion en banc if a motion for reconsideration of the division is
resolution, annulling the proclamation of Jaramilla and creating a filed. It must be noted however that this provision applies only
new Municipal Board of Canvassers Jaramilla filed the petition for cases where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers, and not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions. This doctrine was laid out in
Castromayor v. COMELEC, and reiterated in subsequent cases.
Accordingly, when the case demands only the exercise by the
COMELEC of its administrative functions, such as the correction
of a manifest mistake in the addition of votes or an erroneous
tabulation in the statement of votes, the COMELEC en banc can
directly act on it in the exercise of its constitutional function to
G.R. No. 209185               October 25, 2013
decide questions affecting elections. Herein, the Petition
for Correction of Manifest Errors alleges an erroneous copying of MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS, Petitioner, 
figures from the election return to the Statement of Votes by vs.
Precinct. Such an error in the tabulation of the results, which COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its
merely requires a clerical correction without the necessity of CHAIRMAN ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES JR. and the
PROVINCIAL ELECTION OFFICER OF DAVAO DEL SUR,
opening ballot boxes or examining ballots, demands only
represented by ATTY. MA. FEBES BARLAAN,Respondents.
theexercise of the administrative power of the COMELEC. Hence, t
he Commission en banc properly assumed original jurisdiction
over the aforesaid petition
FACTS: Cagas, while he was representative of the first legislative
district of Davao del Sur, filed with Hon. Franklin Bautista, then
representative of the second legislative district of the same
province, House Bill No. 4451 (H.B. No. 4451), a bill creating the
province of Davao Occidental. H.B. No. 4451 was signed into law
as Republic Act No. 10360 (R.A. No. 10360), the Charter of the
Province of Davao Occidental.

Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 provides for the date of the holding of
a plebiscite.
 The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the enforcement and
Sec. 46. Plebiscite. The Province of Davao Occidental shall be administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for
created, as provided for in this Charter, upon approval by the the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections. The text
majority of the votes cast by the voters of the affected areas in a and intent of Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) is to give COMELEC "all
plebiscite to be conducted and supervised by the Commission on the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective
Elections (COMELEC) within sixty (60) days from the date of the
of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections."
effectivity of this Charter.

As early as 27 November 2012, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. The right of suffrage should prevail over mere scheduling mishaps
10360, the COMELEC suspended the conduct of all plebiscites as a in holding elections or plebiscites.
matter of policy and in view of the preparations for the 13 May
The tight time frame in the enactment, signing into law, and
2013 National and Local Elections. During a meeting held on 31
effectivity of R.A. No. 10360 on 5 February 2013, coupled with the
July 2013, the COMELEC decided to hold the plebiscite for the
creation of Davao Occidental simultaneously with the 28 October subsequent conduct of the National and Local Elections on 13 May
2013 Barangay Elections to save on expenses. 2013 as mandated by the Constitution, rendered impossible the
holding of a plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao
Cagas filed a petition for prohibition, contending that the Occidental on or before 6 April 2013 as scheduled in R.A. No.
COMELEC is without authority to amend or modify section 46 of 10360. We also take judicial notice of the COMELEC's burden in
RA 10360 by mere resolution because it is only Congress who can the accreditation and registration of candidates for the Party-List
do so thus, COMELEC's act of suspending the plebiscite is Elections. The logistic and financial impossibility of holding a
unconstitutional. plebiscite so close to the National and Local Elections is
unforeseen and unexpected, a cause analogous to force majeure
ISSUE: Was COMELEC's act unconstitutional?
and administrative mishaps covered in Section 5 of B.P. Blg. 881.
HELD: The Constitution grants the COMELEC the power to The COMELEC is justified, and did not act with grave abuse of
"enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the discretion, in postponing the holding of the plebiscite for the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and creation of the province of Davao Occidental to 28 October 2013 to
recall." synchronize it with the Barangay Elections.
To comply with the 60-day period to conduct the plebiscite then,
as insisted, petitioner would have the COMELEC hold off all of its
tasks for the National and Local Elections. If COMELEC
abandoned any of its tasks or did not strictly follow the timetable
for the accomplishment of these tasks then it could have put in G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018
serious jeopardy the conduct of the May 2013 National and Local
Elections. The COMELEC had to focus all its attention and ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
concentrate all its manpower and other resources on its ON ELECTIONS AND ATTY. JOHNIELLE KEITH P.
preparation for the May 2013 National and Local Elections, and to NIETO, Respondents.
ensure that it would not be derailed, it had to defer the conduct of
all plebiscites including that of R.A. No. 10360. DENIED.

G.R. No. 246328, September 10, 2019

VICE MAYOR SHIRLYN L. BAÑAS-NOGRALES, ET

AL.,* PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.