81. Grego v.
Comelec, 276 SCRA 481 (1997)
Deputy Sheriff Humberto Basco was dismissed from government service in 1981 for serious
misconduct, with a lifetime ban from holding public office. Despite this, he was elected as a
Manila City Councilor in 1988, re-elected in 1992, and again in 1995. Each time, his right to hold
office was challenged due to his prior dismissal.
In 1995, a voter named Grego filed a disqualification case against Basco under Section 40(b) of
the Local Government Code, citing his earlier dismissal. Basco argued the case was legally
barred and unconstitutional if applied retroactively. He also claimed that his repeated election
victories signified public forgiveness of his past misconduct.
On October 6, 1995, the COMELEC dismissed the case, stating that the penalty had been "wiped
away" by the electorate and that Basco's proclamation made the petition moot. A motion for
reconsideration was also denied in July 1996, prompting further legal action from the petitioner.
Issue:
1. Whether Section 40(b), which disqualifies individuals removed from office due to
administrative misconduct from running for elective local positions, should apply to those
removed before the law's effectivity on January 1, 1992
Retroactivity of Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No.
7160)
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision is non-retroactive, emphasizing the
principle that laws operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2. Whether Basco's previous elections did not absolve his disqualification
Effect of Previous Elections on Disqualification
No. The Court clarified that the electorate's choice cannot override statutory disqualifications, affirming
that a candidate's ineligibility cannot be cured merely by electoral victories.
3. Whether Basco's proclamation as a winning candidate while the disqualification case was pending was
void
Validity of Proclamation During Pending Disqualification Case
No the Court found that the Manila City Board of Canvassers had a ministerial duty to proclaim the
candidate with the highest votes unless there was a legal impediment, which was not present in this case.
4. Whether Romualdo S. Maranan, who placed seventh may be declared the winner
Declaration of Seventh-Place Candidate as Winner
No. The Court held that such a declaration is not warranted unless a candidate is disqualified by final
judgment before the election results are finalized.
82. Santos v. Comelec, 399 SCRA 611 (2003)
Case Digest: Santos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 235058 (Sept. 4, 2018)
Facts:
On October 14, 2015, Jennifer Antiquera Roxas filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for
the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the First District of Pasay City
in the May 9, 2016 elections.
On October 21, 2015, Jennifer filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
to disqualify Rosalie Isles Roxas, alleging that Rosalie was a nuisance candidate. Jennifer
argued that Rosalie's COC was intended to cause confusion among voters due to the
similarity of their names. Specifically, Rosalie chose the name "Roxas Jenn-Rose" for the
ballot, which was misleadingly similar to Jennifer's name "Roxas Jenny." Additionally,
Jennifer pointed out that Rosalie's real nickname was "Saleng," not "Jenn-Rose," and that
1|Page- ELECTION LAWS
Rosalie lacked the financial means to conduct a legitimate campaign.
citeturn0search3
On March 30, 2016, the COMELEC Second Division granted Jennifer's petition, declaring
Rosalie a nuisance candidate and canceling her COC. cite turn0search2
Rosalie filed a motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2016, which remained pending
during the May 9, 2016 elections.
The election results showed Jennifer ranked 7th with 33,738 votes, while Rosalie ranked
14th with 13,328 votes.
On May 20, 2016, Jennifer filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam, seeking to have Rosalie's
votes credited to her and to annul the proclamation of other winning candidates.
On July 22, 2016, the COMELEC-En Banc denied Rosalie's motion for reconsideration.
Due to difficulties in serving the resolution to Rosalie's counsel, the COMELEC issued a
Certificate of Finality on February 15, 2017, declaring the resolution final and executory.
On April 4, 2017, the COMELEC issued a Writ of Execution to credit Rosalie's votes to
Jennifer.
Ricardo Escobar Santos, a candidate affected by the writ, filed multiple motions to contest
the execution, arguing it violated due process and the immutability of judgments.
On November 8, 2017, the COMELEC issued a second writ of execution, prompting
consolidated petitions from Ricardo and Antonia, claiming they were denied due process
and that the writ exceeded the original judgment.
The Supreme Court ruled that votes for a nuisance candidate should be credited to the
legitimate candidate, regardless of whether the nuisance declaration became final before
or after the elections. citeturn0search2
The Court also acknowledged that in a multi-slot office, the simple addition of votes from a
nuisance candidate to a legitimate candidate could lead to double counting. It mandated
that if ballots contain votes for both candidates, only one vote should be credited to the
legitimate candidate. citeturn0search2
The Court affirmed the COMELEC's decision with modification, directing the re-canvassing
of votes and the proper counting of votes in a multi-slot office when there is a nuisance
candidate.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the November 8, 2017 Writ of Execution of
the COMELEC-En Banc in SPA Case No. 15-029 (DC).
The Court directed the re-convening of the Special Board of Canvassers of Pasay City to re-
canvass the votes for the position of Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the First
District of Pasay City.
The Court ordered that votes for nuisance candidate Rosalie Isles Roxas be counted in
favor of respondent Jennifer Antiquera Roxas. However, if a ballot contains votes for both
Rosalie and Jennifer, only one vote shall be counted in favor of Jennifer.
The Court lifted the Temporary Restraining Order imposed by its resolution dated
November 28, 2017.
The Court ordered the COMELEC to complete the implementation of the November 8, 2017
Writ of Execution, as modified, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Decision.
Legal Principles:
Nuisance candidates are those whose candidacies are intended to cause confusion among
voters and lack a bona fide intention to run for office.
2|Page- ELECTION LAWS
Votes for a nuisance candidate should be credited to the legitimate candidate, regardless
of whether the nuisance declaration became final before or after the elections.
In multi-slot offices, the simple addition of votes from a nuisance candidate to a legitimate
candidate could lead to double counting. Therefore, if ballots contain votes for both
candidates, only one vote should be credited to the legitimate candidate.
The COMELEC has the authority to issue writs of execution to implement its decisions, and
such writs are enforceable unless stayed by a higher court.
Candidates affected by the writs of execution have the right to contest them, but they
must demonstrate that their due process rights were violated or that the writs exceed the
original judgment.
83. Sinsuat v. Comelec, 492 SCRA 391 (2006)
84. Mitmug v. Comelec, 230 SCRA 54 (1994)
85. Salih v. Comelec, 279 SCRA 19 (1997)
86. Dagloc v. Comelec, 321 SCRA 273 (1999)
87. Jainal v. Comelec, 517 SCRA 799 (2007)
88. Saliguin v. Comelec, 485 SCRA 219 (2006)
89. Fermo v. Comelec, 328 SCRA 52 (2000)
90. Veloria v. Comelec, 211 SCRA 907 (1992)
91. Reyes v. Comelec, 699 SCRA 522 (2013)
92. Miguel v. Comelec, 355 SCRA 172 (2000)
93. Imbong v. Comelec, 805 SCRA 608 (2016)
94. Cayat v. Comelec, 522 SCRA 23 (2007)
95. De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983)
96. Corpus v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987)
3|Page- ELECTION LAWS
97. Comelec v. Español, 417 SCRA 554 (2003)
98. Regalado, Jr. v. Comelec, 325 SCRA 516 (2000)
99. Mappala v. Nuñez, 240 SCRA 600 (1995)
100. National Press Club v. COMELEC, GR. No. 259354, June 13, 2023
4|Page- ELECTION LAWS
