ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS

1.
Answer: An election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between
the defeated and the winning candidates, based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to
determine who between them has actually obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold
the office. It can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for
in the preceding elections.
A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or of ineligibility of the
winning candidate. The objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not to install
the petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking, not a contest where the
parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent may be unseated.
(Lokin vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179431- 32, June 22, 2010)

2. What are the requisites of Election Protest?

1. Must be filed by a candidate who has filed a Certificate of Candidacy and has been voted upon for the same
office;
2. Hinged on the grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities, or illegal acts committed before, during, and after the
casting and counting of votes; and
3. Filed within ten (10) days from proclamation of the results of the election. (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in
Political Law, 2016)

3. What are the rules in deciding cases in the COMELEC?

1. All election contests within the original/appellate jurisdiction of COMELEC must be heard by COMELEC
Division; 2. All motions for reconsiderations from decisions of COMELEC Division must be heard by COMELEC en
banc;
3. If the COMELEC en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall
be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally
commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed;
and in all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied;
4. A protesting candidate cannot file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court if the COMELEC en banc
votes are tied and there was no re-hearing conducted. The petition for certiorari is pre-mature and the case must
be dismissed. (Sevilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203833, March 10, 2013

4. Jurisdiction over election contests

1|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
5. Jovito Palparan is the first nominee of the Bantay Partylist group that won a seat in the 2007 elections. A
petition for quo warranto was filed before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) against
Bantay and its nominee, Palparan, alleging that Palparan is ineligible to sit as party-list nominee because he
did not belong to the marginalized sectors that Bantay represented. Palparan countered that the HRET has no
jurisdiction over his person since it was actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed
the membership in the HoR. Consequently, it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over the case since it is
the latter which has the authority to determine which parties or organizations have the qualifications to seek
party-list seats. Is he correct?
No. Although it is the partylist organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the organization that sits as
and becomes a member of the HoR. Sec. 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives. Since party-list nominees are elected members of the House of Representatives no less than
the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy
with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been
proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives,
the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins. (Abayon vs. HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010

6. What are the requisites of Failure of Elections?

1. The illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast on the specific precinct
or precincts sought to be annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent (50%) of its total
precincts and the votes cast therein; and
2. It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable certainty between the lawful and unlawful ballots. (Abayon vs.
HRET, G.R. Nos. 222236 and 223032, May 3, 2016)

7. Distinguish Petition for Disqualification under Sec. 68 from Petition to Deny Due Course to a Certificate of
Candidacy under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

8. When is the resort to annulment of elections is warranted?

Only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt that the disregard of the law had been so
fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what
2|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
are unlawful, or to arrive at any certain result whatsoever, or that the great body of the voters have been
prevented by violence, intimidation, and threats from exercising their franchise. Consequently, a protestant
alleging terrorism in an election protest must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the will of the
majority has been muted by violence, intimidation, or threats. (Marcos Jr. vs. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005,
February 16, 2021)

9. Z, a candidate for the position of provincial governor is only authorized to incur election expenses of Ph4
million under par. (a), Sec. 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615. However, Z’s TV ads alone are already Php 23
million. A petition for disqualification was filed against him for having committed the offense. Z argued that
the limit set by law applies only to election expenditures of candidates and not to contributions made by third
parties. Is Z correct?
Z is not correct. Sec. 103 of the Omnibus Election Code states that expenditures duly authorized by the
candidate or the treasurer of the party shall be considered as expenditures of such candidate or political party.
The law’s concern is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement promoting a particular candidate
but to ensure equality between and among aspirants with "deep pockets" and those with less financial
resources. (Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. 212398, November 25, 2014)

10. ABC Corporation, a corporation operating under the laws of the USA, donated Php500,000,000 to candidate X
to be used as campaign funds for the 2022 local elections. Is the contribution valid?
No, under Sec 95 of the Omnibus Election Code, Foreigners and foreign corporations are in the list of those who
are prohibited to make contributions for purposes of political activity.

11. Rosalinda Penera filed her certificate of candidacy but she was charged with premature campaigning since
there was a motorcade that immediately took place in the locality after the filing of her certificate of
candidacy. No speeches were however made, instead, there was only marching music in the background and a
grandstanding for the purpose of raising the hands of the candidates in the motorcade. Is she disqualified to
run for mayor considering that she conducted premature campaigning? Explain.
No, because at the time of the motorcode, she was not yet a candidate. The mere filing of her certificate of
candidacy did not make her a candidate because she can only be considered a candidate at the start of the
campaign period for which she filed her certificate of candidacy (Sec. 13[3], RA 9369). The unlawful acts or
omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period (Sec.
13). Hence, the election offenses may be committed by a candidate only upon the start of the campaign period.
(Penera vs. COMELEC, G.R. 181613, November 25, 2009)

12. Should the votes cast for the nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly similar with a Legitimate
Candidate automatically credited to the votes cast for the bona fide candidate?
No. It depends whether the position they run into is a single-slot office or a multi-slot office. In a single-slot
office, the votes cast for the nuisance candidate shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for
the bona fide candidate. (COMELEC Resolution No. 4116; Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
192221, November 13, 2012)
In a multi-slot office, to ascertain that the votes for the Nuisance Candidate are accurately credited in favor of
the Legitimate Candidate with the similar name, the COMELEC must inspect the ballots. The votes for Nuisance
Candidate alone should be counted in favor of the Legitimate Candidate; if there are votes for both Nuisance
Candidate and Legitimate Candidate in the same ballot, then only one (1) vote should be counted in the latter's
favor. (Zapanta vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 233016, March 05, 2019)

3|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
13. What is a Nuisance Candidate?
One who has no bona fide intention to run for the office and would thus prevent a faithful determination of the
true will of the people. Nuisance candidates are those whose certificates of candidacy are presented and filed to
put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered candidates. (Sec. 69, Omnibus Election Code; Bautista vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 133840,
November 13, 1998)

14. Domeng filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for City Mayor. However, his CoC was subsequently cancelled
for his material misrepresentation in his CoC. Thereafter, he was substituted by his wife, Maria. Dos, another
candidate for the City Mayor, opposed Maria’s substitution alleging her substitution was void because there
was no candidate to substitute for as Domeng’s CoC was cancelled. Is Dos correct?
Yes. The existence of a valid CoC is a condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to be validly substituted.
Therefore, a person whose CoC has been denied due course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code cannot be substituted because he is not considered a candidate. Here, since Domeng’s
CoC was cancelled, there was no candidate that Maria can validly substitute for. Hence, Maria’s substitution, as
correctly argued by Dos, was void. (Tagolino vs. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013)

15. Rules on substitution of candidates.

16. Can X, a jail detainee, be entitled to vote?

Yes. X may obtain a court order allowing him to vote in the polling place where he is registered; that it is
logistically feasible on the part of the jail/prison administration to escort him voter lo the polling place where he
is registered; and those reasonable measures shall be undertaken by the jail/prison administration to secure his
safety and prevent his escape and ensure public safety. (Rule 7, Sec. 1, COMELEC Resolution No. 9371).

17. Is running for public office a right?

No. To run for public office is a mere "privilege subject to limitations imposed by law." Among these limitations is
the prohibition on nuisance candidates. (Timbol vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015)

18. Roma is a natural-born Filipino citizen. He was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America (USA)
and lost his Filipino citizenship. In 2009, he applied for repatriation under Republic Act No. 9225, before the
Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, USA, took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. In the same year, he filed a
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor in Bustos, Bulacan, Romeo, another candidate for the same position,

4|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
filed a Petition to disqualify or to cancel Roma’s COC on the ground that the latter is a foreigner. To support his
claim, Romeo presented Roma’s travel record indicating that he has been using his US Passport in entering and
departing the Philippines even after renouncing his American citizenship. Will you grant the petition for
cancellation of Roma’s COC?
Yes. Roma’s continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the USA, through using his US passport after the
renunciation of his USA citizenship, reverted him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion disqualified
him from being elected to public office in the Philippines pursuant to Sec. 40(d) of the Local Government Code. A
candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office, and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the
qualifications for elective office. Even if it made no finding that Roma had deliberately attempted to mislead or to
misinform as to warrant the cancellation of his CoC, the Commission on Elections could still declare him
disqualified for not meeting the requisite eligibility under the Local Government Code. (Agustin vs. Commission
on Election, G.R No. 207105, November 10, 2015)

19. Isko Morena ran for the mayoralty post in Manila and won in three consecutive elections. While serving his
third term, his opponent filed an election protest. Months before the expiration of Mayor Isko’s third term, he
was ousted from office. He ran again for the same post in the immediately succeeding election. A petition was
then filed assailing his eligibility to run as mayor on the ground of violation of the three-term limit rule.
Decide.
Mayor Isko is not barred by the three-term limit rule, and is allowed to run as mayor in the immediately
succeeding election. He could not be considered as having served a full third term. An interruption for any length
of time, if due to an involuntary cause, is enough to break the elected official’s continuity of service. (Lonzanida
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999)

20. Can COMELEC change the registration period by resolution?

No. Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the COMELEC the power to fix other
periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the same cannot be reasonably held within the period
provided by law. This grant of power, however, is for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of
suffrage – the common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436. Thus, the Court found no ground to
hold that the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by
RA 8189, Sec. 8 – daily during office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010
regular elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines
therefor. (Palatino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, 2009)

21. Under the Local Government Code, name four persons who are disqualified from running for any elective
position.
A: Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, the following are disqualified from running for any local
elective position:
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by
one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue
to avail of the same right after the effectivity of the Local Government Code; and
7. The insane or feeble-minded.

5|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS

22. In the May 8, 1995 elections for local officials whose terms were to commence on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed on
March 20, 1995 his certificate of candidacy for the Office of Governor of Laguna. He won, but his qualifications
as an elected official was questioned. It is admitted that he is a repatriated Filipino citizen and a resident of
the Province of Laguna. To be qualified for the office to which a local official has been elected, when at the
latest should he be: a. A Filipino Citizen? Explain. b. A resident of the locality? Explain. (2005 BAR)
A. To be qualified for the office to which a local official has been elected, it is sufficient that he is a Filipino citizen
at the time of his proclamation and at the start of his term. Philippine citizenship is required for holding an
elective public office to ensure that no person owing allegiance to another country shall govern our people and a
unit of the Philippine territory. An official begins to discharge his functions only upon his proclamation and on
the day his term of office begins. [Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, 257 SCRA 727 (1996)]
b. To be qualified for the office to which a local official has been elected, he must be a resident of the locality for
at least one year immediately before the election. (Section 39(a), Local Government Code).

23. Congress enacted Republic Act No. 1234 requiring all candidates for public offices to post an election bond
equivalent to the one (1) year salary for the position for which they are candidates. The bond shall be forfeited
if the candidates fail to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast. Is Republic Act No. 1234 valid?
It is invalid as the requirement effectively imposes a property qualification to run for public office. (Marquera v.
Borra, G.R. No. L- 24761, September 7, 1965, 15 SCRA 7).

24. Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to run for
the said position. Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to deny due
course or cancel Bai's COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code for material misrepresentation a s
before Bai filed her COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, she is
disqualified perpetually from holding any public office or from being elected to any public office. Before the
election, the COMELEC cancelled Bai' s COC but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained pending even
after the election. Bai garnered the highest number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as
Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for running for Mayor.
P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as
permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on
succession to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office. Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor
Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your answer. (2015 BAR)
Pasyo Maagap would be entitled to occupy the position of Mayor upon disqualification of Gandang Bai on the
basis of the petition to deny due course or cancel her certificate of candidacy under the provisions of Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code. The rule is that “an ineligible candidate who receives the highest number of votes
is a wrongful winner. By express legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but by
virtue of the lack of material time or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been
passed upon prior to election date. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the
electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections,
his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a
candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot
cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirements of eligibility to run for public office.”
(Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013) Accordingly, Gandang Bai “being anon- candidate, the
votes cast in his favor should not have been counted.” This leaves Pasyo Maagap as “the qualified candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will
not apply.” (Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013)

6|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS

25. In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship. In 2008, Agripina retired and
returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after
returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her
Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225. In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for
Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina's political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to
question her candidacy. They questioned her eligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to
take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine
citizenship. Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised
the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was
deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship. Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to
meet the citizenship requirement? (2018 BAR)
A: Agripina is eligible to run as member of Congress. Repatriation results in the recovery of a person’s original
nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
Filipino citizen. If she were originally a natural-born citizen before she lost her Philippine citizenship, she would
be restored to her former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001.
See also: Parreno v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 162224, June 7, 2007, and Tabasa v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016) RA 9225 makes a distinction between those natural-
born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of RA No. 9225. For those who were
naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship which was
lost pursuant to CA 63. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, they shall
retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship, provided they take the oath of allegiance
under the new law. Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of RA
9225, she belongs to the first category of natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship by
naturalization in a foreign country, under the first paragraph of Section 3. As the new law allows dual citizenship,
she was able to reacquire her Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance (See Bengson v.
HRET and as affirmed by Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016)

26. President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President
Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late President Alfredo's Executive
Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority of
all the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately. Can Anastasia run as
President in the next election? (2018 BAR)
A: YES, Anastacia can still run as President in the next election since she has served for less than four years.
Section 4, Article VII provides that “no person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more
than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

27. W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of Albay, decided to run for Governor. He filed his certificate
of candidacy (CoC) for Governor without resigning from his post and continued exercising his duties as
Congressman, such as attending plenary sessions and committee hearings in the House of Representatives.
One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed that W should not be dispensing the functions of a Congressman since he
is deemed ipso facto resigned as such upon his filing of a CoC for Governor of Albay.
(a) Is X’s argument correct? Explain.
(b) Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense, what is
the effect of the filing of his CoC for the position of Governor of Albay to said post? Explain. (2019 BAR)

7|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
A: (a) The argument of X is not correct. Section 14 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Act) reads: “Sec. 14. Repealing
Clause. - Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of
Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed.” Section 47 of BP 881, which deemed elective officials ipso facto
resigned when they file their Certificate of Candidacy, is inoperative, and therefor W may still continue office.
(b) W would be considered ipso facto resigned. Under Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), “any
person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered
ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.” W, as Undersecretary of the
Department of National Defense, is an appointive official, and therefor falls under this provision.

28. A, a City Legal Officer, and B, a City Vice-Mayor, filed certificates of candidacy for the position of City Mayor in
the May 14, 2001 elections.
a. Was A ipso facto considered resigned and, if so, effective on what date?
b. Was B ipso facto considered resigned and, if so, effective on what date? In both cases, state the reason or
reasons for your answer. (2002 BAR)
a. A was considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy, because being a City Legal
Officer, he is an appointive official. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that any person holding a
public appointive office shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b. B is not considered ipso facto resigned. Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code considers any elective official
ipso facto resigned from office upon his filing of a certificate of candidacy for any office other than the one he is
holding except for President and Vice-President, was repealed by the Fair Election Act.

29. Pedro Reyes is an incumbent Vice-Mayor of Quezon City. He intends to run in the regular elections for the
position of City Mayor of Quezon City whose incumbent mayor would have fully served three consecutive
terms by 2004. 1. Would Pedro Reyes have to give up his position as Vice-Mayor?
Section 14 of the Fair Election Act repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provided that any
elected official, whether national or local, who runs for any office other than the one he is holding in a
permanent capacity, except for President and Vice President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Section 14 of the Fair Election Act likewise rendered
ineffective the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436. Consequently, Pedro
Reyes can run for Mayor without giving up his position as Vice-Mayor. He will have to give up his position as Vice-
Mayor upon expiration of his term as Vice-Mayor on June 30, 2004.
If Pedro Reyes were, instead, an incumbent Congressman of Quezon City, who intends to seek the mayoralty
post in Quezon City, would your choice of answer in no. (1) above be the same? If not, which would be your
choice? (2003 BAR)
The answer is the same if Pedro Reyes is a Congressman of Quezon City, because the repeal of Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code covers both elective national and local officials

30. What is a "stray ballot"? (1994 BAR)

Under Rule No. 19 of the rules for the appreciation of ballots in Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, stray
ballot is one cast 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. Although the Code does not provide for stray ballot, it is presumed
that stray ballot refers to stray vote.

31. The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders. Arnaldo filed a
petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as a

8|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto's Spanish passport and a certification from
the Bureau of Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and
from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona. In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he
had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of
2003) to reacquire his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn
renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his
oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine passport
despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to
wait for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto's CoC?
(b) In case Anacleto's CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who
obtained the second highest number votes, or Andrea, the duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2018 BAR)
(a) The sole act of using a foreign passport does not divest Anacleto of his Filipino citizenship which he acquired
by repatriation. By representing himself as a Spanish citizen; however, Anacleto voluntarily and effectively
reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant
Anacleto represented himself as a Spanish citizen by using his Spanish passport. He is, thus, disqualified for being
a dual citizen, and his CoC should be cancelled. (Macquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013) NOTE:
The use of the foreign passport amounts to a recantation of the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to
run for an elective position.
(b) The rule on succession would not apply if 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, because they possess "a substantive [disqualifying circumstance] [existing] prior to the filing of their
certificate of candidacy. "Legally, they should not even be considered candidates. The votes cast for them should
be considered stray and should not be counted. 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 highest number of votes among those eligible; in this case, it was Arnaldo. (Chua v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
216607, April 5, 2016)

32. Mayor Pink is eyeing re-election in the next mayoralty race. It was common knowledge in the town that Mayor
Pink will run for re-election in the coming elections. The deadline for filing of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) is
on March 23 and the campaign period commences the following day. One month before the deadline, Pink
has yet to file her CoC, but she has been going around town giving away sacks of rice with the words "Mahal
Tayo ni Mayor Pink" printed on them, holding public gatherings, and speaking about how good the town is
doing, giving away pink t-shirts with "Kay Mayor Pink Ako" printed on them. Mr. Green is the political
opponent of Mayor Pink. In April, noticing that Mayor Pink had gained advantage over him because of her
activities before the campaign period, he filed a petition to disqualify Mayor Pink for engaging in an election
campaign outside the designated period.
a. Which is the correct body to rule on the matter? Comelec en banc, or Comelec division? Answer with
reasons. b. Rule on the petition. (2012 BAR)
A: a. It is the Commission on Elections En Banc which should decide the petition. Since it involves the exercise of
the administrative powers of the Commission on Election, Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution is not
applicable (Baytan V. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703).
b. The petition should be denied. Under Section 80 Of the Omnibus Election Code, to be liable for premature
campaigning, he must be a candidate and unless he filed his CoC, he is not a candidate (Lanot Vs. Commission
On Elections, 507 Scra 114)

9|Page
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
33. Discuss the disputable presumptions: a. of conspiracy to bribe voters; b. of the involvement of a candidate and
of his principal campaign managers in such conspiracy. (1991 BAR)
A: a. Under Sec. 28 of the Electoral Reforms Law, proof that at least one voter in different precincts representing
at least twenty per cent (20%) of the total precincts in any municipality, city or province was offered, promised,
or given money, valuable consideration or other expenditure by the relatives, leader, or sympathizer of a
candidate for the purpose of promoting the candidacy of such candidate, gives rise to a disputable presumption
of conspiracy to bribe voters.
b. Under Sec. 28, if the proof affects at least 20% of the precincts of the municipality, city, or province to which
the public office aspired for by the favored candidate relates, this shall constitute a disputable presumption of
the involvement of the candidate and of his principal campaign managers in each of the municipalities
concerned, in the conspiracy.

34. Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution establishes an Electoral Tribunal for each of the Houses of Congress, and
makes each Electoral Tribunal "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of their respective Members." On the other hand, Sec. 2(1), C (Commission on Elections), Art. IX of the
Constitution grants to the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations "relative to
the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall." Considering that there is no
concurrence of jurisdiction between the Electoral Tribunals and the COMELEC, state when the jurisdiction of
the Electoral Tribunals begins, and the COMELEC's jurisdiction ends. Explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
A: To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the following
requisites: (1) A valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
207264, October 22, 2013). Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed and taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections over the
election contest ends, and the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal begins (Vinzons-
Charo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007)

35. Despite lingering questions about his Filipino citizenship and his one-year residence in the district, Gabriel
filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman before the deadline set by law. His opponent, Vito, hires you
as lawyer to contest Gabriel’s candidacy.
a. Before election day, what action or actions will you institute against Gabriel, and before which court,
commission or tribunal will you file such action/s? Reasons.
b. If, during the pendency of such action/s but before election day, Gabriel withdraws his certificate of
candidacy, can he be substituted as candidate? If so, by whom and why? If not, why not?
c. If the action/s instituted should be dismissed with finality before the election, and Gabriel assumes office
after being proclaimed the winner in the election, can the issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship and
residence still be questioned? If so, what action or actions may be filed and where? If not, why not? (2010
BAR)
A: a. I will file a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Gabriel in the Commission on Elections because
of the false material representation that he is qualified to run for congressman (Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code;574 SCRA 787 [2008]). The question of the disqualification of Gabriel cannot be raised before the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, because he is not yet a member of the House of Representatives
(Aquino v. COMELEC,248 SCRA400 [1995]).
b. If Gabriel withdraws, he may be substituted by a candidate nominated by his political party. Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code states: “If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate
of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person

10 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate
who died, withdrew or was disqualified.”
c. The question of the citizenship and residence of Gabriel can be questioned in the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal by filing a quo warranto case. Since it is within its jurisdiction to decide the question of the
qualification of Gabriel, the decision of the Commission on Elections does not constitute res judicata (Jalandoni
v. Crespo, HRET Case No. 01- 020, March 6, 2003). Once a candidate for member of the House of
Representatives has been proclaimed, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction over
election contests relating to his qualifications (Guerrero v COMELEC,336 SCRA 458 [2000]).

36. Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections
(Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first
nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative. About one year after Alejandro assumed
office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and
replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and
replacement by Andoy. The Comelec considered Alejandro's petition as an intra-party dispute which it could
resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion. Is the
Comelec's ruling correct? (2018 BAR)
A: Alejandro’s petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is the HRET which has jurisdiction over the
case, because Alejandro is already a Member of the House of Representatives (Lico v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015)

37. Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the
Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns. The first petition was against
Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was
sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and
he was discharged from prison. The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio's residency was
questioned because he was allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced
by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy. Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department,
the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and
Ambrosio. Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the
resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and
resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions. Are Anselmo and Ambrosio, correct? (2018 BAR)
A: Anselmo is incorrect. The rule is every quasi-judicial matter must first be tackled by a division subject to
appeal by way of a Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. In Jalosjos v. COMELEC (G.R. No.
205033, June 18, 2013), it was determined that a cancellation on the basis of perpetual disqualification is a
matter that can be taken judicial notice of. When it cancels A CoC on that ground, it is acting in performance of
an administrative function and, therefore, the rule in Article XI, Section 3 does not apply. Ambrosio, on the other
hand, is correct that the petition for the cancellation of his CoC should have been first heard and resolved by the
Comelec Division Cancellation proceedings involve the COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions. The Constitution
mandates the COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.

38. During his third term, "A", a Member of the House of Representatives, was suspended from office for a period
of 60 days by his colleagues upon a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the House. In the next succeeding
election, he filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position. "B", the opposing candidate, filed an action

11 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
for disqualification of "A" on the ground that the latter's, candidacy violated Section 7, Article VI of the
Constitution which provides that no Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. "A" answered that he was not barred from running again for that position because his
service was interrupted by his 60-day suspension which was involuntary. Can ‘A’, legally continue with his
candidacy or is he already barred? Why? (2001 BAR)
A: A cannot legally continue with his candidacy. He was elected as Member of the House of Representatives for a
third term. This term should be included in the computation of the term limits, even if "A" did not serve for a full
term. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. n, p. 592.) He remained a Member of the House of
Representatives even if he was suspended

39. In the May 1992 elections, Manuel Manalo and Segundo Parate were elected as Mayor and Vice Mayor,
respectively. Upon the death of Manalo as incumbent municipal mayor, Vice Mayor Segundo Parate succeeded
as mayor and served for the remaining portion of the term of office. In the May 1995 election, Segundo Parate
ran for and won as mayor and then served for the full term. In the May 1998 elections, Parate ran for
reelection as Mayor and won again. In the May 2001 election, Segundo Parate filed his certificate of candidacy
for the same position of mayor, but his rival mayoralty candidate sought his disqualification alleging violation
of the three-term limit for local elective officials provided for in the Constitution and in the Local Government
Code. Decide whether the disqualification case will prosper or not. (2001 BAR)
A: The disqualification case should be dismissed. As held in Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157, in computing the
three-term limitation imposed upon elective local officials, only the term for which he was elected to should be
considered. The term which he served as a result of succession should not be included. It is not enough that the
official has served three consecutive terms. He must have been elected to the same position three consecutive
times.

40. Manuel was elected Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. He fully served
his first two terms, and during his third term, the municipality was converted into the component City of Tuba.
The said charter provided for a holdover and so without interregnum Manuel went on to serve as the Mayor
of the City of Tuba. In the 2001 elections, Manuel filed his certificate of candidacy for City Mayor. He disclosed,
though, that he had already served for three consecutive terms as elected Mayor when Tuba was still a
municipality. He also stated in his certificate of candidacy that he is running for the position of Mayor for the
first time now that Tuba is a city. Reyes, an adversary, ran against Manuel and petitioned that he be
disqualified because he had already served for three consecutive terms as Mayor. The petition was not timely
acted upon, and Manuel was proclaimed the winner with 20,000 votes over the 10,000 votes received by
Reyes as the only other candidate. It was only after Manuel took his oath and assumed office that the
COMELEC ruled that he was disqualified for having ran and served for three consecutive terms.
a. As lawyer of Manuel, present the possible arguments to prevent his disqualification and removal.
b. How would you rule on whether or not Manuel is eligible to run as Mayor of the newly-created City of Tuba
immediately after having already served for three (3) consecutive terms as Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba?
c. Assuming that Manuel is not an eligible candidate, rebut Reyes' claim that he should be proclaimed as
winner having received the next higher number of votes. (2005 BAR)
A: a. As lawyer of Manuel, I would argue that he should not be disqualified and removed because he was a
three-term mayor of the municipality of Tuba, and, with its conversion to a component city, the latter has a
totally separate and different corporate personality from that of the municipality. Moreover, as a rule, in a
representative democracy, the people should be allowed freely to choose those who will govern them. Having
won the elections, the choice of the people should be respected.

12 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
b. Manuel is not eligible to run as mayor of the city of Tuba. The 1987 Constitution specifically included an
exception to the people's freedom to choose those who will govern them in order to avoid the evil of a single
person accumulating excessive power over a particular territorial jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay in
the same office. To allow Manuel to be for the position of city mayor after having served for three consecutive
terms as a municipal mayor would obviously defeat the very intent of the framers when they wrote this
exception. Should he be allowed another three consecutive terms as mayor of the City of Tuba, Manuel would
then be possibly holding office as chief executive over the same territorial jurisdiction and inhabitants for a total
of eighteen consecutive years. This is the very scenario sought to be avoided by the Constitution, if not abhorred
by it (Latasa v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154829, [2003]).
c. Reyes cannot be proclaimed winner for receiving the second highest number of votes. The Supreme Court has
consistently ruled that the fact that a plurality or a majority of the votes are cast for an ineligible candidate at a
popular election, or that a candidate is later declared to be disqualified to hold office, does not entitle the
candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared elected. The same merely results in
making the winning candidate's election a nullity. In the present case, 10,000 votes were cast for private
respondent Reyes as against the 20,000 votes cast for petitioner Manuel. The second placer is obviously not the
choice of the people in this particular election. The permanent vacancy in the contested office should be filled by
succession (Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105111, [1992])

41. The 1st Legislative District of South Cotabato is composed of General Santos and three municipalities including
Polomolok. During the canvassing proceedings before the District Board of Canvassers in connection with the
2007 congressional elections, candidate MP objected to the certificate of canvass for Polomolok on the ground
that it was obviously manufactured, submitting as evidence the affidavit of a mayoralty candidate of Polomok.
The certificate of canvass for General Santos was likewise objected to by MP on the basis of the confirmed
report of the local NAMFREL that 10 election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the
certificate. MP moved that the certificate of canvass for General Santos be corrected to exclude the results
from the non-existent precincts. The District Board of Canvassers denied both objections and ruled to include
the certificate of canvass. May MP appeal the rulings to the COMELEC? Explain. (2008 BAR)
A: NO, MP cannot appeal the rulings to the Commission on Elections. Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166,
as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, no pre-proclamation controversies regarding the appreciation of election
returns and certificates of canvass maybe entertained in elections for members of the House of Representatives.
The canvassing body may correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass. His recourse is to file a regular
election protest before the HRET (Pimentel v. COMELEC, 548 SCRA 169 [2008]).

42. In the municipal mayoralty elections in 1980, the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes was
subsequently declared to be disqualified as a candidate and so ineligible for the office to which he was
elected. Would this fact entitle a competing candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
ask and be proclaimed the winner of the elective office? Reasons. (2003 BAR)
A: According to Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999), if the candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes is disqualified, the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed the
winner. Since he was not the choice of the people, he cannot claim any right to the office. However, the alleged
"second-placer," should be proclaimed if the certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, the winner was
never a candidate at all and all votes were stray votes. Thus, the second-placer is the only qualified candidate
who actually garnered the highest number of votes (Tea v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195229 [2012]).

43. Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being
proclaimed Vice- Governor in the 2004 elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed an election protest before the

13 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
Commission on Election. Ruling with finality on the protest, the COMELEC declared Khalil as the not duly
elected Vice-Governor though the decision was promulgated only in 2007, when Abdul had fully served his
2004-2007 term and was in fact already on his 2007-2010 term as Vice Governor. Abdul consult you whether
his political party can validly nominate his wife as substitute candidate for Vice- Mayor of Tawi-Tawi in May
2010 elections in case the COMELEC disqualifies him and denies due course to or cancels his certificate of
candidacy in view of a false material representation therein. What will be your advice? (2008 BAR)
I shall advise Abdul that his wife cannot be nominated as substitute candidate for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi.
The denial of due course and cancellation of a certificate of candidacy is not one of the cases in which a
candidate may be validly substituted. A cancelled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy. Under
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, a valid candidacy is an indispensable requisite in case of a substitution
of a disqualified candidate. (Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA 617)

44. Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for Mayor of the
Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won convincingly. Eventually, the losing candidates timely filed
election protests. The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A, filed his protest before the Regional Trial Court of
Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing mayoralty candidate, Mr. B, filed his protest before the Municipal Trial
Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC).
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A? Explain.
(b) Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A. COMELEC has jurisdiction over an election
contest between a losing gubernatorial candidate and a proclaimed winner of the gubernatorial post. [Section
2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.] (b) The MTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B. The RTC has
jurisdiction over an election contest between a losing municipal mayoralty candidate and a proclaimed municipal
mayor. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]

45. Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a close
electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before
the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position because
he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman of the province.
(a) Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizen under the 1987 Constitution.
(b) Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain.
(c) Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. [Art. IV, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.] On the
other hand, naturalized citizens are those who acquire Philippine Citizenship through either: 1) Judicial
naturalization under CA 473 or 2) Administrative Naturalization Law (R.A. 9139). A third option is Derivative
Naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands found under section 15 of CA 473
which provides that: “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and
who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
(b) No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution prescribes that no person shall be a Member of
the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines [Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Const]. In
this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus not qualified to run for Congress.

14 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS
(c) No, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter. To divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election
cases of Members of the House of Representatives, the following requisites must concur: 1. Valid Proclamation;
2. Valid oath; and 3. Assumption of office on June 30. Thus, the mere proclamation of X does not yet transfer
jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET. [Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013]

46. Mayor X and his City Administrator, Y, are political buddies who assumed their respective offices in 2010.
Sometime in January 2012, Y proposed to Mayor X the entry into a ₱5,000,000.00 loan agreement with ABC
Foundation, a non-stock and non-profit organization in which the two had a long-standing personal
involvement. The loan agreement was duly executed in the same year but was never authorized and approved
by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. It was further found that the same constituted a fraudulent scheme to
defraud the City Government. Meanwhile. Mayor X won another term during the May 2013 Elections and Y
continued on as his City Administrator. A year after, or in May 2014, administrative charges for grave
misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were filed against
them before the Office of the Ombudsman. In defense, Mayor X argued that his subsequent reelection in May
2013 absolved him from any administrative liability for any alleged anomalous activity during his first term in
office. Y raised the same defense of condonation, having been retained by Mayor X as City Administrator for a
second term. On December 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rendered its ruling in the case, finding both Mayor X
and Y administratively liable. Citing the Supreme Court’s Decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
Nos. 217126-27), which was initially promulgated on November 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rejected their
defense of condonation. With the motions for reconsideration of Mayor X and Y having been denied by the
Ombudsman on March 10, 2016, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
(a) Did the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X?
explain. (b) How about Y? Can he validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge?
Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: (a) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense. Although in Carpio-Morales v Court of
Appeals abandoned the condonation doctrine, the Supreme Court also pronounced that such ruling may not be
applied retroactively, for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution,
until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Considering that the acts of Mayor X were
committed in 2013, before the Carpio-Morales case, Mayor X can still validly invoke the condonation doctrine.
(Office of the Ombudsman v Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017).
(b) No, the condonation doctrine only applies to elective officials. Y, being the City Administrator, is an appointive
official and can therefore not validly invoke the doctrine. (Carpio-Morales v Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-
27, November 10, 2015)

47. Distinguish briefly between Quo Warranto in elective office and Quo Warranto in appointive office. (2012 BAR)
In quo warranto in elective officer, the issue is the ineligibility of the elected candidate (Section 3(E), Rule 1,
Rules Of Procedure In Election Cases). If he is ineligible, the candidate who got the second highest number of
votes cannot be proclaimed elected (Sinsuat v. COMELEC, 492 Scra 264). A voter may file for quo warranto
against an elected candidate. The petition should be filed within ten days after the proclamation of the elected
candidate. In quo warranto in appointive office, the issue is the legality of the appointment. The court will decide
who between the parties has the legal title to the office (Nachura, Outline Reviewers in Political Law, P. 567). It is
the Solicitor General, a public prosecutor, or a person claiming to be entitled to the public office who can file a
petition for quo warrato against an appointive official (Section 2 And 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). The
petition should be filed within one year after the cause of action accrued (Section 11, Rules 66 of the Rules of
Court)

15 | P a g e
 ELECTION LAW – BAR QUESTIONS

16 | P a g e