The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the

Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra and the

Bishop Himself in his Personal Capacity v.
Commission on Elections and the Election
Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V.
Majarucon GR No. 205728
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION FACTS:
Petitioner Diocese of Bacolod is a Roman
Catholic diocese and is represented in this
petition by its Bishop, the Most Rev. Vicente M.
Navarra. Petitioner Bishop Navarra is also filing
this petition in his individual and personal
capacity as the questioned orders are
personally directed at him and also as a
concerned citizen, as the issues raised herein
are matters of paramount and transcendental
importance to the public which must be settled
early given the far-reaching implications of the
unconstitutional acts of the respondents.
Named as respondents are the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) and its Election Officer of
Bacolod City Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon. On 21
February 2013, the petitioners have caused to
be placed on the front wall of the Bacolod
Cathedral two sets of Tarpaulin, each sized
6x10 feet, with the message Conscience Vote
(Team
Buhay/Team
Patay
(Team
Patay
Tarpaulin). The Team Patay Tarpaulin contained
the names of both Anti and Pro-Reproductive
Health Law senatorial candidates. In their
special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioners
sought the nullification of the 22 February
2013 order issued by respondent Atty.
Majarucon, which orders them to remove the
supposed oversized Team Patay Tarpaulin of
the Diocese of Bacolod. They also sought to
nullify the 27 February 2013 order issued by
the COMELEC, through its Law Department,
which orders the immediate removal of the
Team Patay Tarpaulin and threatening the
petitioner Bishop of Bacolod with the filing of
an election offense if he fails to cause its
immediate removal. On March 5, 2013, the
Supreme Court En Banc issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the respondents
COMELEC and Atty. Majarucon from removing
the Team Patay Tarpaulin.
ISSUES/GROUNDS:
1. Respondents orders directives to remove
or cause the removal of the subjectTeam
Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void

for infringing on petitioners right to freedom

of expression on their own private property.
2. Respondents orders/directives to remove
or cause the removal of the subjectTeam
Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void
for violating the principle of separation of
Church and State enshrined in Section 6 of
Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:
1. The assailed Orders/Directives to remove
or cause the removal of the subjectTeam
Patay Tarpaulin are not electoral campaign
materials and that the mention of the
candidates in the infringes on the petitioners
right to freedom of expression on their own
private property: of the subject Team Patay
Tarpaulins are not electoral campaign
materials, stressing that the mentioning of
candidates name in the second tarpaulin
was merely incidental to the petitioners
campaign against the RH Law, which they
have firmly campaigned against even when it
was just a bill being deliberated in Congress;
o subject Team Patay Tarpaulins are covered
by the broader constitutional guaranty of
freedom of expression and of conscience and
not by the more narrow and limited election
laws, rules, and regulations; of petitioners
have
the
constitutional
right
to
communicate their views and beliefs by
posting the subject Team Patay Tarpaulins on
the Bacolod Cathedral, a private property
owned by the Diocese of Bacolod; o the RH
Law and the candidates and party-lists
running in the 2013 National Elections who
supported and who opposed its passage into
a law are matters of public concern and a
legitimate subject of general interest and of
discussion; o citing the Supreme Courts
jurisprudence in Chavez v. PCGG (G. R. No.
130716, December 9, 1998), the petitioners
argued that that public concern embraces
a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public may want to know citing the
Supreme Courts jurisprudence in Adiong v.
COMELEC ( G. R. No. 103956, March 31,
1992), the petitioners further argued that
debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide open. to the
content and the message of the subject
Team Patay Tarpaulin plainly relates to
broad issues of interest to the community
especially to the members of the Catholic
community and that the subject tarpaulin
1

simply conveys the position of the

petitioners on the RH bill and the public
officials who supported or opposed it as it
gains relevance in the exercise of the
peoples right of suffrage in the advent of
the 2013 polls; of considering the petitioners
message, through the Team Patay Tarpaulin,
was a matter of public concern, the message
being conveyed and the mode used for its
communication and expression to the public
is entitled to protection under the Free
Expression clause of the Bill of Rights of the
1987 Constitution; of not being candidates or
political parties, the freedom of expression
curtailed by the questioned prohibition, using
the logic of the Supreme Court in Adiong v.
COMELEC, is not so much that of the
candidate or the political party; o there is no
compelling and substantial State interest
that is endangered or which will be
endangered by the posting of the subject
Team Patay Tarpaulin which would justify the
infringement of the preferred right of
freedom of expression.
2. The assailed orders/directives to remove
or cause the removal of the subjectTeam
Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void
for violating the principle of separation of
Church and State enshrined in Section 6 of
Article II of the 1987 Constitution: of
petitioners petition against the RH Law is
not only a matter of exercise of its freedom
of expression and of conscience but is also a
matter of Catholic faith, morals, belief, and of
duty; of the Diocese of Bacolod has taken
on the issue of the RH Law as part of her
mission as part of its continued advocacy
and obedience to the Catholic Churchs
teachings; in line with what they believe to
be their duty in the faith, the petitioners
have declared the RH Law as being anti-life,
anti-morals, anti-family, anti-marriage, and
contrary to the teachings of the Catholic
Church. Consequently, petitioners have
called on its members and followers not to
support any candidate who is anti-life, and to
support those who are pro-life; considering
that the views and position of the petitioners
on the RH Bill is inextricably connected to its
Catholic dogma, faith, and moral teachings,
the posting of the subject Team Patay
Tarpaulin has already gone beyond mere
exercise of freedom of expression and of
conscience, but also of the right and
privilege of the Church to propagate and

spread its teachings which should be

insulated from any form of encroachment
and intrusion on the part of the State, and its
agencies and officials; section 6 of the Article
II of the 1987 Constitution monumentalizes
the principle of separation of Church and
State; at the core of its advocacy against the
RH Bill is the Gospel of Life which is a matter
of Catholic doctrine, creed and dogma; the
petitioners believe, as a matter of faith, that
in these times when there is a great conflict
between a culture of death and a culture of
life, the Church should have the courage to
proclaim the culture of life for the common
good of society; the questioned orders are
unpardonable intrusion into the affairs of the
Church and constitute serious violations of
the principle of separation of Church and
State which the State and its officials,
including the herein respondents, are bound
to respect, observe, and hold sacred.
PRAYER:
Petition be given due course; Issue a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of
Preliminary
Injunction
restraining
respondents from further proceedings in
enforcing their orders for the removal of the
subject Team Patay Tarpaulin; Declare the
questioned orders of respondents as
unconstitutional and void and permanently
restrain the respondents from enforcing them
or any other similar orders; and Issue other
reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises.
THE ISSUES TO BE ARGUED AS PER
ADVISORY OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED
MARCH 12, 2013
1. Whether or not the 22 February 2013
Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon
and the 27 February 2013 Order by the
COMELEC Law Department are considered
judgments/final orders/resolutions of the
COMELEC which would warrant a review of
this Court via a Rule 65 Petition.
(a) Whether or not petitioners violated the
hierarchy
of
courts
doctrine
and
jurisprudential rules governing appeals from
COMELEC decisions;
(b)
Assuming
arguendo
that
the
aforementioned Orders are not considered
judgments/final orders/resolutions of the
COMELEC, whether there are exceptional
2

circumstances which would allow this Court

to take cognizance of the case.
2. Whether or not it is relevant to determine
whether
the
tarpaulins
are
political
advertisement or election propaganda
considering that petitioner is not a political
candidate.
3. Whether or not the tarpaulins are a form
of expression (protected speech), or election
propaganda/political advertisement.
(a) Assuming arguendo that the tarpaulins
are a form of expression, whether or not the
COMELEC possesses the authority to regulate
the same.
(b) Whether or not this form of expression
may be regulated.
4. Whether or not the 22 February 2013
Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon
and the 27 February 2013 Order by the
COMELEC Law Department violate the
Constitutional principle of separation of
church and state.
5. Whether or not the action of the
petitioners in posting its tarpaulin violates
the Constitutional principle of separation of
church and state. OSG COMMENT: DIOCESE
OF BACOLOD, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not petitioners availed
of
the
proper
remedy
in
assailing
respondents notice and letter ordering the
removal of the subject tarpaulin.
2. Whether or not the assailed order and
notice issued by respondents are valid and
constitutional considering that the same
allegedly violate the petitioners right to
freedom of expression and the principle of
separation of Church and State enshrined in
the 1987 Constitution.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION:
1. A petition for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed
before this Honorable Court is not the proper
remedy to question the subject notice and
letter of respondents. Petitioners filed the
petition before the Honorable Court, claiming
that they have no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy to assail the notice and
letter issued by the respondents. Contrary to
their claim, prior resort to the COMELEC
constitutes a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy that bars the petitioners from
directly asking relief from the Honorable
Court from the alleged injurious effects of the
subject letter and notice. In filing the instant

suit, the petitioners violated the rule on

exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Before a party is allowed to seek intervention
of the court, it is a pre-condition that he
should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him.
Petitioners should have first brought the
matter to the COMELEC En Banc or to any of
its Divisions before going directly to the
Supreme Court via petition for certiorari and
prohibition. The letter and notice issued by
the respondents are not subject to review by
the Supreme Court, as the power of the
Court to review the decisions of the
COMELEC is limited only to final decisions,
rulings and orders of the COMELEC en banc
rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial power (citing Ambil Jr. vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398 October 25,
2000). Considering that the assailed letter
and notice are not final orders of the
COMELEC En Banc rendered in the exercise
of
its
adjudicatory
and
quasi-judicial
functions but mere issuances of Atty.
Marjucom
and
the
COMELEC
Law
Department, the same are not reviewable by
the Honorable Court but by the COMELEC
itself. Granting that the assailed notice and
letter are subject to review by the Honorable
Court, petitioners must be able to show that
respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the same. Petitioners
have not shown facts essential to prove that
the assailed notice and letter were issued in
a whimsical, arbitrary or capricious manner
or the abuse of discretion is so patent and
gross to amount to grave abuse of
discretion. The respondents issued the notice
and letter pursuant to the COMELECs
mandate to regulate and supervise the use
of mass media during election period as
embodied in the 1987 Constitution.
2. The subject tarpaulin is an election
propaganda subject to regulation
by
respondent COMELEC pursuant to its
mandate under Section 4, Article IX-C of the
1987 Constitution. Hence, respondents
notice and letter ordering its removal for
being oversized are valid and constitutional.
In furtherance of COMELECs mandate to
supervise and regulate elections, Congress
enacted RA 9006 (the Fair Elections Act),
giving the COMELEC power to promulgate its
own rules and regulations. Pursuant to this,
3

COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9615

(Rules and Regulations Implementing RA
9006, in connection to the 13 May 2013
National and Local Elections, and Subsequent
Elections). Resolution 9615 defines the
following terms: Election Campaign or
Partisan Political Activity - an act
designed to promote the election of defeat of
a particular candidate or candidates to a
public office, and shall include, among
others, the act of directly or indirectly
soliciting votes, pledges of support for or
against any candidate
Political Advertisement or Election
Propaganda - any matter broadcasted,
published, printed, displayed or exhibited, in
any medium, which contain the name,
image, logo, brand, insignia, motif, initials,
and other symbol or representation, that is
capable of being associated with a candidate
or a party, and is intended to draw the
attention of the public or a segment thereof
to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly,
the election of the said candidate or
candidates to a public office From the
definitions, the subject tarpaulin is a form of
election propaganda subject to regulation by
the COMELEC pursuant to its mandate under
Section 4, Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution.
The subject tarpaulin contains the message
CONSCIENCE VOTE and classifies the
candidates into two groups, Team Buhay
(with a check mark) and Team Patay (with
a cross mark). The check mark on Team
Buhay and the cross mark on Team Patay
convey to the public that those belonging to
the Team Buhay should be voted while
those under Team Patay should be
rejected. On its face, it is obvious that the
tarpaulin is petitioners way of endorsing
those candidates who voted against the RH
Law and rejecting those who voted for the
said law. Petitioner also admitted in their
petition that they have called on its
members and followers not to support any
candidate who is anti-life, and to support
those who are prolife. These declarations
confirm that they put up the tarpaulin not
merely to promote the Churchs position on
the RH Law but to express their support for
or against the candidates listed therein,
depending on who they voted on the RH Law.
Section 6 of Resolution 9615 sets the size

limit for campaign posters to two feet by

three feet. This is also embodied in section
82 of the Omnibus Election Code. The subject
tarpaulin has the estimated size of six feet
by ten feet, which is beyond the maximum
allowable size for campaign posters for
private properties. In ordering the removal of
the tarpaulin, Atty. Marjucom, in her capacity
as election officer, merely enforced section 6
of Resolution 9615 and section 82 of the
Omnibus Election Code. Similarly, in issuing
the assailed letter, the COMELEC Law
Department
only
acted
pursuant
to
COMELECs regulatory and supervisory
functions under the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioners cannot claim that their right to
freedom of expression has been violated.
Petitioners are completely free to express
their support for or against any candidate
through the use of campaign posters and
other forms of propaganda, provided they
comply with the limitations provided by law
as regards their size. The assailed notice and
letter are not forms of censorship. The only
reason that the respondents sought the
removal of the tarpaulin is that it failed to
comply with the maximum allowable size
provided by law. Assuming that the assailed
notice and letter amount to infringement of
the petitioners right to freedom of
expression, such encroachment is authorized
by the Constitution itself. The supervisory
and regulatory powers of the COMELEC
under the Constitution set to some extent a
limit on the right to free speech during the
election period. By ordering the petitioners to
comply with the size requirement, the
COMELEC was exercising its supervisory and
regulatory authority for the purpose of
ensuring equal opportunity for candidates for
political office. The assailed notice and letter
do not intrude into purely religious and
ecclesiastical matters. They do not seek to
regulate the content the subject tarpaulin,
but only the size, which respondents found to
be in violation of Resolution 9615 and the
Omnibus Election Code. On its face, the
subject tarpaulin does not convey any
religious doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Rather, it is an election propaganda. The fact
that the tarpaulin did not comply with
Resolution 9615 and the Omnibus Election
Code gave respondents reason to order its
removal,
consistent
with
COMELECs
mandate to regulate and supervise all form
4

of media communication and information

during election period. Thus, respondents did
not violate the principle of separation of
Church
and
State
provided
in
the
Constitution.
PRAYER: The Petition should be dismissed for
lack of merit.
1. POSTPONMENT OF ELECTION SEC 5 BP881
When for any serious cause such as violence,
terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and
other analogous causes of such a nature that
the holding of a free, orderly and honest
election should become impossible in any
political subdivision, the Commission, motu
proprio or upon a verified petition by any
interested party, and after due notice and
hearing, whereby all interested parties are
afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election therein to a date which
should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than thirty days after the cessation of the
cause for such postponement or suspension
of the election or failure to elect.
RA 7166 SEC 4
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of
Election and Special Elections. - The
postponement, declaration of failure of
election and the calling of special elections
as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by
the Commission sitting en banc by a majority
vote of its members. The causes for the
declaration of a failure of election may occur
before or after the casting of votes or on the
day of the election.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in
the Senate or House of Representatives at
least one (1) year before the expiration of
the term, the Commission shall call and hold
a special election to fill the vacancy not
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than
ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the
vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in
the Senate, the special election shall be held
simultaneously with the succeeding regular
election.
2. FAILURE OF ELECTION SEC 6 BP 881

If, on account of force majeure, violence,

terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes
the election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed, or had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting, or after the voting
and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the
custody or canvass thereof, such election
results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election
would affect the result of the election, the
Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after
due notice and hearing, call for the holding
or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to
elect on a date reasonably close to the date
of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than thirty days after the cessation of the
cause of such postponement or suspension
of the election or failure to elect.
3. PRE PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES SEC
241-243 BP881
Section
241.
Definition.
A
preproclamation controversy refers to any
question pertaining to or affecting the
proceedings of the board of canvassers
which may be raised by any candidate or by
any registered political party or coalition of
political parties before the board or directly
with the Commission, or any matter raised
under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in
relation to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the
election returns.
Section
242.
Commission's
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
all
pre-proclamation
controversies. - The Commission shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation
controversies. It may motu proprio or upon
written petition, and after due notice and
hearing, order the partial or total suspension
of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or
annual partially or totally any proclamation,
if one has been made, as the evidence shall
warrant in accordance with the succeeding
sections.
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in
pre-proclamation controversy. - The following
shall be proper issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the
5

board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are
incomplete, contain material defects, appear
to be tampered with or falsified, or contain
discrepancies in the same returns or in other
authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under
duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or
they are obviously manufactured or not
authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places were canvassed,
the results of which materially affected the
standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates.
RA 7166 SEC 15-19
Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not
Allowed in Elections for President VicePresident, Senator, and Member of the
House of Representatives. - For purposes
of the elections for President, Vice-President,
Senator and Member of the House of
Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases
shall be allowed on matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appreciation of the election returns or
the certificates of canvass, as the case may
be. However, this does not preclude the
authority of the appropriate canvassing body
motu propio or upon written complaint of an
interested person to correct manifest errors
in the certificate of canvass or election
returns before it.
Questions affecting the composition or
proceedings of the board of canvassers may
be initiated in the board or directly with the
Commission in accordance with Section 19
hereof.
Any objection on the election returns before
the city or municipal board of canvassers, or
on the municipal certificates of canvass
before the provincial board of canvassers or
district boards of canvassers in Metro Manila
Area, shall be specifically noticed in the
minutes of their respective proceedings.
Sec.
16.
Pre-proclamation
Cases
Involving Provincial, City and Municipal
Offices. - Pre-proclamation cases involving
provincial, city and municipal offices shall be
allowed and shall be governed by Sections
17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof.
All pre-proclamation cases pending before
the Commission shall be deemed terminated

at the beginning of the term of the office

involved and the rulings of the boards of
canvassers concerned shall be deemed
affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a
regular election protest by the aggrieved
party. However, proceedings may continue
when on the basis of the evidence thus far
presented, the Commission determined that
the petition appears meritorious and
accordingly issues an order for the
proceeding to continue or when an
appropriate order has been issued by the
Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
Sec.
17.
Pre-proclamation
Controversies;
How
Commenced.
Questions affecting the composition or
proceedings of the board of canvassers may
be initiated in the board or directly with the
Commission. However, matters raised under
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appreciation of the election returns, and
the certificates of canvass shall be brought in
the first instance before the board of
canvassers only.
Sec. 18. Summary Disposition of Preproclamation Controversies. - All preproclamation controversies on election
returns or certificates of canvass shall, on
the basis of the records and evidence
elevated to it by the board of canvassers, be
disposed of summarily by the Commission
within seven (7) days from receipt thereof. Its
decisions shall be executory after the lapse
of seven (7) days for receipts by the losing
party of the decision of the Commission.
Sec. 19. Consented Composition or
Proceedings of the Board: Period to
Appeal: Decision by the Commission. Parties adversely affected by a ruling of the
board of canvassers on questions affecting
the composition or proceedings of the board
may appeal the matter to the Commission
within three (3) days from a ruling thereon.
The Commission shall summarily decided the
case within five (5) days from the filing
thereof.
AM. No. 07-4-15-SC
SEC 3
Election Protest - refers to an election
contest relating to the election and returns of
elective officials, grounded on frauds or
irregularities in the conduct of the elections,
6

the casting and counting of the ballots and

the preparation and canvassing of returns.
The issue is who obtained the plurality of
valid votes cast.
Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election
Code - refers to an election contest relating
to the qualifications of an elective official on
the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines. The issue is
whether respondent possesses all the
qualifications
and
none
of
the
disqualifications prescribed by law.
SEC. 5. Election protest. - A petition
contesting the election or returns of an
elective municipal or barangay official shall
be filed with the proper regional trial court or
municipal trial court by any candidate who
was voted for the same office and who
received the second or third highest number
of votes or, in a multi-slot position, was
among the next four candidates following the
last-ranked winner duly proclaimed, as
reflected in the official results of the election
contained in the Statement of Votes By
Precinct. The party filing the protest shall be
designated as the protestant; the adverse
party shall be known as the protestee.
Each contest shall refer exclusively to one
office; however, contests for offices of
Sangguniang
Bayan
or
Sangguniang
Barangay may be consolidated in one case.
SEC. 6. Quo Warranto. - A petition for quo
warranto against an elective municipal or
barangay official shall be filed with the
proper regional trial court or municipal trial
court by any registered voter who has voted
in the election concerned. The party filing the
petition shall be designated as the petitioner;
the adverse party shall be known as the
respondent.
4. ELECTION PROTEST
Election Protest
Election Protest
An election protest is a contest between the
defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds and
irregularities in the casting and counting of
the ballots, or in the preparation of the
returns. It raises the question of who actually
obtained the plurality of the legal votes and
therefore is entitled to hold the office (Samad
v. Comelec

224 SCRA 631 [1993]).

The purpose of an election protest is to
ascertain whether the
candidate proclaimed elected by the board of
canvassers is really the lawful choice of the
electorate (De Castro vs. Ginete , 27 SCRA
623[1969]).
The following are the grounds for ling an
Election Protest:
Fraud, Terrorism, Irregularities; or Illegal acts,
committed before, during or after the casting
and counting of votes
JURISDICTION
5. QUO WARRANTO
Section 253. Petition for quo warranto. Any voter contesting the election of any
Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional,
provincial, or city officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for
quo warranto with the Commission within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of
the election.
Any voter contesting the election of any
municipal or barangay officer on the ground
of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic
of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition
for quo warranto with the regional trial court
or metropolitan or municipal trial court,
respectively, within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
Who can file an election protest?
Any candidate who has duly filed a certificate
of candidacy and been voted for the office of
Senator.
When can a candidate file an election
protest?
The candidates protest must be filed within
thirty (30) days from the proclamation of the
protestee.
What is quo warranto?
It is a petition contesting the election of a
Member of the Senate on the ground of
ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines.
Who can file a quo warranto?
Any registered voter.
When can a voter file a quo warranto?
7

1
2
3

The voter must file within ten (10) days after

the proclamation of the respondent.
On ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines within ten (10)
days after proclamation of respondent.
On ground of ineligibility based on citizenship
at any time during the respondents tenure.
On ground of loss of required qualifications
at any time during the respondents tenure,
as soon as any of the required qualifications

is lost.
How can one file an election protest or
quo warranto?
Election contests shall be filed either
personally with the Office of the Secretary of
the Tribunal or by registered mail addressed
to the same office in fifteen (15) clearly
legible copies.