Election Law Digests

ELECTIONLAWCASEDIGESTS(FROMELECTIONCONTEST)
ELECTIONCONTESTS 16 TOMARONGV.LUBGUBAN 269SCRA624 (TAN,L.)
FACTS: Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest before the respective MCTCs.Thewinningcandidatesfiledtheiranswersprayingthatthepetitionsbe dismissedbasedontheaffirmativedefensethattheprotestantsfailedtoattachto theirpetitionstherequiredcertificationonnonforumshoppingasprovidedforin SCACNo.0494. The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of Justice who thendeferredtotheCourtAdministratorwhoruledthatthecertificationonnon forum shopping should be required in elections contests before the MTCs. Thus thispetitionunderRule65. HELD: Therequirementofthecertificationofnonforumshoppingisrequiredforelection contests. Yes.TheCourt,citingLoyolav.CourtofAppeals,saidthat:Wedonotagreethat SCACNo.0494isnotapplicabletoelectioncases.ThereisnothingintheCircular thatindicatesthatitdoesnotapplytoelectioncases.Onthecontrary,itexpressly providesthattherequirementstherein,whichareinadditiontothoseinpertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, shall be strictly complied withinthefilingofcomplaints,petitions,applicationsorotherinitiatorypleadings inallcourtsandagenciesothertheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppeals.Ubi lexnondistinguitnecnosdistinguiredebemus. Inthiscase,thepetitionersfiledtherequiredcertification18daysafterfilingtheir petitions.Itcannotbeconsideredsubstantialcompliancewiththerequirementsof theCircular.Quiteobviously,thereglementaryperiodforfilingtheprotesthad,by then,alreadyexpired.Petitiondismissed.
Note:Therecanbesubstantialcomplianceevenafteramotiontodismisshasbeen filedonthegroundoflackofcertificateofnonforumshoppingbutitmustbedone asap(thenextday)otherwisethevalueoftheSCCircularwouldloseitsvalue. 17 BEAGANV.BORJA 261SCRA474 (TEEHANKEE) FACTS: May1994.BarangayElectionsinBislig,Tanauan,Leyte ElectionprotestfiledbyArnulfoSantillano,Egonioasprotestee,Beegan asintervenor AboutrevisionofthreeballotboxescompletedinOctober1994,Revision CommitteepresenteditsreporttotheCourtNovember3,1994 Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots were reopened for Xeroxingpurposesfortheperusaloftheprotesteescounsel Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondents in effecting thereopeningoftheballotboxesandcopyingtantamounttomisconduct inoffice Balano(clerkofcourt)andBorjabelievedingoodfaiththattheyhadthe authoritytoallowsuch. HELD: Photocopyingofballotsisnottantamounttomisconductinoffice. As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest in Xeroxing/photocopyingofcourtrecords,noliabilityattachestoanyone. Respondentsareexonerated. 18 FERMOV.COMELEC 328SCRA52 (VALDEZ) FACTS: LAXINA and FERMO candidates for the position of Punong Brgy. in QC. (1997elections)LAXINAwasproclaimedwinner FERMOfiledelectionprotestquestionresultsin4clusteredprecinctson groundofmassivefraudandseriousirregularities.
ThroughthejointeffortsofthestudentsofAteneoLaw2DAY0708
MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and granted a motionforexecutionpendingappeal.COMELECreversedongroundthat the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decidednot a good reason to warrant execution pending appeal.
HELD: Amotionforexecutingpendingappealongroundoftermexpirationisnotgood reasonforissuance. Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction and possession of originalrecordinitsdiscretion,orderexecutionofjudgmentorfinalordereven beforeexpirationoftheperiodtoappeal Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on good reasons (combinationof2ormorewillsuffice): 1. PUBLICINTERESTINVOLVEDORWILLOFELECTORATE 2. SHORTNESSofremainingportionoftermofcontestedoffice 3. LENGTHOFTIMEthatelectioncontesthasbeenPENDING Shortnessofremainingtermnotgoodreasonforexecutionofjudgment pendingappealRA8524:extendedtermofofficeofBrgy.officialsto5 years(negatesclaimofFERMO Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal, decision of FERMOs proclamation as winner was stayedstatus quo (last actual peacefuluncontestedsituationprecedingthecontroversy)restored LAXINA:entitledtodischargefunctions 19 SAQUILAYANV.COMELEC 416SCRA658 (DINO) FACTS: 1. SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal MayorofImus,Cavite. 2. SAQUILAYANwasproclaimedwinner. 3. JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC, contesting the resultsofall453electionprecincts.Heallegestheff: a. VotesinfavorofJAROwereconsideredstray
4. 5.
6. HELD: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considered null and void,orcountedinfavorofSAQUILAYAN) c. Votes that were void (containing stickers or markings) were countedinfavorofSAQUILAYAN,etc.. SAQUILAYANfiledaMotiontoDismiss,whichwasdeniedbytheRTC. QuestioningthedenialofhisMotiontoDismiss,theCOMELEC(Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN and ordered the dismissal of the election protest.ItruledthatJAROsallegationsfailedtostateacauseofaction, onthebasisofPenav.HRET. * Pena v. HRET held that the bare allegations of massive fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism, without specification and substantiation of where and how these occurrences took place, render theprotestfatallydefective. Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC En Banc, SAQUILAYANs Motion to Dismiss was again dismissed, and the Election ProtestCasewasorderedtoproceed. ThepresentcaseissimilartoMiguelv.COMELEC,whichtheCOMELECEn BancusedasbasisinorderingtheElectionProtestCasetoproceed. IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precincts in their respectivemunicipalities. AsMiguelv.COMELECismorerecentthanPenav.HRET(asusedbythe COMELECDivision),thentheformershouldprevailincaseofaconflict. Furthermore,electioncontestsinvolvepublicinterest.Technicalitiesand proceduralbarriersshouldnotbeallowedtostandiftheyconstitutedan obstacletothedeterminationofthetruewilloftheelectorate. Lawsgoverningelectioncontestsmustbeliberallyconstruedtotheend that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeatedbymeretechnicalobjections. Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the best way of removing any doubt as to who was the real candidate chosen by the electorate. DecisionofCOMELECEnBancaffirmed. SANTOSV.COMELEC 399SCRA611 (PADLAN)
b.
20
7.
FACTS: Petitioner(SANTOS)andRespondent(PANULAYA)werebothcandidatefor MAYOR of the Municipal of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections. MUNICIPALBoardofCanvassers(MBC)proclaimedPANULAYAasMayor. SANTOSfiledanELECTIONPROTESTintheRTC.
RTC found that SANTOS obtained 76 votes more than PANULAYA. RTC
declared SANTOS as winner. RTC voided MBCs proclamation in favor of PANULAYA. SANTOSfiledaMOTIONFOREXECUTIONPENDINGAPPEALwiththeRTC. PANULAYA APPEALED the RTC declaration in favor of SANTOS to the COMELEC. COMELECissuedINJUNCTIONagainstRTCtorefrainfromactingonmotion forexecutionpendingappeal. RTCAPPROVEDmotionforexecutionpendingappeal. SANTOS took OATH of office and ASSUMED duties and functions of his office. PANULAYAfiledwithCOMELECaPETITIONFORSTATUSQUOANTE. COMELECISSUEDORDERdirectingpartiestoMAINTAINSTATUSQUOANTE, atthesametimeENJOININGSANTOSfromassumingfunctionsofmayor.
HELD: Mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and to resolve pending incidents such as motions for execution pendingappeal. Thefollowingconstitutegoodreasonsand acombinationoftwoormoreofthem willsufficetograntexecutionpendingappeal:(1)publicinterestinvolvedorwillof the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. ThetrialintheRTCtookmorethanayear,whilethethreeyeartermoftheOffice of the Mayor continued to run. The will of the electorate, as determined by the trialcourtintheelectionprotest,hadtoberespectedandgivenmeaning.
Between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won the electionsandthefindingoftheBoardofCanvassersastowhomtoproclaim,itis thecourtsdecisionthatshouldprevail. All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal was that the immediate execution should be based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special order." The rationale why such execution is allowed in election cases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial judgesdecisionasthatwhichisinitiallyascribedbythelawtotheproclamationby theboardofcanvassers. Why should the proclamation by the board of canvassers suffice as basis of the righttoassumeoffice,subjecttofuturecontingenciesattendanttoaprotest,and notthedecisionofacourtofjustice?Indeed,whenitisconsideredthattheboard ofcanvassersiscomposedofpersonswhoarelesstechnicallypreparedtomakean accurate appreciation of the ballots, apart from their being more apt to yield to extraneous considerations, and that the board must act summarily, practically racing against time, while, on the other hand, the judge has benefit of all the evidencethepartiescanofferandofadmittedlybettertechnicalpreparationand background,apartfromhisbeingallowedampletimeforconscientiousstudyand mature deliberation before rendering judgment, one cannot but perceive the wisdomofallowingtheimmediateexecutionofdecisionsinelectioncasesadverse to the protestees, notwithstanding the perfection and pendency of appeals therefrom,aslongasthereare,inthesounddiscretionofthecourt,goodreasons therefor. Todeprivetrialcourtsoftheirdiscretiontograntexecutionpendingappealwould bring back the ghost of the "grabtheproclamationprolong the protest" techniquessooftenresortedtobydeviouspoliticiansinthepastintheireffortsto perpetuate their hold to an elective office. This would, as a consequence, lay to wastethewilloftheelectorate. ELECTIONOFPRESIDENTANDVICEPRESIDENT 21 DEFENSORSANTIAGOV.RAMOS 253SCRA559 (CONCEPCION) FACTS:
This is an original action filed before the SC acting as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Miriam DefensorSantiago (DS) ran for presidency in the 1992 National Elections. Shelost,butfiledthispresentprotestagainstthewinner,Pres.FVRamos. Subsequently however, she ran for Senator in the 1995 Senatorial elections. She won and assumed office as Senator in 1995. Considering this factual milieu, the issuesrevolveonwhetherthispresentelectoralprotestwouldstillbevalid,even aftertheprotestanthasalreadyassumedofficeasSenator,notingthatshouldshe win this protest, her term as president would coincide with her term as senator, whichsheisnowin.Now,in1996,theSCasPETdecidesthecase. HELD: Therewasabandonmentofprotest. Yes.DSfiledhercertificateofcandidacytorunforsenatorwithoutqualificationor reservation. In doing so, she entered into a political contract with the electorate, that,ifelected,shewouldassumetheofficeassenator.Thisisinaccordwiththe constitutionaldoctrinethatapublicofficeisapublictrust.Inassumingtheofficeof Senator, she has effectively abandoned her determination to pursue this present protest.Suchabandonmentoperatestorenderthisprotestmoot. Also,thePETissuedaresolutionorderingtheprotestanttoinformthePETwithin 10daysifafterthecompletionoftherevisionoftheballotsfromherpilotareas, shestillwishestopresentevidence.SinceDShasnotinformedtheTribunalofany suchintention,suchisamanifestindicationthatshenolongerintendstodoso. ELECTIONOFMEMBERSOFCONGRESS,LOCALOFFICIALS,ANDMEMBERSOFTHE REGIONALASSEMBLYOFTHEAUTONOMOUSREGIONS;THEPARTYLISTSYSTEM 22 VETERANSFEDERATIONPARTYV.COMELEC 342SCRA244 (AGUINALDO) FACTS: Respondent proclaimed 14 partylist representatives from 13 parties which obtainedatleast2%ofthetotalnumberofvotescastforthepartylistsystemas members of the House of Representatives. Upon petition for respondents, who
werepartylistorganizations,itproclaimed38additionalpartylistrepresentatives although they obtained less than 2% of the total number of votes cast for the partylistsystemonthegroundthatundertheConstitution,itismandatorythatat least20%ofthemembersoftheHouseofRepresentativescomefromthepartylist representatives. HELD: Itisnotmandatory.ItmerelyprovidesaceilingforthepartylistseatsintheHouse of Representatives. The Constitution vested Congress with the broad power to defineandprescribethemechanicsofthepartylistsystemofrepresentatives.In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress deemed it necessary to requirepartiesparticipatinginthesystemtoobtainatleast2%ofthetotalvotes castforthepartylistsystemtobeentitledtoapartylistseat.Congresswantedto ensurethatonlythosepartieshavingasufficientnumberofconstituentsdeserving ofrepresentationareactuallyrepresentedinCongress. **NOTES: determinationoftotalnumberofpartylistrepresentatives= # districtrepresentatives .20 .80 # ofvotesoffirstparty additionalrepresentativesoffirstparty= # ofvotesofpartylistsystem # votesofconcernedparty additional seats for additionalseatsforconcernedparty # votesoffirstparty concernedparty= 23 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC 359SCRA698 (ENRIQUEZ) FACTS: TheOmnibusResolutionNo.3785issuedbytheCOMELECischallengedinsofaras itapprovestheparticipationof154organizationsandpartiesinthe2001partylist elections.Petitionersseekthedisqualificationofprivaterespondentsastheparty listsystemwasintendedtobenefitthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedandnot themainstreampoliticalparties.
The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties, etc. for the 2001 elections. The COMELEC allege that verifications for the qualifications of these parties take a long process and as a result the 2 divisions promulgatedaseparateOmnibusResolutionandindividualresolutiononpolitical parties only on February 10, 2001. Before the February 12, 2001 deadline, the registered parties and organizations filed their Manifestations, stating their intention to participate in the partylist elections. The COMELEC approved the Manifestationsof154partiesandorganizationsbutdeniedthoseofseveralothers. ACAP filed before the COMELEC a petition praying that the names of some respondentsbedeletedfromtheCertifiedListofPoliticalPartiesParticipatingin thePartyListSystemfortheMay14,2001Elections.Italsoprayedthatthevotes cast for the said respondents be not counted or canvassed and that the latters nominees not be proclaimed. Bayan Muna and Bayan MunaYouth also filed a similarpetitionagainstsomeoftherespondents. ISSUE1:WONpoliticalpartiesmayparticipateinthepartylistelections TheSCheldthatundertheConstitutionandRA7941,privaterespondentscannot be disqualified from the partylist elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Sec. 7 and 8, Article IXC provides that political parties may be registeredunderthepartylistsystem.IntheConComdeliberations,Com.Monsod stated that the purpose of the partylist provision was to open up the system, in rd th ordertogiveachancetopartiesthatconsistentlyplace3 or4 incongressional district elections to win a seat in Congress. Sec. 3 of RA 7941 provides that a partyiseitherapoliticalpartyorasectoralpartyoracollationofparties.Sec. 11ofthesameActleavesnodoubtastotheparticipationofpoliticalpartiesinthe partylist system. Indubitable, political parties even the major onesmay participateinthepartylistelections. ISSUE 2: WON the partylist system is exclusive to marginalized and underrepresentedsectorsandorganizations Forpoliticalpartiestoparticipateinthepartylistelectionstheirrequisitecharacter must be consistent with the purpose of the partylist system in the Constitution andRA7941.Thepurposeofthepartylistsystemistogivegenuinepowertoour people in Congress. However, the constitutional provision is not selfexecutory, henceRA7941wasenacted.
Proportionalrepresentationdoesnotrefertothenumberofpeopleinaparticular district, because the partylist election is national in scope. It refers to the representationofthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedasexemplifiedinSection 5 of the Act. The partylist organization must factually and truly represent the marginalizedandunderrepresentedconstituencies.Thepersonsnominatedtothe partylist system must also belong to the underrepresented and marginalized sectors,organizationsandparties. Lack of welldefined constituency refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiableelectoralgroup.Itpointstothosewithdisparateinterestsdefinedwith themarginalizedandunderrepresented.Intheend,theCOMELECsroleistoseeto it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented become members of Congress under the partylist system. Not all sectors can be represented under the partylist system. The law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion ownersofForbesPark.Whilethemegaricharenumericallyspeaking,aminority, they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It is illogical to open the systemtothosewhohavelongbeenwithinitthoseprivilegedsectorsthathave longdominatedthecongressionaldistrictelections. TheSCheldthatitcannotallowthepartylistsystemtobesulliedandprostituted bythosewhoareneithermarginalizednorunderrepresented. Mendoza,dissenting:ThetextofArt.VI,Sec.5(1)(2)providesforapartylistsystem of registered, regional and sectoral parties or organizations, and not for sectoral representation.Itprovidesfornobasisforpetitionerscontentionthatwhetheritis sectoral representation or partylist system the purpose is to provide exclusive representation for marginalized sectors. The Record of the ConCom speaks clearly against the petitioners assertion. Two proposals for additional representation in theHouseofRepresentativesweresubmittednamely,sectoralrepresentationand partylist system. These two are not the same. In the end, the ConCom chose the partylistsystem.Inchoosingthissystem,theConComdidnotintendtoreservethe partylist system to the marginalized or underrepresented. In fact, the partylist systemmandatestheopposite. Furthermore, Justice Mendoza holds that the majority misapprehended the meaningofSection2ofRANo.7941.Theprovisionstatesthatthepurposeofthe partylist system is to promote promotional representation in the election of representatives in the House of Representatives. To this end, a full, free and open
party system is guaranteed to obtain the broadest possible representation of a party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. While the representationofthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedsectorsisabasicpurpose ofthelaw,itisnotitsonlypurpose. ISSUE3:WONtheCOMELECcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninpromulgating OmnibusResolutionNo.3785 The SC held that it is proper to remand the case to the COMELECT to determine whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the partylist electionscomplywiththerequirementsofthelaw.Inlightofthis,theSCprovides for guidelines to assist the COMELEC in its work. (1) The political partymust representthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedgroupsidentifiedinSection5of RA7941,(2)Evenifmajorpoliticalpartiesareallowedtoparticipateintheparty listsystem,theymustcomplywiththedeclaredstatutorypolicyofenablingFilipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the House of Representatives, (3) a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of the Act which enumerates the grounds for disqualification, (4) the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a projectorganizedoranentityfundedorassistedbythegovernment,(5)partymust notcomplywiththerequirementsofthelaw,(6)notonlythecandidatepartyor organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must its nominees, (7) the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulationandenactmentofappropriatelegislationthatwillbenefitthenationas awhole. 24 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC GR147589,JANUARY29,2002 (ENRIQUEZ) FACTS: The COMELEC issued a TRO against the proclamation of APEC, CIBAC and AMIN because they failed to meet the 8point guidelines set forth by this Court. The COMELEC found that APEC was merely an arm of the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PHILRECA) and that it did not truly represent the marginalized sectors of society, CIBAC was reported to be merely an extension of the Jesus Is Lord (JIL) religious movement and did not represent the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society and that Anak Mindanao
(AMIN)waslistedashavingobtainedonly1.6865%ofthetotalvotescastforthe partylistsystem,notsufficienttomeetthe2%requiredno.ofvotes. ISSUE: WON APEC, CIBAC and AMIN should be proclaimed winners aside from those alreadyvalidlyproclaimedbytheearlierResolutionsoftheSC. RULING: AMINdidnotgetmorethantwopercentofthevotescast. APECandCIBAChavesufficientlymetthe8pointguidelinesofhisCourtandhave sufficientvotestoentitlethemtoseatsinCongress.Issuesarefactualincharacter, Commissions findings are adopted, absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse or negligenceinitsaction.NosubstantialproofthatCIBACismerelyanarmofJIL,or thatAPECisanextensionofPHILRECA.TheOSGexplainedthetheseareseparate entities with separate memberships. Although APECs nominees are all professionals, its membership is composed not only of professionals but also of peasants, elderly, youth and women. APEC addresses the issues of job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. CIBAC is composed of he underrepresented and marginalized and is concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is particularlyinterestedintheyouthandprofessionalsectors. TROpartiallyliftedwithregardtoAPECandCIBAC. 25 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC GR147589,APRIL10,2002 (ENRIQUEZangbagongbayaning2D!) The COMELEC determined that the following partylist participants, despite their havingobtainedatleast2%ofthetotalvotescast,havefailedtomeetthe8point guidelines set forth in our Decision: Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Veterans Federation Party (VFP), Abag Promdi (PROMDI), Nationalist Peoples Coalition (NPC), Lakas NUCD UMDP,andCitizensBattleAgainstCorruption(CIBAC). TheOSG,actingonbehalfoftheComelec,initsConsolidatedReplydatedOctober 15,2001andinaManifestationdatedDecember5,2001,modifieditspositionand recommended that APEC and CIBAC be declared as having complied with the 8 pointguidelines
ELECTIONOFLOCALOFFICIALS 26 OCCEAV.COMELEC 127SCRA404 (ZUIGA) Samuel Occena filed a petition for prohibition to declare as unconstitutionaltheprovisionsintheBarangayElectionActof1982(BP 222)whichprohibited: o anycandidateinthe1982barangayelectionfromrepresenting himselfasamemberofapoliticalparty; o theinterventionofpoliticalpartiesinacandidate'snomination andfilingofhiscertificateofcandidacy;and o thegivingofaidorsupportofpoliticalpartiesfororagainsta candidate'scampaign Occena prayed that the 1982 elections be declared null and void, and new barangay elections held without the ban on the involvement of politicalparties In1982thecourtconsideredtheCommentsoftheSolicitorGeneralasan Answer Note that the decision in the case was delayed because all the Justices resigned on May 1982 (*SC trivia: over allegations that the bar exam resultsofJusticeEricta'ssonwerechangedinhisfavortherewaspre decodingofhisgradesbeforeofficialdecodingandpublication)
FACTS:
HELD: Thebanontheinterventionofpoliticalpartiesintheelectionofbarangayofficials is NOT violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associations andsocietiesforpurposesnotcontrarytolaw. Under the Barangay Election Act of 1982, the right to organize is intact. Political partiesmayfreelybeformedalthoughthereisarestrictionontheiractivities,i.e., their intervention in the election of barangay officials on May 17, 1982 is prescribed.Butthebanisnarrow,nottotal.Itoperatesonlyonconcertedorgroup
action of political parties. The ban against the participation of political parties in the barangay election is an appropriate legislative response to the unwholesome effects of partisan bias in the impartial discharge of the duties imposed on the barangay and its officials as the basic unit of our political and social structure. It would definitely enhance the objective and impartial discharge of their duties for barangayofficialstobeshieldedformpoliticalpartyloyalty. Somereasonsfortherestriction: "the barangay is the basic unit not only of our social structure but also of our political structure. It would be a more prudent policy to insulate the barangays fromtheinfluenceofpartisanpolitics.Thebarangays,althoughitistruetheyare already considered regular units of our government, are nonpartisan; they constitutethebaseofthepyramidofoursocialandpoliticalstructure,andinorder that base will not be subject to instability because of the influence of political forces, it is better that we elect the officials thereof through a nonpartisan system."(DeliberationsonParliamentaryBill2125whichlaterbecameBPBlg.222) TheBarangayCaptainandtheBarangayCouncil,apartfromtheirlegislativeand consultative powers, also act as an agency for neutral community action such as the distribution of basic foodstuff and as an instrument in conducting plebiscites andreferenda. The Barangay Captain, together with the members of the Lupon Tagapayapa appointed by him, exercises administrative supervision over the barangay conciliation panels in the latter's work of settling local disputes. The Barangay Captain himself settles or helps settle local controversies within the barangay eitherthroughmediationorarbitration. ThecaseofImbongv.COMELECalsoinvolvedtherestrictionasthatprescribedin Sec. 4 of BP 222. In upholding the constitutionality of what was then Sec. 8(a) of Republic Act No. 6132, the court said that "While it may be true that a party's supportofacandidateisnotwrongperse,itisequallytruethatCongressinthe exercise of its broad lawmaking authority can declare certain acts as mala prohibita when justified by the exigencies of the times." The primary purpose of the prohibition was to avoid the denial of the equal protection of the laws. The sponsorsoftheprovisionemphasizedthatunderthisprovision,thepoorcandidate hasanevenchanceasagainsttherichcandidate.Equalityofchancesmaybebetter attainedbybanningallorganizationsupport.Thebanwastoassureequalchances to a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as nobility of purpose,sothatthecountrycanutilizetheirservicesifelected.
Fernando'sConcurringOpinion: Test of the permissible limitation on freedom of association: How should the limitation'forpurposesnotcontrarytolaw'beinterpreted?Itissubmittedthatitis another way of expressing the clear and present danger rule for unless an association or society could be shown to create an imminent danger to public safety, there is no justification for abridging the right to form associations or societies." Teehankee'sDissentingOpinion: The restriction denies "nonpolitical" candidates the very freedoms of effectively appealing to the electorate through the public media and of being supported by organized groups that would give them at least a fighting chance to win against candidatesofthepoliticalkingpins.Thepoliticalbigwigsaremeanwhilelefttogive their"individual"blessingstotheirfavoredcandidates,whichinactualityistaken byallastheparty'sblessings. 27 KANDUMV.COMELEC GR136969,JANUARY18,2000 (CHOTRANI) FACTS: Petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent Hadji Gapur Ballaho were candidatesforPunongBarangayinBarangayLookBisaya,TipoTipo,Basilaninthe 1997barangayelections.Petitionergarnered61votesoverrespondent's59votes. When petitioner was proclaimed the winner by the BBC, respondent filed an electionprotestintheMCTCandsecuredafavorabledecision. Petitioner appealed the decision to the RTC. But when the RTC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC throughtheMCTC. TheCOMELECissuedaresolutiondismissingtheappealforhavingbeenfiledoutof time. (Appeal was filed 37 days after petitioner received copy of the decision of theMCTC) HELD: RTC doesn't have jurisdiction over election protests involving barangay officials decidedbytrialcourtsoflimitedjurisdiction.
Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionoverallcontestsinvolvingelectivebarangayofficials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction (the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts)lieswiththeCOMELEC,nottheRTC. Underparagraph(2),Section2,subdivisionC,ArticleIXoftheConstitution, Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: xxx (2)Exerciseexclusive...appellatejurisdictionoverallcontestsinvolvingelective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving electivebarangayofficialsdecidedbytrialcourtsoflimitedjurisdiction. 28 BUHISANV.COMELEC GR127328,JANUARY30,2001 (PEAFLORIDA) FACTS: PetitionerJaneBuhisanandprivaterespondentGordonGorospewerecandidates forthepositionofSangguniangKabataan(SK)ChairmanofBarangayPoblacion,San Juan,SiquijorduringtheMay6,1996elections.Buhisangarnered35votesagainst Gorospe's34votes.BuhisanwasproclaimedbytheBoardofElectionTellersasthe dulyelectedSKChairman. On May 13 Gorospe filed before the MCTC of Lazi, Siquijor an election protest which seeks the annulment of the proclamation of Buhisan and to declare the former the duly elected SK Chairman. MCTC nullified Buhisan's proclamation and declaredGorospeastheSKChairman. BuhisanappealedwiththeCOMELEC.ElectoralContestsAdjudicationDepartment of COMELEC returned the appeal. A motion for reconsideration was filed. Also, Buhisan refiled with the COMELEC her appellant's brief insisting that public respondenttakecognizanceofherappeal. COMELEC dismissed the appeal and informed Buhisan that the MCTC decision in theelectionprotestmayonlybeelevatedtotheCommissionenbancviaapetition forreviewandnotbyordinaryappeal.
HELD: The COMELEC didn't commit any grave abuse of discretion with dismissing the appealdueameretechnicality. Section49ofCOMELECResolutionNo.2824datedFebruary6,1996,governingthe conductofSangguniangKabataanelectionsprovides: Sec.49. Finality of Proclamation.The proclamation of the winning candidate shall be final. However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases, whose decision shall be final. The Commission en banc in meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shallberequired,whichshallberefundableiftheappealisfoundmeritorious. Also, the COMELEC may entertain such petitions only on meritorious gronds. By prescribing a specific mode to be adopted in assailing the MCTC's decision, COMELEC is afforted opportunity to examine the allegations on the face jof the petitionifthereisaprimafacieshowingthattheMCTCcommittedanerroroffact or law or gravely abused its discretion to warrant reversal or modification of the decision.Inotherwords,thismannerofappealisdiscretionaryonthepartofthe election tribunal. It is essential that a prior determination be made regarding the existence of meritorious reasons for the petition. Unlike in ordinary appeals, acceptance of the petition is not a matter of course. Here an appeal is obviously not the proper remedy allowed by the COMELEC Rules Accordingly, public respondent cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitionersappeal 29 MONTESCLAROSV.COMELEC 382SCRA2 (VALDEZ) FACTS: MONTESCLAROS (petitioners), all 20 y.o. claims being in danger of disqualificationtovoteandbevotedforintheSKelectionsshoulditbe postponedfromoriginaldate(MAY02)toNOV02 RPPres.Signedthebillintolawpostponingtheelections
DuringpendencyofpetitionCongressenactedRA9164synchronization ofbrgy.andSKelectionsonJUL02;providesthatvotersandcandidates for SK elections must be at least 15 but less than 18 on the day of election
HELD: Thesubjectlawdoesn'tdisfranchisethepetitioners.Italsodoesn'tdeprivethem ofanypropertyright. SK: youth organization originally established by PD 684 as KABATAANG BARANGAY(KB)composedofallbrgy.residentslessthan18y.o. o LGC renamed KB to SK and limited membership to youths at least15butnotmorethan21yo o SK tasked to enhance social, political, economic, cultural, devt.ofyouth NovestedrighttothepermanenceofagerequirementunderLGC;every lawpassedisalwayssubjectofamendmentorrepeal o Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or repealing law;powertomakelawsincludespowertochangelaws;Court cannotdirectCOMELECtoallowoveragedvoterstovoteorbe votedinanelectionlimitedunderRA9164 o Congresshaspowertoprescribequalifications PETITIONERS: no personal and substantial interest in the SK elections seekingtoenforcerightwhichhasbeenalreadylimitedwiththepassage of RA 9164ceased to be members of SK and no longer qualified to participate o Only those who qualify can contest, based on a statutory authority,anyactdisqualifyingthemmembershipintheSKis merestatutoryrightconferredbylaw Noonehasvestedrighttoanypublicoffice,muchlessvestedrighttoan expectancyofholdingpublicoffice 30 MONTESCLAROSV.COMELEC GR152295,AUGUST13,2002
10
FACTS: HELD: ELIGIBILITYOFCANDIDATESANDCERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACY 31 FACTS: RECABOV.COMELEC 308SCRA793(1999) (FLORES)
ThisisapetitionforCertiorariseekingtoannultheComelecsresolution cancelling Kaiser Recabos certificate of candidacy for ViceMayor in SurigaoDelNorte Kaiser Recabo claimed to be LAKAS NUCDUMDPs official candidate to theaforementionedposition,substitutinghismotherCandelariaRecabo Kaiser Recabos certificate of candidacy was only signed by Governor Matugas, and not jointly with Robert Barbers (space left blank) as intendedbythecertificateofnomination OntheotherhandRespondentReyescertificateofnominationforVice mayorwassignedbynootherthanFidelV.Ramos(NationalChairman LAKAS)andJoseDeVenecia(SecretaryGeneralLAKAS)
Comelecdeclaredpetitionersmotherasandindependentcandidateon account of the invalidity of her nomination, thus there can be no valid substitutionbypetitionerforaninvalidnomination Besides, petitioner filed his candidacy out of time for an independent candidate (although w/n prescriptive period of a substituted candidate, useless because already adjudged as an invalid nomination and substitution) Wellsettledcertificatefiledbeyonddeadlinenotvalid But Reyes motion to be declared winner, garnering the second highest numberofvotestoRecabocannotbegranted,woundbetantamountto substitutionofjudgmentforthemindofthevoter BAUTISTAV.COMELEC 414SCRA299 (AQUINO,T.)
32
FACTS: HELD: DISQUALIFICATIONS 33 FACTS: SOCRATESV.COMELEC 391SCRA457 (NEPOMUCENO) PetitionerismayorofPuertoPrincesa,whowasremovedfromoffice thruarecallproceedinginitiatedbythemajorityoftheincumbent barangayofficialsofthecity Petitionerfiledamotiontonullifytherecallresolutionbutwasdismissed bytheComelecforlackofmerit Comelecsetdateforconductingtherecallelection;former3termmayor EdwardHagedornfileshiscertificateofcandidacy
HELD: Thecertificateofcandidacyofpetitionerandthatofhismotherwhohesubstituted ascandidateforViceMayorDIDNOTsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirements ofbeingofficialcandidatesoftheLAKASparty. ToallowRecabotorunwouldputtheelectionprocessinmockeryforwe would in effect be allowing an anomalous situation where a single politicalpartymayfieldinmultiplecandidateforasingeelectionposition Lakas designated 2 party officers to issue certificates of nomination, petitonersnominationwassignedonlybyone,whilerespondentssigned byRamosandJDV
11
PetitionerAdovoandGilofilespetitionbeforeComelectodisqualify Hagedornclaimingthatheisdisqualifiedfromrunningfora4thterm; petitionwasdismissed
HELD: Hagedornisqualifiedtorunintherecallelection Art. X Sec. 8 of 1987 Constitution: the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve for more than 3 consecutiveterms.Voluntaryrenunciationoftheofficeforanylengthof time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his serviceforthefulltermforwhichhewaselected. Sec.43(b)RA7160:Termofofficenolocalofficialshallserveformore than3consecutivetermsinthesameposition.Voluntaryrenunciationof the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the electiveofficialwaselected Theseconstitutionalandstatutoryprovisionshave2parts Thefirstpartprovidesthatanelectivelocalofficialcannotserveorethan 3consecutiveterms Theclearintentisthatonlyconsecutivetermscountindeterminingthe 3termlimitrule The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any lengthoftimedoesnotinterruptthecontinuityofservice The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being joined together to form a continuousserviceorconsecutiveterms After 3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediatereelectionforafourthterm The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same officefollowingtheendofthethirdconsecutiveterm
Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by theprohibitionfortworeasons First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediatereelectionafterthreeconsecutiveterms Second,theinterveningperiodconstitutesaninvoluntaryinterruptionin thecontinuityofservice Clearly,theconstitutionprohibitsimmediatereelectionforafourthterm followingthreeconsecutiveterms Theconstitution,however,doesnotprohibitasubsequentreelectionfor afourthtermaslongasthereelectionisnotimmediatelyaftertheendof thethirdconsecutiveterm Arecallelectionmidwayinthetermfollowingthethirdconsecutiveterm isasubsequentelectionbutnotanimmediatereelectionafterthethird term Neither does the constitution prohibit one barred from seeking immediate reelection to run in any other subsequent election involving thesametermofoffice Whattheconstitutionprohibitsisaconsecutivefourthterm Theprohibitedelectionreferredtobytheframersoftheconstitutionis theimmediatereelectionafterthethirdterm,notanyothersubsequent election The framers expressly acknowledged that the prohibited election refers only to the immediate reelection, and not to any subsequent election, duringthe6yearperiodfollowingthetwotermlimit Theframersoftheconstitutiondidnotintendtheperiodofrestofan electiveofficialwhohasreachedhistermlimittobethefullextentofthe succeedingterm ADORMEOV.COMELEC 376SCRA90 (HOSAKA)
34
FACTS:
12
PetRaymundoAdormeoandprivaterespRamonTalagaweretheonlycandidates whofiledthecertificatesofcandidacyformayorofLucenaCityintheMay14,2001 elections.Talagawasthentheincumbentmayor. Adormeo filed a with the Provincial Election Supervisor a Petition To Deny Due CoursetoorCancelCertificateofCandidacyandorDisqualificationofTalagaonthe groundthatthelatterwaselectedandhadservedascitymayorfor3consecutive termsasfollows:1)electionofMay1992whereheservedthefullterm;2)election ofMay1995,againheservedafullterm;and3)intherecallelectionofMay12, 2000 where he served only the unexpired term of Tagarao after having lost to Tagaraointhe1998election. AdormeocontendedthatTalagascandidacyasMayorwasaviolationofSec8ArtX oftheConstitution Sec.8.Thetermofofficeofelectivelocalofficials,exceptbarangayofficials, whichshallbedeterminedbylaw,shallbe3yearsandnosuchofficialshallserve for more than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his serviceforthefulltermforwhichhewaselected. Talagaclaimsthatheonlyservedfor2consecutivetermsandthathisservicefrom May2000wasnotafulltermbecauseheonlyservedTagaraosunexpiredtermby virtueoftherecallelection.HecitesthecaseofLonzanidagiving2conditionsfor thedisqualification1)thattheofficialhasbeenelectedfor3consecutivetermsin thesamelocalgovtpost;and2)thathehasfullyserved3consecutiveterms. ComelecdivisionruledinfavorofAdormeo. Comelecenbancreversed,hencethis petition. HELD: Talagaisqualifiedtorunformayor. Talagawasnotelectedfor3consecutivetermshavinglosthis3rdbidintheMay 11,1998elections,saiddefeatisaninterruptioninthecontinuityofhisserviceas citymayorofLucena. Thetermlimitforelectivelocalofficialsmustbetakentorefertotherighttobe electedaswellastherighttoserveinthesameelectiveposition.
Talaga was not elected for 3 consecutive terms and for nearly 2 years he was a privatecitizen.Thecontinuityofhismayorshipwasdisruptedbyhisdefeatinthe 1998 elections. It was only by virtue of the recall that he served Tagaraos unexpiredterm.Thisdidnotamounttoathirdfullterm. Fr.Bernascommentthatifoneiselectedrepresentativetoservetheunexpired termofanother,thatunexpiredterm,nomatterhowshort,willbeconsideredone termforthepurposeofcomputingthenumberofsuccessivetermsallowedonly pertains to the members of the House of Representatives and not to local govt officials. Neither can Talagas victory in the recall election be deemed as voluntary renunciationundertheConstitution. 35 DIANGKAV.COMELEC 323SCRA887 (REYES) FACTS: PetitionerMaimonaDiangkafiledapetitionforcertiorariquestioningthedecision ofCOMELECindisqualifyingherascandidateforMayorofGanassi,LanaodelSur. PetitionerwasthewifeoftheincumbentMayor.AliBalindong,theothermayoralty candidate, filed a special action for disqualification against Diangka and her husbandallegingthattheycommitted2actsofterrorism: *First,thattheyloadedtheballotboxesintoanambulancethensubsequently, through force and threats, made the watchers of Balindong go down from the vehicle. * Second, that Diangkas husband went to the voting areas and caused a commotionthatpreventedvotersfromvoting. Intheresultsoftheelections,Diangkaemergedthewinner.COMELECorderedthe boardofcanvasserstoceaseanddesistfromdeclaringDiangkaasmayor,butthat order came in late and still Diangka was declared mayor. In the hearing for the disqualification,onlyBalindongandlawyerappeared,henceCOMELECdisqualified Diangka. Diangka now assails the decision via certiorari, meanwhile vicemayor electMacapodiassumedthemayorposition.
13
HELD: Diangkacanbeheldliableforthetwoactsofterrorismofherhusbandthus,she couldbedisqualifiedbytheCOMELEC. 1.COMELECdeterminedthatDiangkawasatthefrontseatbesidethedriverin theambulancewhenthewatchersofBalindongweremadetogodownviathreats. Herexcusethatshedidnotknownorwassheincollusionwithherhusbandcan notholdwater.First,sheadmittedthatsherequestedthatthedriver,afterthey threatenedthewatchers,dropheroffattheschool.Suchshowsshehadcontrol overthedriver.Second,hermerepresenceintheambulanceshowsthatshe acquiescedtoherhusbandsactsandhenceguiltyalso. 2.COMELECdeterminedthatitwasactuallyDiangkashusbandwhocausedthe commotionwhichpreventedthevotersfromvoting.Whileitwasnotactually Diangkawhocommittedtheacts,shedidnotprovethatherrunningwasnota merealteregoofherhusbandwhoisinhis3termasmayor.Thistogetherwithher presenceintheambulancemakesherguiltyoftheactsofterrorisminviolationof theOmnibusElectionCode. Note:GroundsforDisqualification(Section68ofOmnibusElectionCode): a)Givingmoneyorothermaterialconsiderationtoinfluence,induceorcorrupt thevotersorpublicofficialsperformingelectoralfunctions; b)Committedactsofterrorismtoenhancehiscandidacy; c)Spentinhiselectioncampaignanamountinexcessofthatallowed d)Solicited,receivedormadeanycontributionwhichareprohibited 36 SOONRUIZV.COMELEC GR144323,SEPTEMBER5,2000 (TAN,E.)
a. b.
COMELEC: petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of electionreturn RTC:electionprotestagainstSAULONG
FACTS: Petitioner(SOLLER)andrespondent(SAULONG)werebothcandidatesformayorof Bansud,OrientalMindoro. MunicipalboardofcanvassersproclaimedSOLLERdulyelectedmayor. SAULONGfiledtwoactions:
SOLLERfiledmotiontodismissCOMELECgranted,RTCdenied The denial by RTC of SOLLERs motion to dismiss was questioned via petition for certiorariwithCOMELEC.ThiscertiorariwasdismissedbytheCOMELECenbanc. HELD: 1.W/NCOMELECgravelyabuseditsdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionin notorderingthedismissalofSAULONGselectionprotest. YES. The decision of the COMELEC en banc is null and void. The authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including preproclamation controversies in the first instance. Any decision by it in the first instance is null and void. If the principal case, once decidedonthemerits,iscognizableonappealbyadivisionoftheCOMELEC,then, there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protestshouldnotbereferredfirsttoadivisionoftheCOMELECforresolution. 2.W/NRTCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninfailingtodismissrespondents electionprotest. Yes.Closescrutinyofthereceiptsshowthatrespondentfailedtopaythefilingfee of P300. Thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondents election protest. COMELEC erred in not ordering the dismissal of respondents protest case. Errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable. The protest should have also been dismissed for lack of proper verification (tantamount to filing an unsigned pleading), and for failure to comply with the requiredcertificationagainstforumshopping.Thisrequirementismandatory,and cannot be excused by the fact that a party has not actually resorted to forum shopping.Goodfaithisnotanexcuse.
14
Moreover, respondents petition was a preproclamation case, which may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidates have been proclaimed. By resorting to the wrong remedy, respondent may be claimed to haveabandonedthepreproclamationcasethathefiled. PETITIONGRANTED. 37 PAPANDAYAN,JR.V.COMELEC 381SCRA133 (BAUTISTA) FACTS: PetitionerPapandayanandrespondentBaltwerecontendingcandidates formayorofTubaran,LanaodelSurintheMay14,2001elections. COMELEC 2nd Division issued a resolution declaring petitioner to be disqualified based on affidavits submitted by respondent as evidence; orderedpetitionersnametobestrickenoffthelistofcandidatesandall votescastinhisfavornottobecountedbutconsideredasstrayvotes. On election day, petitioner was voted by the electorate as municipal mayor. The following day, he received a telegram from the COMELEC notifyinghimthattheCOMELECenbancdeniedhisMR. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC 1st Division seeking the issuance of an order directing the Board of Election Inspectors to count and tally the ballots cast in his favor during the elections pursuant to COMELECResolution4116.Resolutionprovidesthatifthedisqualification casehasnotbecomefinalandexecutoryonthedayoftheelection,BEI shalltallyandcountthevotesofthecandidatedeclareddisqualified. Respondent filed preproclamation case; COMELEC issued an order suspending the proclamation of petitioner but despite said order, MunicipalBoardofCanvassersstillproclaimedpetitioneraswinner. Uponmotionofrespondent,COMELEC1stDivisionsetasidepetitioners proclamation;COMELECenbancsustainedannulmentofproclamationof petitioner HELD:
Petitionershouldn'tbedisqualified. # At the time the elections were held in May 14, 2001, the assailed resolution, had not become final and executory. Hence, the Board of ElectionInspectors(BEI)wasdutyboundtotallyandcountthevotescast infavorofpetitioner. # COMELEC Resolution 4116 pertains to the finality of decisions or resolutionsoftheCommissionenbancordivision,particularlyonSpecial Actions(Disqualificationcases) #Sec.13,paragraphs(b)and(c)ofsaidresolutionprovide:(b)InSpecial ActionsandSpecialcases,adecisionorresolutionoftheCommissionen banc shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court. (c) Unless a motionforreconsiderationisseasonablyfiled,adecisionorresolutionof aDivisionshallbecomefinalandexecutoryafterthelapseoffive(5)days inSpecialActionsandSpecialcasesandafterfifteen(15)daysinallother actionsorproceedings,followingitspromulgation. #COMELECResolution4116furtherprovidesthat:3.wheretheground for the disqualification case is by reason of nonresidence, citizenship, violation of election laws and other analogous cases and on the day of the election the resolution has not become final and executory, the BEI shalltallyandcountthevotesofsuchdisqualifiedcandidate. # Respondent, therefore, is in error in assuming that the issuance of a temporary restraining order by this Court within five (5) days after the date of the promulgation of the assailed resolution is the operative act thatpreventsitfromattainingfinality. # With due regard for the expertise of the COMELEC, we find the evidence to be insufficient to sustain its resolution. Petitioner has duly proven that, although he was formerly a resident of the Municipality of Bayang, he later transferred residence to Tangcal in the Municipality of Tubaran as shown by his actual and physical presence therein for 10 yearspriortotheMay14,2001elections. # The principle of animus revertendi has been used to determine whetheracandidatehasanintentiontoreturntotheplacewherehe
15
seeks to be elected. Corollary to this is a determination whether there has been an abandonment of his former residence which signifies an intentiontodeparttherefrom. # Caasi v. Court of Appeals: respondents immigration to the United Statesin1984constitutedanabandonmentofhisdomicileandresidence in the Philippines. Being a green card holder was proof that he was a permanentresidentorimmigrantoftheUnitedStates. # Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives: this Court, citing Faypon v. Quirino, applied the concept of animus revertendi or intenttoreturn,Thefactthatrespondentmadeperiodicaljourneysto his home province in Laoang revealed that he always had animus revertendi. #Romualdezv.RTC,Br.7,TaclobanCity:Thetermresidence,asusedin theelectionlaw,importsnotonlyanintentiontoresideinafixedplace butalsopersonalpresenceinthatplace,coupledwithconductindicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intendstoreturn. #TheCourtexplainedthatinordertoacquireanewdomicilebychoice, theremustconcur(1)residenceorbodilypresenceinthenewlocality,(2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi.Thepurposetoremaininoratthedomicileofchoicemust be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile mustbeactual. # The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Raida Guina Dimaporo got married in 1990, they resided in Tangcal, Tubaran. From thenon,therewasmanifestintentiononthepartofpetitionertoreside inTubaran,whichhedeemedtobetheplaceofhisconjugalabodewith hiswife.ThefactthatheandhiswifetransferredresidencefromBayang to Tubaran shows that petitioner was relinquishing his former place of residence in Bayang and that he intended Tubaran to be his place of domicile.Althoughpetitionerworkedasaprivatesecretaryofthemayor
ofBayang,hewenthometoTubaraneverydayafterwork.Thisisproof ofanimusmanendi. # It is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the Constitutions residency qualificationrequirement. # When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a candidate for an elective position is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appearsthatthepurposeofthelawwouldnotbethwartedbyupholding the victors right to the office, the will of the electorate should be respected. MAGNOV.COMELEC 390SCRA495 (GO) Petitioner Nestor Magno ran for MAYOR of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in 2001. PrivateRespondentfiledapetitionfordisqualificationofMagnobecause hewasconvictedbytheSandiganbayanof4countsofDirectBriberyand sentenced.MagnoappliedforprobationandwasdischargedonMarchof 1998. COMELEC disqualified petitioner based on a provision of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code) disqualifying a candidate convicted of a crime involvingmoralturpitudeuntilafterthelapseof5yearsfromtheservice ofsentence. MagnoclaimsSec40(a)RA7160(LocalGovernmentCode)shouldapply instead of BP 881: A person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitudemayrunafterthelapseof2yearsaftertheserviceofsentence. SoniaIsidrowasdeclaredMayorwhilethecasewaspending.
38
FACTS:
HELD: First,Directbriberyisacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude.
16
Noteverycriminalactinvolvesmoralturpitude.BlacksLawDictionarydefinesitas anactofbaseness,vilenessordepravityintheprivatedutieswhichamanowes his fellow men or society in general Direct bribery contemplates taking advantage of his position and is a betrayal of the trust reposed to him by the public. Second,heisnotqualified. RA7160shouldapply.First,RA7160isthemorerecentlaw.ItimpliedlyrepealsBP 881shouldtherebeanyinconsistencies.Second,RA7160isaspeciallawapplying specificallytolocalgovernmentunits.BP881appliesfortheelectionofanypublic office. Special law prevails. Since he was discharged on March 1998, Magnos disqualificationceasedonMarch2000. *Court declared that it could not rule on Magnos prayer for his proclamation as winnerofthemayoraltyrace,itbeingoutsideitsjurisdiction. 39 CODILLA,SR.V.DEVENECIA 393SCRA639 (AGUINALDO) FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were opposing candidates for representative. A voter filed with the COMELEC a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner, who was then a mayor, violated Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Codebydistributinggravelandsandtovoterstoinducethemtovoteforhim.The COMELEC delegated the hearing to the Regional Director. On election day, no hearing has been done yet. Petitioner won. Respondent intervened in the disqualification case and prayed for the suspension of the proclamation of petitioner. Petitioner was not furnished a copy of the motion. COMELEC suspendedtheproclamationbecauseoftheseriousnessoftheallegationsagainst petitioner. Petitioner has not been served any summons. Petitioner filed his answer. He alleged that the repair of the roads was undertaken without his authority. After a hearing on the motion to suspend the proclamation of petitioner,theCOMELECissuedaresolutiondisqualifyingpetitioneranddeclaring theimmediateproclamationofthecandidatewhoreceivedthehighestnumberof votes. The votes of petitioner were declared stray. Respondent was proclaimed electedandsheassumedoffice.Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration.The COMELEC en banc nullified the proclamation of respondent and ordered the
proclamation of petitioner. Respondent didnt appeal from the decision. She argued that since she assumed office, the COMELEC doesnt have jurisdiction to annulherproclamation. HELD: Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his disqualification through the serviceofsummonsnoroftheMotionstosuspendhisproclamation. Therecordsofthecasedonotshowthatsummonswasservedonthepetitioner. Theydonotcontainacopyofthesummonsallegedlyservedonthepetitionerand itscorrespondingproofofservice.Furthermore,privaterespondentneverrebutted petitioner'srepeatedassertionthathewasnotproperlynotifiedofthepetitionfor his disqualification because he never received summons.71 Petitioner claims that priortoreceivingatelegraphedOrderfromtheCOMELECSecondDivisiononMay 22,2001,directingtheDistrictBoardofCanvasserstosuspendhisproclamation,he wasneversummonednorfurnishedacopyofthepetitionforhisdisqualification. HewasabletoobtainacopyofthepetitionandtheMay22OrderoftheCOMELEC Second Division by personally going to the COMELEC Regional Office on May 23, 2001.Thus,hewasabletofilehisAnswertothedisqualificationcaseonlyonMay 24,2001. More, the proclamation of the petitioner was suspended in gross violation of section72oftheOmnibusElectionCodewhichprovides: "Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days beforetheelectioninwhichthedisqualificationissought. Anycandidatewhohasbeendeclaredbyfinaljudgmenttobedisqualifiedshallnot bevotedfor,andthevotescastforhimshallnotbecounted.Nevertheless,iffor anyreason,acandidateisnotdeclaredbyfinaljudgmentbeforeanelectiontobe disqualifiedandheisvotedforandreceivesthewinningnumberofvotesinsuch election,hisviolationoftheprovisionsoftheprecedingsectionsshallnotprevent hisproclamationandassumptiontooffice."(emphasessupplied) Intheinstantcase,petitionerhasnotbeendisqualifiedbyfinaljudgmentwhenthe electionswereconductedonMay14,2001.TheRegionalElectionDirectorhasyet to conduct hearing on the petition for his disqualification. After the elections,
17
petitioner was voted in office by a wide margin of 17,903. On May 16, 2001, however, respondent Locsin filed a Most Urgent Motion for the suspension of petitioner's proclamation. The Most Urgent Motion contained a statement to the effectthatacopywasservedtothepetitionerthroughregisteredmail.Therecords revealthatnoregistryreceiptwasattachedtoprovesuchservice.72Thisviolates COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring notice and service of the motion to all parties. Respondent'sMostUrgentMotiondoesnotfallundertheexceptionstonoticeand serviceofmotions.First,thesuspensionofproclamationofawinningcandidateis not a matter which the COMELEC Second Division can dispose of motu proprio. Second,therightofanadverseparty,inthiscase,thepetitioner,isclearlyaffected. GiventhelackofserviceoftheMostUrgentMotiontothepetitioner,saidMotion isamerescrapofpaper. Under section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, the COMELEC can suspend proclamation only when evidence of the winning candidate's guilt is strong. In the case at bar, the COMELEC Second Division did not make any specific finding that evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong. Its only basis in suspending the proclamation of the petitioneristhe"seriousnessoftheallegations"inthepetitionfordisqualification. Absentanyfindingofevidencethattheguiltisstrong,thenclearly,therewasgrave abuseofdiscretiononthepartofCOMELEC. REGISTRATIONOFVOTERS;PRECINCTSANDPOLLINGPLACES;BOARDOF ELECTIONINSPECTORS;WATCHERS;OFFICIALBALLOTSANDELECTIONRETURNS; CASTINGANDCOUNTINGOFVOTES 40 BAUTISTAV.COMELEC 298SCRA480 (SINGSON) FACTS: Petitioner Cipriano Efren Bautista and private respondent were duly registered candidates for the position of Mayor of Navotas in the 1998 Elections. Aside from them, a certain Edwin Efren Bautista (Edwin Bautista)alsofiledacertificateofcandidacyforthesameposition. Petitioner filed a petition praying that Edwin Bautista be declared a nuisancecandidate.
COMELEC declared Edwin Bautista as nuisance candidate and consequentlyorderedthecancellationofhiscertificateofcandidacyfor thepositionofMayor. MRwasfiledbyEdwinBautista;subsequentlydenied. Before final determination of Edwin Bautistas MR, upon request of petitioners counsel, the Regional Election Director of NCR gave instructions to the BEI to tally separately either in some portion of the sameelectionreturnnotintendedforvotesformayoraltycandidatesor inaseparatepaperthevotesEfrenBautista,Efren,E.Bautistaand Bautista,consideredasstrayvotes. Whenthecanvassoftheelectionreturnswascommenced,theMunicipal Board of Canvassers of Navotas refused to canvass as part of the valid votes of petitioner the separate tallies of votes on which were written EfrenBautista,Efren,E.BautistaandBautista. Petitioner filed with COMELEC a Petition to Declare Illegal the Proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers; dismissed for lack of merit.
HELD: Therewasgraveabuseofdiscretionindenyingtheinclusionaspartofpetitioners valid votes the Bautista stray votes that were separately tallied by the BEI and BoardofCanvassers. # It must be emphasized that the case at bar involves a ground for disqualificationwhichclearlyaffectsthevoterswillandcausesconfusion thatfrustratesthesame. #ElectionLawsgiveeffectto,ratherthanfrustrate,thewillofthevoter. Thus, extreme caution should be observed before any ballot is invalidated. # In the appreciation of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. # Matters tend to get complicated when technical rules are strictly appliedtechnicalitiesshouldnotbepermittedtodefeattheintentionof the voter, especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself,asinthiscase.
18
41
# Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code the COMELEC may motu propriooruponaverifiedpetitionofaninterestedparty,refusetogive duecoursetoorcancelacertificateofcandidacy1)ifitisshownthatsaid certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute,2)ortocauseconfusionamongvotersbythesimilarityofthe names of registered candidates; 3) or by other circumstances or acts whichclearlydemonstratethatacandidatehasnobonafideintentionto runfortheofficeforwhichthecertificateofcandidacyhasbeenfiledand thuspreventafaithfuldeterminationofthetruewilloftheelectorate. # Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the Bautista and Efren votes which were mistakenly deemed as stray votes refer only to one candidate, herein petitioner. Such votes, which represent the voice of approx.21,000electorscouldnothavebeenintendedforEdwinBautista, allegedlyknowninNavotasasatricycledriverandworseadrugaddict, notknownasEfrenasstatedinhiscertificateofcandidacy,butBoboy or Boboy Tarugo as his known appellation or nickname, and satisfactorilyandfinallyshownasacandidatewithnopoliticallineup,no personal funds that could have supported his campaign, and no accomplishmentswhichmaybenotedbandconsideredbythepublic,as against a known former public officer who had served the people of NavotasasBrgy.Official,councilorandvicemayor. #Toruleotherwisewilldefinitelyresultinthedisenfranchisementofthe will of the electorate, which is, as we mentioned, the situation that our electionlawsareenactedtoprevent. PUNZALANV.COMELEC 289SCRA702 (FERNANDEZ) Manalastas,MenesesandPunzalanwereamongofthe4candidatesfor mayorofthemunicipalityofMexicoPampanga Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Meneses as the duly electedmayor
Manalastas and Punzalan separately siled election protests challenging the results of the elections; Meneses filed his answer to both with counterprotests:orderedconsolidatedandjointlytriedbythecourt Election contests sought the nullification of the election of Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud, irregularities and other illegal electoral practicesduringtheregistrationandvotingaswellasduringthecounting ofvotes Because of irregularities (massive fraud, illegal electoral practices and seriousanomalies;ballots,electionreturnsandtallysheetsdisappeared under mysterious circumstances and filled up ballots with undetached lower stubs and groups of ballot with stubs cut out with scissors were foundinsideballotboxes)foundafterhearingtheprotests,thetrialcourt was constrained to examine the contested ballots and the handwritings appearingthereonandcameupwiththedeclarationthatPunzalanwas thewinnerintheelections variousnoticesofappeal,motionsforexecution,petitionsforcertiorari, prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and/orpreliminaryinjunction Comelec promulgated a resolution affirming the proclamation of Meneses
FACTS:
HELD: Onthefirstissue While RA 7166 (An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local ElectionsandForElectoralReforms)requirestheBEIchairmantoaffixhis signature at the back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputabletosaidBEI Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with their mandated administrative responsibility should not penalizethevoterwithdisenfranchisement A ballot without BEI chairman's signature at the back is valid and not spurious
19
For as long as the ballot bears any one of the following authenticating marks,itisconsideredvalid: o TheComelecwatermark o SignatureorinitialsorthumbprintoftheChairmanoftheBEI o Where the watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to thenakedeye,thepresenceofredorbluefibersintheballots Everyballotshallbepresumedtobevalidunlessthereisaclearandgood reasontojustifyitsrejection
42
Onthesecondissue The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involvesaquestionoffactbestlefttothedeterminationoftheComelec TheComelecneednotconductanadversarialproceedingorahearingto determinetheauthenticityofballotsorthehandwritingfoundthereon; neither does it need to solicit the help of the handwriting experts in examining or comparing the handwriting; even evidence aliunde is not necessarytoenabletheCommissiontodeterminetheauthenticityofthe ballots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as an examinationoftheballotsthemselvesisalreadysufficient Minor and insignificant variations in handwriting must be perceived as indiciaofgenuinenessratherthanoffalcity Carelessness, spontaneity, unpremeditation and speed in signing are evidenceofgenuineness DOCTRINE: thelawsandstatuesgoverningelectioncontestsespeciallyappreciation ofballotsmustbeliberallyconstruedtotheendthatthewillofthe electorateinthechoiceofpublicofficialsmaynotbedefeatedby technicalinfirmities an election protests is imbued with public interest so much so that the needtodispeluncertaintieswhichbecloudtherealchoiceofthepeople isimperative ELECTORALCONTRIBUTIONSANDEXPENDITURES
FACTS: PetitionerPilarfiledhiscertificateofcandidacyforthepositionofmemberofthe SangguniangPanlalawiganoftheProvinceofIsabela.3dayslater,hewithdrewhis certificate of candidacy. COMELECimposed upon petitioner a fine of P10,000 for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration which was denied by COMELEC. Petitioner went to COMELECenbancwhichdeniedthepetitioninitsResolution.Hence,thispetition forcertiorari. HELD: Petitionershouldbeheldliableforfailuretofilehisstatementofcontributionsand expenditures. Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contribution and expenditures because he was a "non candidate,"havingwithdrawnhiscertificateofcandidacy3daysafterits filing.Petitionerpositsthat"itisxxxclearfromthelawthatthecandidate musthaveenteredthepoliticalcontest,andshouldhaveeitherwonor lost". Petitoner'sargumentiswithoutmerit. Section 14 of RA No. 7166 states that "every candidate" has the obligationtofilehisstatementofcontributionsandexpenditures.Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. The term "everycandidate"mustbedeemedtorefernotonlytoacandidatewho pursuedhiscampaign,butalsotoonewhowithdrewhiscandidacy. Section13ofResolutionNo.2348oftheCOMELEC,inimplementationof theprovisionsofRA7166,categoricallyrefersto"allcandidateswhofiled theircertificatesofcandidacy." Furthermore, Section 14 of the law uses the word "shall". Such implies thatthestatuteismandatory,particularlyifpublicinterestisinvolved state has an interest in seeing that the electoral process is clean and expressive of the true will of the electorate. One way to attain such
PILARV.COMELEC 245SCRA759 (OBERIO)
20
objective is to pass a legislation regulating contributions and expenditures, and compelling the publication of the same. It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred expenditures, even in the short span of his campaign. The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too remote. Resolution No. 2348 also contemplates the situation where a candidate maynothavereceivedanycontributionormadeanyexpenditure.Such candidateisnotexcusedfromfilingastatement. BP Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code provides that "the filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred."Petitioner'swithdrawalofhiscandidacydidnotextinguishhis liabilityfortheadministrativefine. ELECTIONOFFENSES
PlaintifffiledaMotionforInhibition,seekingtheinhibitionoftheentire COMELECbecauseofitsbiasinrenderingaresolution. Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging lack of jurisdictionandlackofauthorityonthepartofDirectorBalbuenatofile theinformation. Courtdenied. PetitionerthenfiledapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and ruled that the proper procedure was followed by the COMELEC but directed the trial court to remandthecasetotheCOMELECforreceptionofpetitioner'smotionfor reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated January 25, 1996, whichapprovedthefilingofacriminalcomplaintagainstpetitioner.
43 LAURELV.HONORABLEPRESIDINGJUDGE 323SCRA779 (AQUINO,P.) Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified lettercomplaint to Jose P. Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of Public Documents"andviolationof[Section74]oftheOmnibusElectionCode. ItallegedthatbothhisfatherandmotherwereChinesecitizensbutwhen petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator he statedthathisanaturalbornFilipinocitizen AninvestigationwasconductedbytheCOMELECLawDepartmentanda ReportwasmaderecommendingthefilingofInformation. During en banc, COMELEC resolved to file the necessary information against respondent and to file a criminal complaint against respondent forfalsification Director Balbuena filed an information for Violation of Section 74, in relationtoSection262oftheOmnibusElectionCode
FACTS:
HELD: 1.ItwaserrorfortheCourtofAppealstoholdtherewasnoflawintheprocedure followedbytheCOMELECintheconductofthepreliminaryinvestigation. No.Therearetwowaysthroughwhichacomplaintforelectionoffensesmaybe initiated. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu proprio, or it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition of political parties or organizations under the partylist system or anyaccreditedcitizensarmsoftheCommission Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the COMELEC and neednotbeverified. On the other hand, complaints filed by parties other than the COMELEC must be verifiedandsupportedbyaffidavitsandotherevidence. ThecomplaintinquestioninthiscaseisonefiledbyPardoinhispersonalcapacity andnotaschairmanoftheCOMELEC. There is nothing in the rules that require that only the COMELEC en banc may referacomplainttotheLawDepartmentforinvestigation.
21
There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman directing the conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself were the complainant in his private capacity. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executionerintheconductofthepreliminaryinvestigationringhollow. No. the records show that there is basis to at least find probable cause to indict thepetitionerforviolationoftheOmnibusElectionCodeanditappearsfromthe recordsthatChairmanPardohadnootherparticipationintheproceedingswhich ledtothefilingoftheInformation. The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from investigating the complaint filed against petitioner, as the latter would like the courts to do. The COMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution to investigate and prosecute, when necessary, violations of election laws. This power is lodged exclusively with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit itself from investigating the complaint against petitioner would be nothing short of an abandonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. 44 FAELNARV.PEOPLE 331SCRA429 (CRUZ) FACTS: Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of barangay chairman during the 1997 barangay elections in Cebu. One day after filing such certificate (april 9), a basketball tournament was held in the sports complex dubbedas,2ndJingJingFaelnarsCupwhichlasteduntilApril30,1997.Thisgave rise to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner and Gillamac filed by Antonio Luy. It was alleged that it was actually a form of campaign done outside theofficialcampaignperiodwhichshouldstartonMay1,1997.1.thattherewasa streamer bearing the name of petitioner placed at the faade of the venue. 2. petitionersnamewasrepeatedlymentionedoverthemicrophone.3.itwaswidely publishedinthelocalnewspaper.4.arafflesponsoredbyGillamacwasheldwith home appliances as prize. It constituted an election offense. Initially, Comelec en bancinaResolutionresolvedtodismissthefilingofthecaseintheRTC.Antonio
LuymovedforreconsiderationpromptingtheComelectoproceedwiththefilingof the case against petitioner. Petitioner moved to quash on the basis that the previous dismissal of the Comelec en banc, was immediately final and executory. And that Luys motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Commissionsrulesofprocedure. HELD: AMotionforReconsiderationisallowedinelectionoffensecases. Section1,Rule13ofComelecsRulesofProcedurestates,thefollowingpleadings arenotallowed,(d)motionforreconsiderationofanenbancruling,resolution, orderordecisionexceptinelectionoffensecases ItwasalsoheldthattheComelecenbancistheonethatdeterminestheexistence ofprobablecauseinanelectionoffense.ButitmayalsobedelegatedtotheState Prosecutor or to the Provincial or City Fiscal but may still be reviewed by the Comelec. 45 COMELECV.TAGLE 397SCRA618 (LIM) FACTS: FlorentinoBautistaranforthepositionofMayorinKawitCavite He filed a complaint against the incumbent Mayor Poblete and others supported by affidavits of 44 witnesses attesting to vote buying activities. ThecasewashandledbyaprosecutoroftheCOMELECslawdepartment. A separate complaint was filed by Rodelas and Macapagal with the provincialprosecutoragainstthewitnesses(voteselling) COMELECenbancdeclaredtheresolutionoftheprovincialprosecutorto institutecriminalactionsagainstthewitnessesasnullandvoid.COMELEC cited RA 6646 otherwise known as The Electoral Reforms law of 1987 which grants immunity from criminal prosecution persons who voluntarily give information and willingly testify against those liable for votebuyingorvoteselling.
22
Law department of COMELEC filed a motion to dismiss the case against thewitnesses.ThiswasdeniedbyrespondentjudgeTAGLE. According to Tagle, for the witnesses to be exempt to should have committed the overt act of divulging information regarding the vote buying
HELD: Witnessesareexemptfromcriminalprosecution. Afree,orderly,honest,peaceful,andcredibleelectionisindispensablein ademocraticsociety,aswithoutitdemocracywouldnotflourishand wouldbeasham. Oneoftheeffectivewaysofpreventingthecommissionofvotebuying andofprosecutingthosecommittingitisthegrantofimmunityfrom criminalliabilityinfavorofthepartywhosevotewasbought. TheCOMELEChastheexclusivepowertoconductpreliminary investigationofallelectionoffensespunishableundertheelectionlaws andtoprosecutethesame,asmaybeotherwiseprovidedbylaw WhentheCOMELECnullifiesaresolutionoftheProvincialProsecutor whichisthebasisoftheinformationforvoteselling,itineffect, withdrawsthedeputationgrantedtotheprosecutor. Wherecertainvotershavealreadyexecutedswornstatementsattesting tothecorruptpracticeofvotebuyinginapendingcase,itcannotbe deniedthattheyhadalreadygiveninformationinthevotebuyingcase. FAILUREOFELECTION 46 LOONGV.COMELEC 257SCRA1 (LAURENTE) Under the present state of our election laws, the COMELEC has been granted precisely the power to annul elections. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwiseknownas,"TheSynchronizedElectionsLawof1991,"providesthatthe COMELEC sitting En Banc by a majority vote of its members may decide, among others,thedeclarationoffailureofelectionandthecallingofspecialelectionsas
providedinSection6oftheOmnibusElectionCode.TheCOMELECmayexercise suchpowermotupropriooruponaverifiedpetition.Thehearingofthecaseshall besummaryinnature,andtheCOMELECmaydelegatetoitslawyersthepowerto hearthecaseandtoreceiveevidence. FACTS: This case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where LOONG and private respondentTanranforthepositionofGovernorwhilepet.Tulawieandp.r.Estino ranforViceGovernor * Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the COMELEC a re canvassoftheelectionreturnsofParangandTalipao. *COMELEC,accordingly,relievedalltheregularmembersoftheMunicipalBoard of Canvassers (MBC) and ordered such recanvass by senior lawyers from the COMELECofficeinManila.Duringtherecanvass,privaterespondentsobjectedto theinclusioninthecanvassoftheelectionreturnsofParang. *ThereconstitutedMBC,however,merelynotedsaidobjectionsandforwarded thesametorespondentPBCforresolution. *PBCdeniedtheobjectionsofprivaterespondentsandstillincludedtheelection returnsofParangmunicipality.ThecanvassofrespondentPBCshowedpetitioners tohaveoverwhelminglywoninthemunicipalityofParang. The private respondents filed petitions with the COMELEC regarding the inclusion of the questioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure of electioninsaidmunicipalityduetomassivefraud Petitioners,likewisefiledforfailureofelectionsin5othermunicipalities COMELECruledannullingtheresultsoftheelectionsinParangaswellasholdingin abeyance the proclamation of the winning candidates for Governor and Vice Governor until further orders from the Commission but dismissed other petitions forothermunicipalitieswhereitwasallegedthattherewerealsobadgesoffraud HELD: COMELECwasincorrectinannullingelectionsofParang,Sulubutnotorderingfor specialelectionsinthesamemunicipality.Itwasalsoincorrectindismissingother petitions for failure of elections in other municipalities where there were also badgesoffraud.
23
We hold that, before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and, second, thevotesnotcastwouldaffecttheresultoftheelection.Wemustadd,however, that the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. This is an important consideration for, where the propriety of a preproclamation controversyends,theremaybegintherealmofaspecialactionfordeclarationof failureofelections. WhiletheCOMELECisrestricted,inpreproclamationcases,toanexamination of the election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behindthemandinvestigateelectionirregularities,theCOMELECisdutyboundto investigateallegationsoffraud,terrorism,violenceandotheranalogouscausesin actionsforannulmentofelectionresultsorfordeclarationoffailureofelections,as theOmnibusElectionCodedenominatesthesame. Thus,theCOMELEC,inthecaseofactionsforannulmentofelectionresultsor declaration of failure of elections, may conduct technical examination of election documentsandcompareandanalyzevoters'signaturesandfingerprintsinorderto determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean. Needless to say, a preproclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulmentofelectionresultsordeclarationoffailureofelections The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITYOFPARANG,SULU,andisDIRECTEDTOSUPERVISETHECOUNTING OF THE VOTES AND THE CANVASSING OF THE RESULTS TO THE END THAT THE WINNINGCANDIDATESFORGOVERNORANDVICEGOVERNORFORTHEPROVINCE OFSULUBEPROCLAIMEDASSOONASPOSSIBLE. The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO REINSTATE SPA 95289 AND TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL EXAMINATION, IF ANY, OF PERTINENT ELECTION DOCUMENTS THEREIN AND TO HOLD SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE MUNICIPALITIESDISPUTEDINSPA95289INTHEEVENTtheCOMELECANNULSTHE ELECTIONRESULTSTHEREINORDECLARESTHEREATFAILUREOFELECTIONS. 47 HASSANV.COMELEC 264SCRA125
(LABAGUISPOGI) FACTS: Petitioner, Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan, and Private Respondent, MangondayaP.HassanBuatan,werecandidatesforViceMayorinLanao delSur However,duetothreatsofviolenceandterrorisminthearea,therewas afailureofelectionsinsix(6)outoftwentyfour(24)precincts.Inoneof the precincts, the ballot boxes were burned, while in the other 5 precincts,themembersoftheBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)failedto reporttotheirrespectivepollingplaces TheCOMELECteam,headedbyGarcillano,recommendedtheholdingof specialelectionsinsaidprecinctsandscheduledit ThemembersoftheBEIagainfailedtoreport The COMELEC team rescheduled the elections in Liangan Elementary School,whichwas15kilometersawayfromthedesignatedpollingplaces The members of the BEI once more did not report for duty. This constrained the COMELEC team to appoint police/military personnel to substitutefortheBEI TheresultofthespecialelectionwasinfavorofthePrivateRespondent: Petitioner=879,Respondent=1,098 PetitionerfiledapetitionwiththeCOMELECassailingthevalidityofthe rescheduledspecialelection COMELECenbancdeniedthepetitionforadeclarationoffailureofthe elections and ordered the Board of Canvassers to proclaim Private Respondentasthewinningvicemayoraltycandidate Thus,thepetitionforcertiorari
HELD: Therewasfailureofelections. Theconcurrenceofthefollowingpreconditionsisnecessaryfordeclaring a failure of election: (1) that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force majeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) that thevotesnotcastthereinsufficetoaffecttheresultsoftheelections.
24
TheCOMELECcannotturnablindeyetothefactthatterrorismwasso prevalentinthearea. ElectionshadtobesetforthethirdtimebecausenomembersoftheBEI reportedfordutyduetoimpendingthreatsofviolenceinthearea.Thisin fact prompted COMELEC to deploy military men to act as substitute membersjustsoelectionscouldbeheld;andtothwartthesethreatsof violence, the COMELEC team, moreover, decided to transfer the polling placestoLianganElementarySchoolwhichwas15kilometersawayfrom thepollingplace. Thepeculiarsituationofthiscasecannotbeoverstated.Thenoticegiven on the afternoon of the day before the scheduled special elections and transferring the venue of the elections 15 kilometers away from the farthest barangay/school was too short resulting to the disenfranchisement of voters. Out of the 1,546 registered voters in the five(5)precincts,only328actuallyvoted. It was quite sweeping and illogical for the COMELEC to state that the votes uncast would not have in any way affected the results of the elections. While the difference between the two candidates is only 219 outofthevotesactuallycast,theCOMELECtotallyignoredthefactthat thereweremorethanathousandregisteredvoterswhofailedtovote. PASANDALANV.COMELEC 384SCRA695 (MACASAET)
48 FACTS:
Petitioner Pasandalan and respondent Bai salamona L. Asum were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao del surMay14,2001elections OnMay23,Pasandalanfiledfornullificationofelectionresultsincertain barangays(Deromoyod,Lagin,Bualanetc)onthegroundthat,(1)while the election was ongoing, some Cafgus stationed near the schools indiscriminatelyfiredtheirfirearmscausingthevoterstopanicandleave thevotingcenterswithoutcastingtheirvotes,(2)failuretosignofBEIsto sign their initials on certain ballots and (3) taking advantage of the fist
HELD: COMELECdidn'tcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninannullingelectionm. Theirregularitiesallegedshouldhavebeenraisedasanelectionprotest andnotinapetitiontodeclarethenullityofanelection. Instancestodeclareafailureofelectiondoesnotexist(1)theelectionin a polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure,terrorism,violenceorfraud,(2)theelectionwassuspendedon st thesamegroundsinthe1 and(3)therewasfailuretoelectstillonthe samegrounds. The election was held in the precincts protested as scheduled, neither was it suspended (as proved by the testimony of one of the election officers)norwastherefailuretoelect.Theallegedterrorismwasnotof thatscaletojustifydeclarationoffailureofelections. Credibility of the affidavits questioned: (1) it was pretyped, all that the poll watchers have to do is to fill it up and sign it. (2) identical statementshumanperceptionisdifferentforeach.Personswhenasked about a same incident, although present in the incident, mat have differentobservations. 49 AMPATUANV.COMELEC 375SCRA503 (MARTINEZ)
fights, the supporters of Asum took the ballots and filled them up with thenameofAsum. Comelecsruling:NocredencegiventotheallegationsofPasandalan.The 3instanceswhereinafailureofelectioncouldbedeclaredisnotpresent (1) The election is not held (election was still held), (2) the election is suspended(itwasnot),and(3)theelectionresultsinthefailuretoelect (Asum was elected through the plurality of votes). The evidence presented by Pasandalan were only affidavits made by his own pollwatchersthusconsideredasselfservingandinsufficienttoannulthe results. Hencethepetitioninthiscourt
25
FACTS:
PetitionerAmpatuanandRespondentCandaowerecandidatesforthe positionofGovernorofMaguindanaoduringthe2001elections May2001:respondentsfiledapetitionwiththecomelecforthe annulmentofelectionresultsand/ordeclarationoffailureofelectionsin severalmunicipalities.Theyclaimedthattheelectionswerecompletely shamandfarcical.Theballotswerefilledupenmassebyafewpersons thenightbeforetheelectionday,andinsomeprecincts,theballotboxes, officialballotsandotherelectionparaphernaliawerenotdeliveredatall. Comelecsuspendedproclamationofwinningcandidates Petitionersfiledamotiontoliftsuspensionofproclamation.Comelec grantedandproclaimedthepetitionersswinners. June2001:RespondentsfiledwithSCapetitiontosetasideComelec orderandpreliminjunctiontosuspendeffectsoftheproclamationof petitioners. July2001:Comelecorderedtheconsolidationoftherespondents petitionfordeclarationoffailureofelections. Sept2001:Petitionersfiledthepresentpetitionandclaimedthatby virtueoftheproclamation,theproperremedyavailabletothe respondentswasnotpetitionfordeclarationoffailureofelectionsbutan electionprotest.Theformerisheardsummarilywhilethelatterinvolves afullblowntrial. Oct2001:Comelecorderedthesuspensionofthe2assailedorders(with regardtorespondentspetitionfrofailureofelectionsanddirectingthe continuationofhearinganddispositionoftheconsolidatedSPAsonthe failureofelectionsandotherincidentsrelatedthereto) Nov2001:Comelecliftsthesuspensionorder SCissuesTROenjoiningComelecfromliftingsuspension
ISSUE: W/NTheComelecwasdivestedofitsjurisdictiontohearanddeciderespondents petition for declaration for failure of elections after petitioners had been proclaimed HELD:No.Petitiondismissed Thefactthatacandidateproclaimedhasassumedofficedoesnotdeprive comelecofitsauthoritytoannulanycanvasandillegalproclamation.
Validityoftheproclamationmaybechallengedevenaftertheirregularly proclaimedcandidatehasassumedoffice. Inthecaseatbar,theComelecisdutyboundtoconductaninvestigation as to the veracity of respondents allegations of massive fraud and terrorismthatattendedtheconductoftheMay2001election. ItiswelltostressthattheComelechasstartedconductingthetechnical examinationonNov2001.However,byanurgentmotionforaTROfiled by the petitioners, in virtue of which we issued a TRO, the technical examinationwasheldinabeyanceuntilthepresent. In order not to frustrate the ends of justice, we lift the TRO and allow technicalexaminationtoproceedwithdeliberatedispatch. Dissent:JusticeMelo Issue: is the declaration of failure of elections by the Comelec an executiveadministrativefunctionorajudicialfunction? HeldTheauthoritygiventoComelectodeclareafailureofelectionsand tocallfortheholdingandcontinuationofthefailedelectionfallsunder itsadminfxn. Thereareonly3instanceswhereafailureofelectionsmaybedeclared: 1) the election in any polling place has not been declared 2) election in any polling place had not been suspended 3) after voting and during transmission of ER, such election results in a failure to elect on the ground of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous cause Under the circumstances of the present case and based on applicable law, an election protest is the appropriate remedy. Complex matters whichnecessarilyentailthepresentationofconflictingtestimonyshould notberesolvedinrandom,technicalandsummaryproceedings 50 BASHERV.COMELEC 330SCRA736 (GONZALES) FACTS: Failure of elections in Barangay Maidan, Lanao del Sur was held twice (May and June 1997), and a special elections was scheduled for August 30. During the said election, voting started only around 9:00 pm because of the prevailing tension in the said locality. Election Officer Diana DatuImam claimed that the town mayor was too hysterical, yelled and threatened her to declare failure of election in
26
Maidanasthearmedfollowerspointedtheirgunsatherandhermilitaryescorts respondedinthesamemanner.Withthearrivalofadditionaltroops,theelection officerproceededtoMaidantoconducttheelectionstartingat9:00pmuntilthe earlymorningofthefollowingdayattheresidenceoftheformermayor. ThetallysheetshowedthatrespondentAmpatuagot250votes;petitionerBasher got15votesandRazulgot10votes.Respondentwasproclaimedwinner.Petitioner now assails the validity of the COMELEC Resolution dismissing the Petition to DeclareFailureoElectionandtoCallSpecialElectioninPrecinctNo.12Baranggay Maidan. HELD: Therewasafailureofelection.Thisnotwithstanding,therewasaninvalid postponementofelection. First,theplacewherethevotingwasconductedwasillegal.OmnibusElectionCode providesthatelectiontellersshalldesignatethepublicschooloraypublicbuilding withintheBarangaytobeusedaspollingplace,electionwasheldintheresidence oftheformermayorwhichislocatedinBarangayPandarianao. Second,thelawprovidesthatthecastingofvotesstartat7amandendat3pm exceptwhentherearevoterspresentwithin30metersinfrontofthepollingplace who have nor yet cast their votes. Election was held after 9:00 pm until the wee hoursthefollowingday,certainlysuchwasnotinaccordancewiththelaw. Third,ElectionDaywasinvalidbecausesuspensionofpostponementofelectionis governedbylawanditprovidesthatwhenforanyseriouscausesuchasrebellion, insurrection,violence,terrorism,lossordestructionofelectionparaphernaliaand anyanalogouscausessuchnaturethatthefree,orderlyandhonestelectionshould become impossible the COMELEC moto proprio or upon written petition by 10 registered voter after summary proceedings shall suspend or postpone the proceedings.Theelectionofficeriswithoutauthoritytodeclareafailureofelection for it is only the COMELEC itself has legal authority to exercise such awesome power. Election Officer did not follow the procedure for he postponement or suspensionordeclarationoffailureofelection.Shedidnotconductanyproceeding summary or otherwise to find out any legal grounds for the suspension or postponementordeclarationoffailureofelection.
Finally,theelectoratewasnotgivenamplenoticeoftheexactscheduleandvenue oftheelection,mereannouncementoverthemosqueisinsufficient.

Election Law Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Election Law Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTIONLAWCASEDIGESTS(FROMELECTIONCONTEST)

ELECTIONCONTESTS 16 TOMARONGV.LUBGUBAN 269SCRA624 (TAN,L.)

FACTS: HELD: ELIGIBILITYOFCANDIDATESANDCERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACY 31 FACTS: RECABOV.COMELEC 308SCRA793(1999) (FLORES)

PetitionerAdovoandGilofilespetitionbeforeComelectodisqualify Hagedornclaimingthatheisdisqualifiedfromrunningfora4thterm; petitionwasdismissed

COMELEC: petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of electionreturn RTC:electionprotestagainstSAULONG

FACTS: Petitioner(SOLLER)andrespondent(SAULONG)werebothcandidatesformayorof Bansud,OrientalMindoro. MunicipalboardofcanvassersproclaimedSOLLERdulyelectedmayor. SAULONGfiledtwoactions:

PILARV.COMELEC 245SCRA759 (OBERIO)

You might also like