1

USE AT YOUR OWN RISK

ELECTION LAW REVIEWER- ATTY GALLANT SORIANO
CHAPTER 2
Challenges to the right to register
Who may challenge?
(Section 18 RA 8189)
Requirement

Procedure
Opposition
(in form of answer)
Petition
Who may

When

When to decide
Appeal

Petition for exclusion

Reqs

When

Any Voter
Candidate
Representative of a registered political party
In writing
Under oath
Attached to the application
Proof of notice of hearing
State the ground
Hearing: third Monday of the month
Decision: end of the month
Filed not later than second Monday
Scheduled to be heard by ERB
Any Voter
Candidate
Representative of a registered political party
a. Any time
b. Except 105 days prior to a regular
election and 75 days prior to a special
election
15 days after filing
Within five daysRTC
RTC will decide within 10 days
Decision is final and executory
-Sworn petition with
Name
Address
Precinct
-Proof of Notice
Any time
Except 100 days prior to a regular election and
65 days prior to a special election

Election officers- part of their responsibility is to ensure the true and rightful list of voters
ROBBE2014

Political Party- Partner of COMELEC to ensure a peaceful and honest election and to ensure the
true and rightful list of voters

Why there is a difference of the time to file for inclusion (105 days prior to regular election;75
days special election) and exclusion (100 days prior to a regular election and 65 days prior to
a special election)
Annulment of book of voters
Section 39 ra 8189
Requirements
Grounds

Limitations

ROBBE2014

Verified petition
1. State the grounds
a. Not in accordance with RA 8189
b. Prepared through fraud, fraud, bribery,
forgery ,impersonation, intimidation,
force or any similar irregularity
c. Contains data that are statistically
improbable
a. Executed within 90 days
b. Order of annulling book of voters is not
a ground for preproclamation
controversy

CHAPTER 4
*MEMORIZE
Qualifications for National Elective Offices (CALVRES=Citizenship, Age, Literacy,
Voter, Residence)

Basis (1987
Constitution)
Citizenship
Age

Literacy
Voter

Residence

President & VP

Senate

Sec 2 Art VII

Sec. 3 Art VI

Natural Born Citizen

At least 40 years
old at the day of
election
Able to read and
write
Registered Voter

Natural Born Citizen

At least 35 years old
at the day of
election
Able to read and
write
Registered Voter

House of
Representative
Sec. 6 Art VI

Natural Born Citizen

At least 25 years
old at the day of
election
Able to read and
write
Registered Voter in
the District which he
shall be elected
Resident of the
Resident of the
A resident of the
Philippines for not
Philippines for not
district for a period
less than 10 years
less than 2 years
of not less than 1
immediately
immediately
year immediately
preceding the day of preceding the day of preceding the day of
the election.
the election.
the election.

Why Natural born Citizen? On the justification that people who are voted on this election
must have an absolute and undivided allegiance
Residence? For Familiarity and acquaintance

Qualifications for Local Elective Offices

Basis
Citizenship
Age

Literacy

ROBBE2014

Governor and
Vice Governor

Mayor HUC

Sec. 39 RA
7160
Citizen
At least 23
Years old on
election day
Able to read
and write
Filipino or any

Sec. 39 RA
7160
Citizen
At least 23
Years old on
election day
Able to read
and write
Filipino or any

Mayor and
Vice Mayor
(City)
Sec. 39 RA
7160
Citizen
At least 21
Years old on
election day
Able to read
and write
Filipino or any

SP & SB

Sec. 39 RA
7160
Citizen
At least 18
Years old on
election day
Able to read
and write
Filipino or any

Voter
Registration
Residence

other local
language or
dialect
Registered
Voter

other local
language or
dialect
Registered
Voter

other local
language or
dialect
Registered
Voter

1 yr in the
province where
he intended to
be elected
2 Years in the
Philippines

1 yr in the
province where
he intended to
be elected
2 Years in the
Philippines

1 yr in the
province where
he intended to
be elected
2 Years in the
Philippines

other local
language or
dialect
Registered
Voter in the
district
1 yr in the
province where
he intended to
be elected
2 Years in the
Philippines

Are Naturalized Citizens allowed to run LEO? Yes

Definition of terms
Candidate
Sec 79 (a) BP 881

Qualification

Disqualification
Natural Born Citizen

Residence

Domicile

ROBBE2014

1. Any person
2. Aspiring for or seeking an elective
office
3. Who has filed a certificate of
candidacy
4. By himself or through an accredited
political party, aggroupment , or
coalition of parties
1. a conditional circumstance
2. that must be met or complied with
3. to make a person suitable for a
particular position
1. The quality of not being suitable
2. For a particular position
1. Those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth
2. Without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect Citizenship
3. Those born befre January 17, 1973
of Filipino Mothers who elect
Philippine citizenship at the age of
majority
4.
1. Indicate a place of abode whether
permanent or temporary
(?????)
1. For the exercise of civil rights and

Art 50 Civil Code

fulfilment of civil obligations

2. The domicile of natural persons is
the place of their habitual residence

Disqualifications (Omnibus Election Code Sec.12)

1. has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent
2. sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion
3. sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude

Disqualifications applicable to LEO only (Sec 40 Ra 7160)

1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an
offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after
serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code;
and
7. The insane or feeble-minded.

Father of LGC- Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.

Can a Juridical person run for public office?
CHAPTER 6 CAMPAIGN ELECTION PROPAGANDA
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
SECTION 29

INCLUDED

ROBBE2014

A.an act designed to promote the election

or defeat of a
B.particular candidate or candidates to a
public office
(1) Forming organizations, associations,
clubs, committees or other groups of
persons for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign for or

against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses,
conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or
other similar assemblies, for the purpose
of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
campaign or propaganda for or against a
candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or
commentaries, or holding interviews for or
against the election of any candidate for
public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign
literature or materials designed to support
or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes,
pledges or support for or against a
candidate.

NOT CONSIDERED

PROHIBITION
SECTION 80
EXCEPTION

A. if performed for the purpose of

enhancing the chances of aspirants for
nomination for candidacy to a public office
by a political party, aggroupment, or
coalition of parties
B. shall not be considered as election
campaign or partisan election activity.
engage in an election campaign or
partisan political activity except during the
campaign period
political parties may hold political
conventions or meetings to nominate their
official candidates within thirty days before
the commencement of the campaign
period and forty-five days for Presidential
and Vice-Presidential election.

CASE
LANOT V COMELEC
for purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, only on 23 March 2004, the
last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Applying the facts - as found by Director
Ladra and affirmed by the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11 of RA 8436, Eusebio
clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code which requires the

ROBBE2014

existence of a "candidate," one who has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the
commission of the questioned acts.
LAWFUL ELECTION PROPAGANDA
SECTION 82
SECTION 3 RA 9006
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals,
3.1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals,
stickers or other written or printed
stickers or other written or printed
materials of a size not more than eight and materials the size of which does not
one-half inches in width and fourteen
exceed eight and one half inches in width
inches in length;
and fourteen inches in length;
(b) Handwritten or printed letters urging
voters to vote for or against any particular
candidate;

3.2. Handwritten or printed letters urging

voters to vote for or against any particular
political party or candidate for public office;

(c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters,

whether framed or posted, with an area
exceeding two feet by three feet, except
that, at the site and on the occasion of a
public meeting or rally, or in announcing
the holding of said meeting or rally,
streamers not exceeding three feet by
eight feet in size, shall be allowed:
Provided, That said streamers may not be
displayed except one week before the
date of the meeting or rally and that it
shall be removed within seventy-two
hours after said meeting or rally; or

3.3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters,

whether framed or posted, with an area
not exceeding two (2) feet by three (3)
feet, except that, at the site and on the
occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in
announcing the holding of said meeting or
rally, streamers not exceeding three (3)
feet by eight (8) feet in size, shall be
allowed: Provided, That said streamers
may be displayed five (5) days before the
date of the meeting or rally and shall be
removed within twenty-four (24) hours
after said meeting or rally;

(d) All other forms of election propaganda

not prohibited by this Code as the
Commission may authorize after due
notice to all interested parties and hearing
where all the interested parties were given
an equal opportunity to be heard:
Provided, That the Commission's
authorization shall be published in two
newspapers of general circulation
throughout the nation for at least twice
within one week after the authorization has
been granted.

3.4. Paid advertisements in print or

broadcast media: Provided, That the
advertisements shall follow the
requirements set forth in Section 4 of
this Act; and

CASE:
ADIONG VS COMELEC 207 SCRA 712
ADIONG v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 103956

ROBBE2014

3.5. All other forms of election propaganda

not prohibited by the Omnibus Election
Code or this Act.

March 31, 1992

FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347
pursuant to its powers granted by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code,
Republic Acts Nos. 6646 and 7166 and other election laws. Section 15(a) of the
resolution provides:
Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. The following are lawful election propaganda:
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals Provided, That decals and stickers may be
posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section
21 hereof.
Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides:
Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of election propaganda.
It is unlawful:
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any election propaganda in
any place, whether public or private, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC
common posted areas and/or billboards
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections
assails the COMELECs Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and
stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles. According to him such
prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of
Republic Act No. 6646.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals and stickers
on mobile places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the
authorized posting areas that it fixes.
HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15 (a) of Resolution
No. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that decals and stickers may be posted only in
any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof is
DECLARED NULL and VOID. The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals and
stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in designated areas
provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds. The
prohibition unduly infringes on the citizens fundamental right of free speech enshrined
in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed
by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by
displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him.
Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the statute (RA 6646) and as couched in
the resolution is void for overbreadth. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers
should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizens private property,
which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle (The provisions allowing regulation are
so loosely worded that they include the posting of decals or stickers in the privacy of
ones living room or bedroom.) In consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule
prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of
Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of
law. (The right to property may be subject to a greater degree of regulation but when
this right is joined by a liberty interest, the burden of justification on the part of the
Government must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable. The burden is not met in
this case.)

ROBBE2014

Additionally, the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate
equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by
Article II, Section 26 and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the
Constitution, is not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private
vehicles. It is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas,
tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the
vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election
propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate.
In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile places whether
public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes
censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.
ABS CBN VS COMELEC GR 13486 JAN 28,2000
FACTS:
COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the issuance of a restraining order to
stop ABS CBN or any other groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit
surveys. The Resolution was issued by
the Comelec allegedly upon "information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez
Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the
elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials
particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be broadcasted
immediately. The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the
official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement
for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized ABSCBN to undertake the exit survey.
Two days before the elections on May 11, 1998, the Court issued the Temporary
Restraining Order prayed for by petitioner ABS-CBN. The Comelec was directed to
cease and desist, until further orders, from implementing the assailed Resolution or the
restraining order issued pursuant thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually
conducted and reported by media without any difficulty or problem.
ISSUE:
ban exit polls

W/N the Comelec, in the exercise of its powers, can absolutely

ABS-CBN:
The holding of exit polls and the nationwide reporting of their results
are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press
COMELEC:

ROBBE2014

10

1)The issuance thereof was "pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers to
promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible May 11, 1998 elections"; and "to protect,
preserve and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot."
2)It contends that "the conduct of exit surveys might unduly confuse and influence the
voters," and that the surveys were designed "to condition the minds of people and
cause confusion as to who are the winners and the losers in the election," which in turn
may result in "violence and anarchy."
3)"exit surveys indirectly violate the constitutional principle to preserve the sanctity of
the ballots," as the "voters are lured to reveal the contents of ballots," in violation of
Section 2, Article V of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code. It submits that the constitutionally protected freedoms invoked by petitioner "are
not immune to regulation by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power,"
such as in the present case.
4) "[p]ress freedom may be curtailed if the exercise thereof creates a clear and present
danger to the community or it has a dangerous tendency." It then contends that "an exit
poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting
interviewees, which further make[s] the exit poll highly unreliable. The probability that
the results of such exit poll may not be in harmony with the official count made by the
Comelec x x x is ever present. In other words, the exit poll has a clear and present
danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process."
SUPREME COURT:
set aside.

The COMELEC Resolution on exit polls ban is nullified and

1) Clear and present danger of destroying the integrity of electoral processes

Speculative and Untenable. First, by the very nature of a survey, the interviewees
or participants are selected at random, so that the results will as much as possible be
representative or reflective of the general sentiment or view of the community or group
polled. Second, the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official
Comelec count. It consists merely of the opinion of the polling group as to who the
electorate in general has probably voted for, based on the limited data gathered from
polled individuals. Finally, not at stake here are the credibility and the integrity of the
elections, which are exercises that are separate and independent from the exit polls.
The holding and the reporting of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the
elections, since the former is only part of the latter. If at all, the outcome of one can only
be indicative of the other.

ROBBE2014

11

2) Overbroad
The Comelec's concern with the possible noncommunicative effect of exit polls -disorder and confusion in the voting centers -- does not justify a total ban on them.
Undoubtedly, the assailed Comelec Resolution is too broad, since its application
is without qualification as to whether the polling is disruptive or not. [44] Concededly, the
Omnibus Election Code prohibits disruptive behavior around the voting
centers.[45] There is no showing, however, that exit polls or the means to interview
voters cause chaos in voting centers. Neither has any evidence been presented proving
that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder
or confuse the voters. Moreover, the prohibition incidentally prevents the collection of
exit poll data and their use for any purpose. The valuable information and ideas that
could be derived from them, based on the voters' answers to the survey questions will
forever remain unknown and unexplored. Unless the ban is restrained, candidates,
researchers, social scientists and the electorate in general would be deprived of studies
on the impact of current events and of election-day and other factors on voters' choices.
3) Violation of Ban Secrecy
The contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly transgress the
sanctity and the secrecy of the ballot is off-tangent to the real issue. Petitioner does not
seek access to the ballots cast by the voters. The ballot system of voting is not at issue
here.
The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through
voter identification. Thus, voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their
official ballots to other persons, from making copies thereof, or from putting
distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding out the
contents of the ballots cast by particular voters or disclosing those of disabled or
illiterate voters who have been assisted. Clearly, what is forbidden is the association of
voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring that the votes have been
cast in accordance with the instructions of a third party. This result cannot, however, be
achieved merely through the voters' verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of
whom they have voted for.
In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed.
Furthermore, the revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory, but
voluntary. Voters may also choose not to reveal their identities. Indeed, narrowly
tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec, so as to minimize or
suppress incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, without transgressing the
ROBBE2014

12

fundamental rights of our people.##

An exit poll is a species of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or
groups of individuals for the purpose of determining the probable result of an election by
confidentially asking randomly selected voters whom they have voted for, immediately
after they have officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to
the public, usually through the mass media, to give an advance overview of how, in the
opinion of the polling individuals or organizations, the electorate voted. In our electoral
history, exit polls had not been resorted to until the recent May 11, 1998 elections.
SORIANO PPT:
The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media
constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the
Comelec cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and
credible elections
Social Weather Stations v. COMELECG.R. No. 147571May 5, 2001FACTS:
On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveysin
various fields. Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes theManila
Standard which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of information
including election surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting thevalidity and
enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act), especially section 5.4which provides that
surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15days before an election
and surveys affecting local candidates shall not bepublished 7 days before the
election.SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the
electionsboth at the national and local levels and release to the media the results of
suchsurvey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to
publishelection survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes aprior
restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and presentdanger to
justify such restraint
RULING/RATIO:
Yes, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom
of speech, expression, and the press. The power of the COMELEC over media
franchises is limited to ensuring equalopportunity, time, space, and the right to reply, as
well as to fix reasonable rates of charge for the use of media facilities for public
information and forms amongcandidates.Here, the prohibition of speech is direct,
absolute, and substantial. Nor does thissection pass the Obrient test for content related
regulation because (1) itsuppresses one type of expression while allowing other types
such as editorials,etc.; and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect
governmentinterest because the interest can e protected by narrower restrictions such
assubsequent punishment.Note: Justice Kapunans dissenting opinion basically says
that the test of clear andpresent danger is inappropriate to use in order to test the

ROBBE2014

13

validity of this section.Instead, he purports to engage in a form of balancing by weighing

and balancingthe circumstances to determine whether public interest is served by the
regulationof the free enjoyment of the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the
balance,the other considerations (for example, prevention of last minute pressure on
voters)should outweigh the value of freedom of expression
CHAVEZ VS COMELEC
LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSES SECTION 13 RA 7166
PRESIDENT AN VICE PRESIDENT
P10.00 FOR EVERY VOTER
OTHER
P3.00
INDEPENDENT
P5.00 FOR EVERY VOTER
POLITICAL PARTY
P5 FOR EVERY VOTER CURRENTLY
REGISTERED IN THE CONSTITUENCY
OR CONSTITUENCIES WHERE IT HAS
OFFICIAL CANDIDATES
STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION RA 7166 SEC 14
WHO
Every candidate and treasurer of the
political party
WHAT
file in duplicate with the offices of the
Commission the full, true and itemized
statement of all contributions and
expenditures in connection with the
election.
WHEN
within thirty (30) days after the day of the
election,
SANCTIONS
Shall not enter upon the duties of his office
until he has filed the statement of
contributions and expenditures herein
required.
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES
1st offense- p1000 to 30000
2nd offense- p2000 to 60000 + perpetual
disqualification to hold public office
FILING OF TWO CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
GENERAL RULE
No person shall be eligible for more than
SEC 73 BP 881
one office to be filled in the same election,
and if he files his certificate of candidacy
for more than one office, he shall not be
eligible for any of them.
EXCEPTION
However, before the expiration of the
period for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, the person who was filed more
than one certificate of candidacy may
declare under oath the office for which he
desires to be eligible and cancel the
certificate of candidacy for the other office
or offices.
LORETO GO V COMELEC
ROBBE2014

14

The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at
12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001 was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law
DUTY OF COMELEC BP881 SEC 76
OFFICERS
Commission,
Provincial election supervisor,
Election registrar or
Officer designated by the Commission or
Board of election inspectors
NATURE
shall have the ministerial duty to receive
and acknowledge receipt of the certificate
of candidacy
CIPRIANO V COMELEC august 2004
A. COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form
B. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial
duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. This is provided in Sec. 76 of the Omnibus
Election Code,
ABCEDE V IMPERIAL
Section 37 of the Revised Election Code imposes upon the commission the ministerial
duty to receive and acknowledge certificates of candidacy, the law leaves to the
Commission a measure:of discretion on whether to give due course to a particular
certificate of candidacy should it find said certificate of candidacy to have been filed
not bona fide.
DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF COC
PROCEDURE AND GROUND
verified petition seeking to deny due
SEC 78
course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy may be filed by the person
exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as
required under Section 74 hereof is false.
The petition may be filed at any time not
later than twenty-five days from the time of
the filing of the certificate of candidacy and
shall be decided, after due notice and
hearing, not later than fifteen days before
the election.
WHERE TO FILE
A. JURISDICTION OVER A PETITION TO
COMELEC RULE OF PROCEDURE
CANCEL A COURT OF CANDIDACY
B. LIES WITH THE COMELEC SITTING
IN DIVISION
WHEN TO FILE

ROBBE2014

at any time not later than twenty-five days

from the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy and shall be decided, after
due notice and hearing, not later than
fifteen days before the election.

15

GARVIDA VS SALES
, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the
COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may only be
entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of votes to reach a
decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only
motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in
Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc.[16] It is therefore the COMELEC sitting
in Divisions that can hear and decide election cases. This is clear from Section 3 of the
said Rules thus:
"Sec. 3. The Commission Sitting in Divisions. -- The Commission shall sit in two
(2) Divisions to hear and decide protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special
actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings
except in accreditation of citizens' arms of the Commission."
LOONG VS COMELEC
CHAPTER 7 WATCHERS
Entity
a. Each Candidate
b. Political Party or Coalition of
political parties registered in
COMELEC
c. Party List
a. Candidates for Sangguniang
Panglalawigan, SP,SB belonging to
the same party
b. Duly accredited citizens arms of
COMELEC
c. Civic, religious, professional,
business, service, youth and other
similar organizations with prior
authority to COMELEC
Qualifications

ROBBE2014

Entitled to
a. 2 watchers
b. Serve alternately
c. In every polling place

1 watcher for every polling place

1. Qualified voter of city or municipality

2. Good reputation
3. Never convicted by final judgment
of any election protest or any other
crime
4. Knows how to read and write
Filipino, English or of the prevailing
local dialect
5. Not related within 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to the

16

Rights and duties

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

chairman or member of BEI in the

polling place where he seeks
appointment
Stay in the polling place
Witness the proceedings of the BEI
Take note, photograph of the
proceedings
File protest against any irregularity
or violation of law which they
believe may have been committed
by BEI
Furnished with certificate of vote
cast for each candidate duly signed
and thumb marked by BEI

CHAPTER 9 ACTIVITIES DURING THE ELECTION

CASTING OF VOTES
Illiterate or Disabled
BP 881 Sec 196

Requisites

Limitation

BALLOT
Authentication of ballot Sec 24 ra 7166

ROBBE2014

a. Can be assisted
b. By a relative, by affinity or
consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree or
c. if he has none, by any person of his
confidence who belong to the same
household or
d. any member of the board of
election inspectors,
That he is an illiterate voter
Must be indicated in his registration card
Safeguard: res ipsa loquitor
Persons with disabilities can be
distinguished with naked eye
a. Assistor cannot assist more than
three times except member of BEI
b. Assistor must under oath bind
himself in a formal document under
oath to fill out the ballot strictly in
accordance with the instructions of
the voter and not to reveal the
contents of the ballot prepared by
him.
a. Before delivering official ballot to
the voter
b. Chairman of BEI shal affix signature
at the back

17

Failure to authenticate
Illustrative cases
ILLEGAL VOTER
Challenge of Illegal Voter
BP881 Sec 199

Other grounds
BP 881 SEC 200

Record of challenge and oath

BP881 Sec 202

DURING ELECTION BOARD OF

ELECTION INSPECTORS
Composition

ROBBE2014

c. Failure to so authenticate shall be

noted in the minutes of the board of
election inspectors and shall
constitute an election offense
punishable under 263 and 264 of
the Omnibus Election Code.
a. Ballot is not deemed spurious
b. Ballot is valid
Libanan vs. HRET
Punzalan vs COMELEC
a. Any voter, or watcher
b. may challenge any person offering
to vote for not being registered,
c. for using the name of another or
suffering from existing
disqualification.
a. The challenged person shall take a
prescribed oath before the board of
election inspectors that he has not
committed any of the acts alleged in
the challenge.
b. Upon the taking of such oath, the
challenge shall be dismissed and
the challenged voter shall be
allowed to vote, but in case of his
refusal to take such oath, the
challenge shall be sustained and he
shall not be allowed to vote.
a. The poll clerk shall keep a
prescribed record of challenges and
oaths taken in connection therewith
and the resolution of the board of
election inspectors in each case
and,
b. upon the termination of the voting,
shall certify that it contains all the
challenges made.
c. The original of this record shall be
attached to the original copy of the
minutes of the voting as provided in
the succeeding section.

a. Chairman
b. Member

18

Qualification

BOARD OF ELECTION
Disqualification

Powers

c.
a.
b.
c.

Poll clerk
Good moral character
Registered voter
Never convicted of election
offense
d. Able to speak and write English
or the local dialect
a. Must not be related within the
fourth civil degree of election
inspectors or candidate to be
voted for in the polling place or
his spouse
b. Must not engage in any partisan
poll activity
a. Conduct the voting and counting of
votes in their respective polling places;
b. Act as deputies of the Commission in
the supervision and control of the election
in the polling places wherein they are
assigned, to assure the holding of the
same in a free, orderly and honest
manner; and
c. Perform such other functions prescribed
by this Code or by the rules and
regulations promulgated by the
Commission.

COUNTING OF VOTES
Procedure
BP 881 Section 206

Manner of Counting
RA 7166 Sec. 25

ROBBE2014

a. As soon as the voting is finished,

the board of election inspectors
shall publicly count in the polling
place the votes cast and ascertain
the results
b. The board of election inspectors
shall not adjourn or postpone or
delay the count until it has been
fully completed, unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
a.
the chairman, the poll clerk and the
third member shall assume such
positions as to provide the watchers
and the members of the public as

19

b.

c.
d.

APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
GENERAL RULE
BP 881 SEC 211
Other basic rule

may be conveniently
accommodated in the polling place,
an unimpeded view of the ballot
being read by the chairman, of the
election return and the tally board
being simultaneously accomplished
by the poll clerk and the third
member respectively,
without touching any of these
election documents.
The table shall be cleared of all
unnecessary writing paraphernalia.
a. Every ballot are presumed valid
b. unless there is clear and good
reason to justify its rejection
a. ascertain and carry into effect
the intention of the voter if it
could be determined with
reasonable certainty
b. outmost liberality must be
observed in the reading of ballot
in order not to defeat the
intention of voter
c. technical rule shall not be
permitted to defeat the ballot
d. extreme caution shall be
observed before a ballot is
invalidated; in case of doubt ,
render in favor of validity

RULES ON APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS

1. Idem sonans
A name or surname incorrectly written but when it was read, has a sound similar
to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in
his favor
2. Only the first name or surname is written
-vote for such candidate is valid if no candidate has the same first name or
surname
-if there are two or more candidate having the same first name, therefore invalid

ROBBE2014

20

3. First name of a candidate is written on the ballot which when read has sound similar
to the surname or firstname of a candidate
VALID
4. Two words are written on the ballot one of which is the first name of the candidate
and the other is the name of opponent
NOT VALID FOR EITHER
5.Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", "Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.",
"Gob." or suffixes like "Hijo", "Jr.", "Segundo"
VALID
6. Nicknames and appellations or affections and friendship if accompanied by the first
name or the surname of the candidate
a. does not annul such vote
b. except when they are used as an identifying voter
7. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected, the ballot is
valid, but the votes shall be counted only in favor of the candidates whose names were
firstly written by the voter within the spaces provided for said office in the ballot until the
authorized number is covered.
8. First name + surname of opponent
Ballot in favor of the candidate whose surname is the first name of his opponent
9. 2 or more words are surnames of two or more candidates
Ballot cannot be counted in favor of either
Except when one of the candidates is an incumbent, in which case it will be
counted in his favor
10. In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or married surname or both
and there is another candidate with the same surname, a ballot bearing only such
surname shall be counted in favor of the candidate who is an incumbent.
Why do incumbent enjoy this favor? Familiarity
ELECTION RETURNS
Preparations
Result of Elections
BP 881 SEC 213

ROBBE2014

BEI shall prepare

Simultaneously with the counting of votes
a. upon completion of election returns
b. chairman of BEI shall
c. orally and publicly announce the total
number of votes received in the election in

21

the polling place by each and every one of

the candidates, stating their corresponding
office.
Certificate of votes
a. upon request
b. BEI shall issue certificate of votes
c. signed and thumb marked
PREPROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES Refers to any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings or 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 of directors with COMELEC or
any matter raised
Purpose
Prevent the nefarious practice known as
Grab the proclamation prolong the protest
Jurisdiction
COMELEC Exclusive Jurisdiction
-no pre-proclamation case allowed for
National Position: PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT, SENATORS, CONGRESS
^ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
* SECTION 15 of RA 7166
Issues which may be raised
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of
the board of canvassers;
---file immediately when BOC begun to act
as such or at the time of the appointment
of the member whose capacity to sit as
such is objected to , if it comes after the
canvassing of the Board, or immediately
when the proceedings become illegal
(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
---LAGUMBAY V COMELEC 16 SCRA

ROBBE2014

22

175
(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.

LAGUMBAY Doctrine

We opined that the election result to said

precincts as reported was utterly
improbable and clearly incredible. For it is
not likely, in the ordinary course of things,
that all the electors of one precinct would,
as one man, vote for all the eight
candidates of the Liberal Party, without
giving a single vote to one of the eight
candidates of the Nacionalista Party. Such
extraordinary coincidence was quite
impossible to believe, knowing that the
Nacionalista Party had and has a
nationwide organization, with branches in
every province, and was, in previous
years, the party in power in these islands.

*Not based on Atty. Sorianos lecture

*ELECTION CONTEST

Jurisdiction

PROTEST
GROUNDS

ROBBE2014

Any matter adversary proceeding by which

matters involving title or claim of title to an
elective office, made before or after the
proclamation of the winner, is settled
whether or not contestant is claiming office
in dispute
a. Supreme Court:President and Vice
president
b. Senate electoral tribunal:Senate
c. HRET: Rerpesentatives
d.COMELEC: Regional, Provincial, City
elective officials
e.Regional Trial Court: Municipal elective
officials
f. MTC: Barangay /SK
g. DILG:SK (alunan vs. mirasol)
The following are the grounds for filing an
Election Protest:
Fraud

23

Death of protestant

Terrorism
Irregularities; or
Illegal acts, committed before, during or
after the casting and counting of votes
If it is the protestant who died, he should
be substituted by the public official who
would have succeeded him (De Castro vs
COMELEC)

***Ronald Allan Poe V Gloria Macapagal Arroyo P.E.T. Case no. 002, 29 March
2005
We are not unaware that a contest before election tribunals has two aspects. First, it
is in pursuit of ones right to a public office, and second, it is imbued with public interest.
Indeed the personal aspect of the case is inextricably linked with the public interest.
For an election protest involves not merely conflicting private aspirations but is imbued
with public interest which raises it into a plane over and above ordinary civil
actions.[17]But herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, has overly stressed that it is with the
paramount public interest in mind that she desires to pursue the process
commenced by her late husband. She avers that she is pursuing the process to
determine who truly won the election, as a service to the Filipino people. We laud her
noble intention and her interest to find out the true will of the electorate. However,
nobility of intention is not the point of reference in determining whether a person may
intervene in an election protest. Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is the
applicable rule on intervention in the absence of such a rule in the PET Rules. In such
intervention, the interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must be in the
matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will
either gain or lose by the effect of the judgment. In this protest, Mrs. FPJ will not
immediately and directly benefit from the outcome should it be determined that the
declared president did not truly get the highest number of votes. We fully appreciate
counsels manifestation that movant/intervenor herself claims she has no interest in
assuming the position as she is aware that she cannot succeed to the presidency,
having no legal right to it. Yet thus far, in this case, no real parties such as the vicepresidential aspirants in the 2004 elections, have come forward to intervene, or to be
substituted for the deceased protestant. In our view, if persons not real parties in the
action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily complicated,
expensive and interminable and this is not the policy of the law. It is far more prudent
to abide by the existing strict limitations on intervention and substitution under the law
and the rules.
*ELECTION OFFENSES (BP 881 Section
261)
Defense of good faith

ROBBE2014

MEMORIZE
Good faith is not a defense in election
offenses
Election offenses are mala prohibita.
Criminal intent is not necessary

24

Jurisdiction

COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to

investigate and prosecute cases involving
violations of election laws
RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to
try and decide any criminal actions or
proceedings for violation of election laws
bp881 sec 268

Prescription
BP 881 Sec 267

ROBBE2014

MTC by way of exception exercises

jurisdiction over offenses relating to failure
to register or to vote
Five years from the date of commission