A false statement in a COC that a

candidate is eligible to run for public office

is a false material representation which is
a GROUND FOR PETITION TO DENY DUE
COURSE OR CANCEL COC.

Date of Elections
National, District, Local elective officials
2nd Monday of May 1992 and Every
3 years after
Regional elective local officials o

2nd Monday of May 2013 and Every

3 years thereafter
Barangay & SK officials o 2nd of October 2007 & Every 3
years thereafter
o

Postponement of date of elections

Grounds:
Serious Cause
o Violence
o Terrorism
o Loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records
o Force majeure
o Other analogous causes of such
nature that the holding of a free,
orderly and honest elections
becomes impossible in any political
subdivision
Who postpones the Elections?
Commision En Banc
How?
By majority of vote of its members
Motu Proprio
Upon verified petition by any interested
party
After due notice and hearing
All interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard.
What if the ground is not one of those
enumerated?
The Commission cannot postpone, it
merely recommends, as when it is
operationally very difficult to
simultaneously hold the barangay and SK
elections, legislative action to amend the
law resetting the elections is required.
(Montesclaros v. Comelec)
When is election postponed?
To a date reasonable close to the date of
election not held, suspended or failed but
not later than 30 days after cessation of
the cause.
But it should not be too close as to
preclude notice to the electorate. The
announcement made minutes before the

supposed voting is not a notice at all to

the electorate who should be given ample
notice of the exact schedule and venue of
the election. (Bashier v. Comelec)
A one day notice is too short. The time for
holding it must be authoritatively
designated in advance. (Hassan v.
Comelec)

Is the 30-day period mandatory?

No. Thus, it cannot be argued that once it
lapses, the authority to postpone transfers
to Congress.
In fixing the date of special elections, the
Comelec sees to it that it should:
o Not be later than 30 days
o Reasonable close to the election
not held. (Lucero v. Comelec)
The holding of elections within the next
few months from the cessation of cause
may still be considered reasonably close
to the date of election not held.
(Pangandaman v. Comelec)
The period of 2 years after the failure of
election is still reasonable close to the
eelction not held if the delay is not
attributable to the registered voters but to
the legal manoeuvres of the parties.
(Lucero v. Comelec)
But it should not be unreasonable too
close for all voters to be notified of the
changes. For even in highly urbanized
areas, dissemination poses a problem. In
the absence of proof of actual notice the
special elections reached a great number
of voters, the special election is invalid.
One day notice is insufficient. (Hassan v.
Comelec)
But a few days away from failure of
election is reasonably close.
(Pangandaman v. Comelec)
Less than a days notice of time and
transfer of polling places 15 km away
deprive voters of opportunity to
participate in the elections.
Even if voting occurred.
Where difference is only 219 voters and
only 328 out of 1,546 registered voters
were able to vote, there is failure of
elections. (Hassan v. Comelec)
What are the grounds for failure of
elections?
Force majeure
Violence
Terrorism
Fraud or other analogous causes the
election in any polling place was not held
o On the date fixed

Suspended before the hour fixed by

law for close of voting
o After voting and during preparation
and transmission of election return
or in their custody or canvass, such
elections results in a failure to elect
and it affects election results.
Three instances where a failure of election
may be declared: (soon to be finalized to 2)
1. Election in any polling place was not held
on the fixed date on account of force
majeure, terrorism, fraud, violence, and
other analogous causes.
2. Election in any polling place had been
suspended before the close of voting
on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud and other analogous
causes.
3. After voting and during preparation and
transmission of election returns or in their
custody or canvass, such election results
in failure to elect on the same grounds.
Facts:
A mayor was proclaimed winner after
obtaining a majority of 24,000 votes. But
the second placer petitioned to declare
failure of election due to fraud, violence,
threat, intimidation, vote-buying and delay
in the delivery of election documents and
paraphernalia.
Missing names of registered voters
More than half of the registered voters
failed to vote because others voted for
them.
He was credited with less votes than he
actually obtained.
Control data of election returns were not
filled out in some polling places.
o

Held:
These grounds do not warrant failure of
election as none of them fall under the 3
instances where failure of election may be
declared.
Missing names in voters list remedy is
inclusion or exclusion or annulment of
book of voters.
More than half failed to vote because
others already voted for themremedy is
challenge identity of voter during voting
inside the polling place.
Less votesshould have been raised
before the BEI that counted the votes.
Control data of election returns were not
filled should have been raised before the
Board of Canvassers that canvassed the
election returns.
Unsecured ballot boxes a mere formal
defect that does not affect their integrity.

Late election returns not a ground for

failure (Canicosa v. Comelec)

2 requisites for the en banc to act on a

verified petition to declare failure of
election:
1. No voting took place in the polling places
on the date fixed by law.
2. The votes that were not cast affect the
result of elections. (Mitmug v. Comelec,
Benito v. Comelec)
Facts:
A punong baranggay lost by 29 votes. He
alleged 100 of his relatives and supporters
were not able to vote because the BEI in 3
polling places discontinued the voting.
Found: Out of 316 voters, 220 actually voted.
Held: There was no failure of election. If indeed
voters were prevented from voting, remedy is

Even if less than 25% of the electorate in

the questioned polling places cast their
votes, it must still be respected. (Mitmug
v. Comelec)
Even if only 1 out of 177 voted in a polling
place, there is still no failure of election.
(Benito v. Comelec)
For as long as their voting , regardless of
number, there is no failure of election. It
only fails if the sovereign will has been
muted and cannot be ascertained. If the
will of the people is determinable, it must
be respected. (Sardea v. Comelec)
The power to nullify an election must be
exercised with the greatest care so as not
to disenfranchise votes. (Ruiz v. Comelec)

Facts: Elections in only 3 out of 5 polling places

were sought to be nullified even if disruption of
voting was caused by a common act, firing guns
to intimidate voters.
Held: Petition to declare failure of election
should not be selective as to polling places if they
were exposed to the same ground. (Benito v.
Comelec)
Facts: Proclamation of one position was sought
to be annulled on the ground of failure of
election.
Held: Failure of election necessarily affects all
elective positions in the place where elections
failed. To hold otherwise is discriminatory and
violates equal protection clause. (Botabor)
Who declares failure of election?
Comelec en banc

The RTC, on account that a victory was

attende by significant badges of fraud,
cannot declare failure of election in the
guise of voiding the proclamation of the
winner despite obtaining 25,000 majority
votes during canvass, 27,000 votes by
physical count and 17,000 votes by
revision. (Carlos v. Angeles)
The election officer, on account of threats
of violence and bloodshed, cannot by
herself validly suspend or postpone
elections even with the agreement of the
candidates. (Bashier v. Comelec)

Date of special elections after failed

elections
Not later than 30 days after cessation of
causes like for majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes.
Date of special elections to fill out
permanent vacancy
District representatives not earlier
than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after
the office is vacated. Except, if it occurs
within a year prior to expiration of term
Senators simultaneous with the
succeeding regular election
President and VP
A.
If the President, VP, Senate
President and House of Speaker
die, resign, or a re permanently
disabled at the middle of term
o
o
o
o
o

Congress legislates who serves as

President
By special election for President
and VP
Not earlier than 45 days nor later
than 60 days from time of such
call.
Once set, the special election
cannot be postponed
Except, if vacancy occurs within
18 months before the date of the
next presidential election.

B.
If the President, VP, Senate
President and House of Speaker die,
resign, or a re permanently disabled at the
start of term
o Congress legislates the manner in
which one who is to act as
President shall be selected.
Nature of barangay elections
Non-partisan and conducted in an
expeditious and inexpensive manner

Not supporting, belonging to or biased in

favour of any political party.

Specific acts of partisanship:

Filing of COC representing or along to be
represented as a candidate of any political
party or any other organizations.
No party, organization intervened in the
nomination or in the filing of Coc.
Party or organization giving support,
directly or indirectly, material or otherwise
favourable to or against a candidate.
Except, relatives within the 4th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Campaign staff not more than 1 in every
100 registered voters.
Caveat! It should not be in any manner
construed to impair the freedom of
individuals to support or oppose any
candidate for any barangay office.
Facts: The constitutionality of an old law which
ahad virtually the same provision on the nonpartisan character of barangay elections was
challenged. It violates constitutional guarantees
on the right to form associations and societies for
purposes not contrary to law.
Held: The right to form association is not
absolute. It is subject to pervasive police power
thus may be constitutionally regulated to serve
important and appropriate public interest. The
right to organize remains intact but certain
activities are restricted. The ban is narrow, not
total. It operates only on concerted or group
action of political parties. Acting individually,
party members may intervene. (Occena v.
Comelec)
What is the purpose of the non-partisan
character?
Barangay is the basic unit or the base of
the pyramid of both social and political
structure.
It should be insulated from divisive and
debilitating partisan politics.
Barangay officials:
o Have legislative and consultative
powers
o Act as agents of neutral community
action such as distribution of basic
services
o Instruments in conducting
plebiscites and referenda.
o Settle local disputes (Occena v.
Comelec)
Suffrage, defined
Facts: The proclamation of a mayoralty
candidate was voided after he was disqualified for
vote-buying. The second place insists he should
be proclaimed winners.

Held: The candidate who obtains the second

highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner in case the winning candidate is
disqualified. This dispute involves not only the
mayoralty, it concerns suffrage which is the
bedrock of republicanism. Suffrage is the
means by which our people express their
sovereign judgement. Its free exercise must be
protected especially against the purchasing
power of the peso. (Nolasco v. Comelec)
Facts:
A couple was charged with an
election offense for preventing a voter from
entering the polling place. But the information
was quashed for insufficiency because it failed to
negate the exception there were more than 40
voters waiting inside the polling place.
Held: The exception does not form part of the
offense hence need not be alleged in the
information. It is a matter of defence. The validity
of this view is affirmed when we realize that the
case involves no less than suffrage, which is the
bedrock of all republican institutions.
Each time the enfranchised citizen goes
to the polls to assert this sovereign will, that
abiding credo of republicanism is translated into
living reality. If that will must remain undefiled at
the starting level of its expression and
application, every assumption must be indulged
in and every guarantee adopted to assure the
unmolested exercise of the citizens free choice.
For to impede, without authority valid in law, the
free and orderly exercise of the right of suffrage,
is to inflict the ultimate indignity on the
democratic process. (People v. San Juan)
Suffrage, constitutional basis
Art V, Section 1, 1987 Constitution
SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen
years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election. No
literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.
Is suffrage and obligation or a right? right
Suffrage for overseas absentee voters
Art V, Section 2, Par 1 1987 Constitution
The Congress shall provide a system for securing
the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.
Section 5 (d), RA 9189 or the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003

An immigrant or permanent resident who is

recognized as such in the host country is
disqualified from voting under this Act.
Upon registration, he or she executes an
affidavit:
o Resume actual permanent
residence in the country within 3
years from approval of registration
Suffrage should only be granted to persons
possessing qualifications on the day of election.
The Solicitor General however argued that
Section 1 Art V is a verbatim reproduction
of the 1935 and 1973 Constituions under
which Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the HR
which held that residence is synonymous
with domicile.
A person can have only one domicile but
have two residences, one permanent and
the other temporary.
The definition of residence applies to
absentee voters.
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, reiterating
Faypon v Quirino, held that immigrants or
permanent residents abroad have in fact
never abandaoned their Philippine
domicile.
Held:
While it appears that under Sec 1
immigrants and permanent resident
aborad are disqualified to vote, Sec 2
provides exception:
The Congress shall provide a
system for securing the secrecy and sanctity
of the ballot as well as a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Thus Congress enacted the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act pursuant to
Section 2 which did not provide for
parameters.
In the absence of restrictions,
Congress is presumed to have duly
exercised its legislative authority.
Absentee voting is an exception to the
regular system of voting.
It it intended to accommodate soldiers
and sailors and other qualified voters
who on election day are absent from
the place where they are residents or
registered.
It is not only proof of intention to
return, but more importantly, it serves
as an express declaration that the
domicile was not abandoned.
By their status in the host country,
permanent residents or immigrants are
presumed to have relinquished their
intent to return.
The purpose of the affidavit is to rebut
such presumption.

The Caasi ruling that held green

cardholders are disqualified to run for
public office does not apply because it
did not consider the absentee voting
rights of immigrants and permanent
residents.
Section 5 (d) does not circumvent the
Constitution, instead, it complied with
a constitutional mandate which
requires that Congress legislate
absentee voting that presupposes the
qualified citizen abroad is not
physically present in the country.
If the voter reneges on his promise to
return, the penalty of permanent
disenfranchisement serves as a
deterrent.
The votes cast by absentee voters who
failed to return is not invalidated,
because what controls is whether the
voter is qualified to vote on the day of
election, and not after.

Suffrage for local absentee voters

Who are qualified?
Section 1, Executive Order No. 157
Any person who by reason of public
functions and duties is not in his/her place of
registration on election day, may vote in a city or
municipality where he/she is assigned in election
day.
Section 12, RA 7166
Members of the AFP and PNP and other
government officers ans employees who, on
election day, may be temporarily assigned to
perform election duties in a place where they are
not registered voters.
Section 169, Omnibus Election Code
Memebers of the Board of Election Inspectors
may vote in the polling place where they are
assigned on election day provided they are
registered voters in the city, municipality or
province and their voting is noted in the minutes.
Section 2 RA 10380
Members of media, media practitioners, including
the technical ans support staff, who are duly
registered voters and who, on election day, may
not be able to vote due to the performance of
their functions in covering and reporting on the
elections.
Who can they vote for?
EO 157: For the 1987 election, they can vote
only for senators
Section 12, RA 7166 : President, VP and
Senators
Section 2, RA 10380 : President, VP, Senators
and Party List representatives
Section 169, Omnibus Election Code: All
candidates.

Suffrage for PWDs & Illiterates

Section 2(2), Article V, 1987 Constitution
The Congress shall also design a
procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to
vote without the assistance of other persons.
Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission
on Elections may promulgate to protect the
secrecy of the ballot.
Section 11, RA 10366
SEC.
11. Assistance
in
the
Accomplishment of the Ballot. A person with
disability or senior citizen who is illiterate or
physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself
or herself may be assisted in the preparation of
his or her ballot by a relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth civil degree, or if he or
she has none, by any person of his or her
confidence who belongs to the same household,
or by any member of the BEls. For this purpose,
the person who usually assists the person with
disability or senior citizen, such as a personal
assistant, a caregiver or a nurse shall be
considered
a
member
of
his
or
her
household: Provided,That no voter shall be
allowed to have an assistor on the basis of
illiteracy or physical disability unless it is so
indicated in his or her registration record.
Nevertheless, if the physical inability to prepare
the ballot is manifest, obvious, or visible, said
voter shall be allowed to be assisted in
accomplishing the ballot by a qualified assistor,
even if not stated or indicated in the registration
record:Provided, further, That the assistor must
be of voting age.
The assistor shall hind himself or herself 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 or her, and shall prepare the
ballot for the voter inside the voting booth.
Except for the members of the BEIs, no assistor
can assist for more than three (3) times. Any
violation of this provision shall constitute an
election offense punishable under Section 262 of
the Omnibus Election Code.

Who may be assisted?

A person with disability

A senior citizen who is illiterate or

physically unable to personally prepare
the ballot
Provided:
Such physical inability is of such nature as
to prevent the voter from personally
accomplishing the ballot.
Such physical inability or illiteracy is
indicated in the registration record.
Except:
If the physical inability is manifest.

Who can assist?

Relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the 4th civil degree
If none, person of confidence who belong
to the same household.
Or, by any member of the BEI
Common qualification: of voting age.
How the assistor votes?
Assistor votes inside the voting booth
Declares under oath:
To fill out the ballot strictly according to
the instructions of the voter
Not to reveal the contents of the ballot.
Limitation:
Assistor cannot assist more than 3 times.
Section 9. Creation of Precincts for Persons
with Disabilities and Senior Citizens
Authorizes 1 accessible polling place for
every voting center
Exclusive for PWDs and senior citizens
who in their registration records manifest
their intent to avail of a separate polling
place.
Non-territorial in nature.
Provided with:
o Assistive devices
o Services of experts in assisting
PWDs.
Section 14, Continuing Registration Act:
Registration of PWDs and illiterate
applicants
Who may be assisted in voters registration:
Illiterate persons
Persons with disability
Who can assist?
Illiterate Election officer or member of
the accredited citizens arm
PWDs Election officer or member of the
accredited citizens arm or relative within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity.
How assisted?

Illiterate or PWD is under oath

Interviewed and answers are recorded
Contents of the form is read aloud
Affirmation and attestation
Voters registration defined
Section 3(a) RA 8189:
The act of accomplishing and filing a
sworn application for registration by a qualified
voter before the election officer of the city or
municipality wherein he resides and including the
same in the book of registered voters upon
approval by the Election Registration Board.
Yra v. Abano
Facts: An aspiring lawyer from the province went
to the city to study law where he also registered
as a voter. When he became a lawyer, he
returned to the province, ran for and won as
municipal president. But he was not able to
register as a voter in the municipality because he
failed to cancel his registration in the city on
time. Thus, his election was challenged in the
ground that being not registered, he is ineligible
to run for and be elected. It was established
however that the municipal president was a
resident of the municipality but is not registered
as a voter there.
Held: Eligibility is not affected by failure to
register. Registration does not confer suffrage but
a mere condition precedent to its exercise.
Registration merely regulates not qualifies
suffrage.
Section 8. System of Continuing
Registration of Voters
Daily in the Office of Election Officer
during office hours.
Except:
120 days before a regular election
90 days before a special election
Akbayan-Youth v. Comelec
Facts: The Comelec conducted voters
registration until December 27, 2000. Petitioners,
who claim to represent the youth sector, asked it
conduct registration on February 17 and 18,
2001. They said that around 4 million youth
voters aged 18 to 21 failed to register on or
before the deadline hence the need for extension.
It was also anchored on the renewed political
awareness and interest among th youth to
participate in the political process generated by
the recent political events in the country. The
Comelec refused on the ground that it will affect
its preparations for the elections. Contrary to
popular belief, voters registration is not limited
to the act of going to the election officers and
writing down the names. Applications for
registration are subject to hearing, notice, and
action of the Election Registration Board.

Following pre election acts need to be done:

Complete the project of precincts
Constitution of the Board of Election
Inspectors
Inspection, verification, and sealing of
book of voters
Finalization of computerized voters list
Preparation, bidding, printing and
distribution of the Voters Information
Sheets, among many others.
But the petitioners argue that the Comelec is
empowered to designate other dates of pre
election acts pursuant to Sec 29 of RA 6646 and
Sec 28 of RA 8436.
Held: Suffrage is not absolute, it is subject to
substantive and procedural requirements.
Registration is a procedural limitation. It is an
indispensable precondition to suffrage.
It was argued that the Comelec is
endowed with standby or residual powers to
designate other dates for certain pre-election
acts. While voters registration is a pre-election
act, we cannot ask the Comelec to do the
impossible. The designation of other dates should
be premised on the capability of reasonable
performance.
Kabataan Party-List Rep. Palatino v.
Comelec
Facts: The Comelec resolved to register voters
from December 2, 2008 to December 15, 2009
for the purpose of the May 10, 2010 national and
local elections. It however resolved to adjust the
deadline from December 15, 2009 to October 31,
2009 to afford it more time to prepare for the
automated elections. It was argued that based in
the National Statistics Office data, the projected
voting population from age group 18-24 is 12.5
million which could be disenfranchised for failure
to register. It encroaches on the legislative power
by amending Section 8 RA 8189 to expand the
prohibitive period of registration. But Comelec
argues that it is empowered to fix other periods
and dates for pre-election activities.
Held: The period outside the 120-day prohibition
is sufficient for Comelec to prepare for the
elections. While Comelec has rule-making power,
it must be exercised in accordance with prevailing
law. The power to fix other periods can be used
only if the activities cannot be reasonably held
within the period provided by law.
Difference between the Akbayan and
Kabataan rulings:
In Akbayan, the petition was filed during
the prohibited period and the extension
prayed for falls on the prohibitive period.

In Kabataan, the petition and the period

prayed for were both outside of the 120day prohibitive period.

Who may register as a voter?

Filipino citizen not disqualified by law
At least 18 years of age on or before
election
Resident of the PH for at least 1 year and
the place where he or she proposed to
vote for at least 6 months prior to election.
Who are otherwise disqualified by law to
register?
(1) Sentenced by final judgement to suffer
imprisonment of not less than 1 year
Unless:
Removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty
5 years have lapsed after service of
sentence
(2) Sentenced by final judgement for any
crime involving disloyalty to the
government
Such as:
Rebellion, sedition
Violation of firearms law
Any crime against national security
Unless:
Restored to full civil and
political rights in
accordance with law.
5 years have lapsed after
service of sentence.
(3) Insane or incompetent persons declared
as such by competent authority
Unless:
Subsequently declared by
competent authority that such
person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
Contents of

application for registration

Name, surname and middle name
Date and place of birth
Citizenship
Civil status, if married, name of
spouse
Profession, occupation or work
Periods of residence in the
Philippines and in the place
Exact address
Statement that applicant possesses
all qualification of a voter
Statement that applicant is not a
registered voter of another precinct
Such information or date as may be
required by the Commission

Romualdez v. RTC

Facts: A natural-born Filipino constructed his

house in a place where he became its punong
baranggay. When the regime of President Marcos
was about to end, he and his family fled the
country and sought asylum in the US which was
granted. Five years later however, he received a
letter from the US Immigration and Naturalization
Service that he should depart on or before a
certain date otherwise he will be deported. Thus,
he was forced to leave even without any
government document. When he arrived in the
country, he returned to his barangay and
registered as a voter. But it was sought to be
excluded in the MTC in the following grounds:
a. He is a resident of, practices his profession
and works in the USA
b. He just arrived in the country
c. As such, he did not have the 1 year
residency in the country and 6 month
residency in the place where he
registered.
d. He argued that he has been a resident of
the barangay and he never abandoned it.
The MTC denied the exclusion. On appeal to the
RTC however, it reversed the denial and ordered
the exclusion. The MTC and RTC have no
jurisdiction because it was filed by one who did
not allege he was a registered voter of the place.
The RTC erred in deciding that he voluntarily left
the country and abandoned his residence.
Held: While it is true that jurisdiction may be
assailed any time, it is deemed waived by the
active participation where he even prayed that
the decision of the MTC be affirmed.
Residence and domicile are synonymous in
election cases. Domicile imports not only
intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention.
To acquire a new domicile of choice, the following
requisites concur:
a. Residence or bodily presence in the new
locality
b. Intention to remain there or animus
manendi
c. Intention to abandon the old domicile or
animus non revertendi
The purpose to remain must be for an indefinite
period of time. The change of residence must be
voluntary. The new domicile chose must be
actual.
The political situation brought by the people
power must have caused great apprehension and
serious concern over the safety of the family that
forced them to self-exile. Thus, their sudden
departure from the country cannot be deemed
voluntary or abandonment of residence.

It must be emphasized that the right to vote is

most precious political right, as well as a bounden
duty of every citizen, enabling and requiring him
to participate in the process of government so as
to ensure that the government can truly be said
to derive its power solely from the consent of the
governed. (Pungatan v. Abubakar)
Grounds for deactivation of registration:
1. Final judgement to suffer imprisonment for
not less than 1 year
2. Final judgement for any crime involving
disloyalty to the government
3. Insane or incompetent persons declared
as such by competent authority
4. Failure to vote for 2 successive regular
elections
5. Court order in exclusion proceedings
6. Loss of Filipino citizenship
7. Failure to validate
Remedy for deactivation: Reactivation
Ground for cancellation of registration:
Death
How to establish death:
Certification by the Local Civil Registrar
Submission by the LCR of a certified list of
those who died during the previous month
to the election officer of the place where
the deceased is registered.
Transfer of registration
Modes of Transfer
Change of residence to another city or
municipality
Change of address within the same city or
municipality
Another city or municipality:
The registered voter may apply with the
election officer of his new residence.
Within the same city or municipality:
Immediately notify the election officer in
writing
If change of address involves change of
precinct, the Board shall transfer the
registration and notify the voter of the
new precinct.
Exclusion through inadvertence or
registered with an erroneous or misspelled
name
Remedy: apply for inclusion or reinstatement
and correction of entry
If denied or not acted by the ERB:
Petition the MTC for entry or correction, as
the case may be.
Election Registration Board (ERB)
Composition:
Chair: Election Officer

Members:
o Public school official most senior in
rank
o Local Civil Registrar
Disqualification:
Relationship within the fourth civil degree
to each other and to any incumbent
elective official of the city or municipality.
Powers:
Acts on all applications for registration,
transfer, reactivation, correction of entry
Deactivated registration
Cancels registration
Decides challenges on the right to register
When: quarterly
Challenges to right to register
Grounds: not specified
Who can challenge:
Any voter, candidate
Or representative of a registered political
party
Common rules for inclusion and exclusion
proceedings and correction of names:
Petition refers to 1 precinct, impleads the
ERB
Any voter, candidate or party may
intervene
Decision is based on evidence within 10
days from filing
Heard and decided within 10 days from
filing
Appeal is decided within 10 days from
receipt
Not later than 15 days before electionday
Decision is final and executor
If the question is whether the voter is real,
non-appearance on the day set for hearing
is prima facie evidence the voter is
fictitious.
Grounds for inclusions:
a. Disapproval of application for registration
by the ERB
b. Removal of name from list of voters
Grounds for exclusion: not specified
Who can file for inclusion?
Any person whose application was
disapproved or name was removed.
Who can file for exclusion?
a. Any registered voter
b. Representative of a political party
c. Election officer
Where to file inclusion and exclusion: MTC
When to include? Anytime except:
a. 105 days prior to regular election
b. 75 days prior to special election
When to exclude? Anytime except:
a. 100 days prior to regular election

b.
What
a.
b.

65 days before special election

to attach to the petition:
Inclusion Certificate of disapproval, POS
Exclusion Proof of notice to ERB and
voter

Challenge to right to register distinguished

from inclusion and exclusion proceeding:
a. The first is administrative, the second is
judicial
b. Any questions involving suffrage is
removed from the jurisdiction of the
Comelec.
c. But exclusion of election returns from
canvassing pertains to the administrative
jurisdiction of the Comelec (Pungutan v.
Abubakar)
d. The first involves the right to register, the
second involves the right to vote.
Inclusion and Exclusion Distinguished
a. Prohibited time:
- Inclusion : 105 & 75 days
- Exclusion: 100 & 65 days
b. Time decided:
- Inclusion: 15 days from
filing
- Exclusion: 10 days
c. Grounds:
- Inclusion: disapproval or
removal
- Exclusion: not specified
d. Party to file:
- Inclusion : voter
- Exclusion: any registered
voter, representative of
political party, election
officer
e. Proof of service of petition:
- Inclusion: ERB
- Exclusion: ERB and
challenged voter
Facts:
The Municipal Trial Court excluded a voter in one
place and transferred his registration to another.
Held:
Exclusion merely removes a name from
the voters list, it does not include transfer.
It is summary in nature hence the rule of
res judicata does not apply.
Subject matter of exclusion is removal
from list whereas quo warranto involves
expulsion from office.
It does not preclude the Comelec from
inquiring into the residence and
citizenship qualification of a candidate.
(Domino v. Comelec)
Facts:
The Comelec excluded election return on the
ground that they are spurious and/or

manufactured or no returns at all as these were

prepared through massive violence, terrorism and
fraud. Voting was done by persons other than the
registered voters while armed men went from one
polling place to another, prepared the ballots and
dictated how the election return should be
prepared. It was argues that since the Comelec
has no jurisdiction to decide the right to vote, it
cannot exclude election returns because it
disenfranchises votes which is purely judicial.
Held:
It is true that inclusion or exclusion from
the list of voters is a purely judicial power
to the exclusion of the Comelec. But to
determine whether an election was held is
purely within the administrative
jurisdiction of the Comelec.
The disenfranchisement is only
provisional, subject to the final
determination of the validity of votes in an
election protest. (Pungutan v. Abubakar)
Confidentiality of voters registration
records:
Section 41, Continuing Registration Act:
Open to public examination during regular
office hours.
Legitimate inquiries on election related
matters.
Law enforcement agencies
Upon prior authority and subject to
regulations by the Commission
Access registration records necessary or in
aid of their investigative functions
Section 9, RA 10367 on database security:
Not used under any circumstance except
for electoral exercises
Minute Res. No. 13-1132, Oct. 17, 2013
Acts on the request of the BSP
For use in application for tax identification
numbers in connection with consolidation
of titles to properties acquired by BSP
Office of the President
Notice to former employees with
unliquidated cash advances
Requests for voters registration record may be
granted only if it is done by:
The voter or his/her authorized
representative
Court order
-exclusively for use in electoral cases
pending before it
Annulment of list of voters, grounds:
Section 39, Continuing Registration Act:
Not prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the Continuing Registration
Act

Prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery,

impersonation, intimidation, force or any
similar irregularity
Contains statistically improbable data

Who annuls?
The Commission upon verified petition of:
- Any voter
- Election officer
- Duly registered political party
Limitations:
No ruling, order, or decision annulling the
book of voters shall be executed within 90
days before an election.
Facts:
In a special election for district representative,
there were 39, 801 registered voters in one
municipality. One candidate obtained 482 votes
while the other got 35,581 votes. During
canvassing, he objected to the returns of that
municipality on the ground that they appeared to
be tampered with or falsified. Owing to the great
excess of votes. In that municipality, there were
only 42 polling places, which if multiplied by 300
results in 12,600 voters only, way below the
36,663 who cast their votes, or a difference of
23,947 ghost voters. In his petition however, he
admitted that there was an error because the
municipality had 148 polling places. But he said
that if the returns from the municipality are
excluded, he will win by 5,301 votes. But the
objections were denied for being filed out of time.
The other candidate was proclaimed.
He petitioned to annul the proclamation and
prayed for his proclamation. While these were
pending however, a candidate for governor
petitioned to annul the list of coters of the
municipality. It was opposed by the proclaimed
congressional candidate. The Comelec annulled
the list of voters in the ground that of massive
irregularities committed in its preparation and for
being statistically improbable. Another list was
prepared yielding only 12,555 names.
He then filed a supplemental pleasing to entreat
the annulment in his pending petitions to annul
proclamation of the other candidate and for his
proclamation. But the Comelec dismissed it on
the ground that while there may he padding of
the list of voters, it cannot annul the elections
otherwise it disenfranchises the good or valid
votes.
Padding of voters list, like fraud and terrorism, is
not a proper issue to be raised in a preproclamation controversy, but in an election
protest.

He now contends that the issue he raised refers

to obviously manufactured returns hence a
proper pre-proclamation issue. The election
returns in the municipality should be excluded in
the canvass because the list of voters has been
finally annulled. There is no need to re-litigate in
an election protest the matter of annulment
because it is already fait accompli.

investigated and found that: the supposed

barangay Padian Torogan does not exist.

Held:
There is no great excess of votes since
only 36,000 voted out of 39,000 registered
voters.
The Lagumbay case, heavily relied in by
petitioner, deals with the preparation of
manufactured returns while this case
deals with the preparation of the list of
voters, a matter which is not reflected in
the face of the returns.
Padding of list of voters is not a proper
ground in a pre-proclamation controversy.
The new list of voters cannot be applied to
determine the number of cotes in a
previous election. The Comelec is not
empowered to annul a previous election
on the bases of a subsequent annulment
of voters list. It has no retroactive effect.
In Bashier vs. Comelec, it was held that
the subsequent annulment of voters list in
a separate proceedings where the
protagonists are not parties, cannot
retroactively and without due proves annul
the previous election.
The voters list in the previous elections is
valid and unquestioned prior to and on the
day of election.
It was the only legitimate roster used a
basis for voting.
In the absence of prior petition to set it
aside, it is considered conclusive evidence
of persons who could vote in that
particular election.
Since the winning candidate was already
proclaimed, the pre-proclamation case
dies, the next remedy is an election
protest before a proper forum, which is the
House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal. (Ututalum v. Comelec)

When the people around the area were asked

who among them is registered in Padian Torogan,
none of them answered in the affirmative. Based
on this report, the Comelec ruled that Padian
Torogan is a ghost precinct and should be
excluded in the special election.

Sarangani v. Comelec
Facts:
Way back in the 1950s and during the martial law
era, the dead, the birds and the bees voted in
Lanao. Several precincts and their books of voters
were sought to be annulled on the ground that
they contained ghost voters. It was opposed by
the incumbent mayor and 23 punong barangays
on the ground that the move is merely intended
to diminish his bailiwicks. The Comelec

The area that has only 2 structures, one a

concrete house without a roof and the other a
wooden structure without walls and roof. The
name Padian Torogan means a cemetery and not
a residential place.

Held:
It is erroneous for Comelec to rule that
Padian Torogan is a ghost precinct because
it is a barangay which should have at least
1 precinct. But since it is a factual matter
to be determined by Comelec in the
exercise of its administrative power, the
Court refuses to review.
It is not impossible for barangay not to
have actual inhabitants because people
migrate.
A barangay may officially exist on the
record and the fact that nobody resides
there does not result in its automatic
cessation as a unity of local government.
Under the LGC, abolition of a local
government unit may be done by
Congress if it involves a province, city or
municipality.
If it involves a barangay, it may be done
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
Sangguniang Panlungsod concerned
subject to plebiscite, except in Metro
Manila areas and cultural communities.
The findings of Comelec, being an
administrative agency, cannot be reversed
on appeal or certiorari especially when no
significant facts and circumstances are
shown to have been overlooked or
disregarded which when considered would
have substantially affected the outcome of
the case.
No voter is disenfranchised because no
such voter exists.
Suffrage is not tampered with when a list
of fictitious voters is excluded from
election.
Suffrage is conferred by the Constitution
only on citizens who are qualified to vote
and who are not otherwise disqualified by
law.
The exclusion of non-existent voters all
the more protects the validity and
credibility of the electoral process as well

as suffrage because the sovereign will is

not rendered nugatory by the inclusion of
some ghost voters.