I.

Election and Suffrage

1. Definition
Suffrage- the right and the obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the election of
certain national and local officers of the government and in the decision of public
questions submitted to the people.
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. (Article V, 1987 Constitution).

In this petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of the CA declaring del Fierro
as the candidate-elect mayor of Paracale, Camarines Norte with a majority vote over
Moya. He contended that the CA committed errors in admitting and counting in favor
of del Fierro several ballots.
The SC dismissed the petition because in result even if the ballots contested are
counted in favor of Moya, del Fierro still wins by one vote.
The SC avers that in republicanism, the citizens have the voice in the government
and whenever called upon to act in justifiable cases to give it efficacy and not to
stifle. This is the fundamental reason for the rule that ballots should be read and
appreciated if not with utmost, with reasonable liberality.

Election- the means by which the people choose their officials for definite and fixed
periods and to whom they entrust, for the time being as their representatives, the
exercise of powers of the government.
The embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the
people
- The choice of candidates to public office by popular vote
- From depositing of ballots to certification of results
- any election used in Consti includes all election in the country

REGULAR election- election participated in by those who possess the right

of suffrage, not disqualified by law and are registered voters

SPECIAL election- held when there is a failure of election on the scheduled

date of regular election in a particular place or which is conducted to fill up
certain vacancies, as provided by law
o Involves the selection or choice of a candidate by popular vote o conduct of the
polls

petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of the CA declaring Agripino

Ga. del Fierro, the candidate-elect (majority of three votes ) for mayor of the
municipality of Paracale, Province of Camarines Norte over Irineo Moya.

IRINEO MOYA, petitioner

AGRIPINO GA. DEL FIERO, respondent

Ponente: LAUREL, J.:

2. History (of the Omnibus Election Code)

FACTS:

3. Cases:

December 14, 1937 general elections was held. Parties herein were contending
candidates for the office of Mayor in Paracale, Province of Camarines Norte. After
the canvass of the returns the municipal council, acting as board of canvassers,
proclaimed petitioner as the elected mayor of said municipality (102 votes).

Moya vs. Del Fierro 69 PHIL 199 (1939) (GR No L-46863, November 18, 1939)
Recit ready:

December 27, 1937 respondent field a motion of protest in the CFI of Cam Norte,
1

July 13, 1939 CA rendered the judgment hereinbefore mentioned which is sought
by the petitioner to be reviewed and reversed.

c.

Ballot Exhibit F-77 in precinct No. 2 - should have been rejected

by CA. The ballot bears the distinguishing mark "O. K." placed
after the name "M. Lopis" written on space for vice-mayor. The
contention of the petitioner in this respect is likewise sustained.

MOYAS CONTENTION:

d.

Ballot Exhibit F-9 in precinct No. 2 - properly admitted for

respondent. On this ballot the elector wrote within the space for
mayor the name of Regino Guinto, a candidate for the provincial
board and wrote the respondent's name immediately below the
line for mayor but immediately above the name "M. Lopez" voted
by him for vice-mayor.

e.

Ballot F-131 in precinct No. 1 - also properly counted for the

respondent. On this ballot the elector wrote the respondent's
name on the space for vice-mayor, but, apparently realizing his
mistake, he placed an arrow connecting the name of the
respondent to the word "Mayor" (Alcalde) printed on the left side of
the ballot.

f.

Ballot F-7 in precinct No. 5 - admissible for the respondent and CA

committed no error in so adjudicating. Although the name of the
respondent is written on the first space for member of the
provincial board, said name is followed in the next line by "Bice"
Culastico Palma, which latter name is followed in the next line by
word "consehal" and the name of a candidate for this position.

g.

Ballot F-1 in precinct No. 2 - valid for the respondent. On this

ballot the Christian name of the respondent was written on the
second space for member of the provincial board, but his surname
was written on the proper space for mayor with no other
accompanying name or names.

h.

Ballot F-44 in precinct No. 2 valid for respondent. "Agripino F.

Garcia" appears written on the proper space. In his certificate of
candidacy the respondent gave his name as "Agripino Ga. del
Fierro."

CA committed errors in admitting and counting infavor of del Fierro several

ballots. (8 ballots either inadvertently or contrary to the controlling decisions
of this Honorable Court, 3 ballots marked "R. del Fierro", 7 ballots marked
"Rufino del Firro", 72 ballots marked "P. del Fierro")

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ballots were read and appreciated correctly

RULING:
1.

Involving the eight (8) ballots

a.

b.

Ballot Exhibit F-175 in precinct No. 2 - if the error attributed to the

CA consisted in having admitted ballot in precinct No. 2 instead of
the ballot bearing the same number corresponding to precinct No.
1, and this latter ballot clearly appears admissible for the
respondent because the name written on the space for mayor is
"Primo del Fierro" or "Pimo de Fierro", the error is technical and
deserves but scanty consideration.
Ballot Exhibit F-26 in precinct No. 3 - erroneously admitted for the
respondent by CA, the name written on the space for mayor being
"G.T. Krandes. Intention of the elector is rendered vague and
incapable of ascertaining and the ballot was improperly counted
for the respondent. As to this ballot, the contention of the petitioner
is sustained.

2.

Involving the three (3) ballots

a.

Ballot Exhibit F-119 in precinct No. 1

b.

Ballot Exhibit F-24 in precinct No. 2

c.

Ballot Exhibit F-6 in precinct No. 4.

-

3.

Involving the seven (7) ballots

-

4.

These three ballots appear to be among the 75 ballots found

by CA as acceptable for the respondent on the ground that
the initial letter "P" stands for "Pino" in "Pino del Fierro" which
is a name mentioned in the certificate of candidacy of the
respondent.

"Rufino del Fierro" was voted for the office of mayor the Court
ruled that the position taken by the CA is correct. There was no
other candidate for the office of mayor with the name of "Rufino" or
similar name and, as the respondent was districtly identified by his
surname on these ballots, the intention of the voters in preparing
the same was undoubtedly to vote for the respondent of the office
for which he was a candidate.

Involving the 72 ballots

-

P. del Fierro" was voted for the office of mayor - "P" stands for
"Pino" in "Pino del Fierro" which is a name mentioned in the
certificate of candidacy of the respondent, the Court hold that
there was no error in the action of CA in awarding the said ballots
to the respondent.

Exception:
a.

Exhibit F-26 in precinct No. 3

b.

Exhibit F-77 in precinct No. 2

As long as popular government is an end to be achieved and safeguarded, suffrage

must continue to be the manes by which the great reservoir of power must be
emptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the people through their
Constitution in the interest of good government and the common weal.
Republicanism (representative type of government) necessarily points to the
enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source
of the established authority. He has a voice in his Government and whenever called
upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle it. This,
fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots should be read and appreciated,
if not with utmost, with reasonable, liberality.

*Crediting petitioner with the two ballots to have been erroneously admitted by CA
for respondent, the latter still wins by one vote.
*Petition for the writ of certiorari dismissed.

Badelles vs Cabili
27 SCRA 113 (February 27, 1969)
Recit-ready
This is an appeal of the order of the lower court dismissing the election protest filed
against the duly proclaimed mayor of Iligan City, Camilo P. Cabili. The appellant
seeks the reversal of the order dated March 23, 1968 dismissing his election protest
for his failure to allege a cause of action to justify and to try the same.
The lower court concluded that mere irregularities or misconduct on the part of
election officers which do not tend to affect the result of the elections are not
grounds for contest or for proper matters of inquiry. According to the lower court,
there was no allegation in the petition that those who failed to vote are for herein
petitioner Badelles and those illegal voters are for the responded Cabili.
SC reversed the said order and remanded the two cases to the lower court for
proceeding and trial in accordance with the opinion and the law. Its dismissal
3

according to them would amount to judicial abnegations of a sworn duty to inquire

into and pass upon in a appropriate proceeding, allegations of misconduct and of
such characters.
If there be a failure to observe the mandates of the Election Code, the aggrieved
parties should no be left remediless. Under the law as it stands, it is precisely an
election protest that fitly serves that purpose.
FACTS: Two election protests against the duly proclaimed Mayor and Councilors of
Iligan City, after the elections, based on the allegations of flagrant violations of
certain mandatory provisions of the Election Code, to be more specifically set forth
hereafter, were dismissed in a single order by the Court of First instance of Lanao
del Norte.
In one of them, the election of Honorable Camilo P. Cabili to the Office of City Mayor
of Iligan City, was contested by protestant, Mariano Badelles. In the other, the
protestants are the now appellants, Bonifacio P. Legaspi and Cecilio T. Barazon,
who along with the five protestees were among those who were registered
candidates voted for in such election for councilors in the City of Iligan, with the
protestees being credited with the five highest number of votes, with protestants
Legaspi and Barazon obtaining sixth and seventh places respectively.
In the petition of protestant Badelles, it was stated that both he and protestee Camilo
P. Cabili were the duly registered candidates for the Office of City Mayor of Iligan
City, both having filed their
respective certificates of candidacy in accordance with law and as such candidates
voted for in the November 14, 1967 election. It was then alleged that the Board of
Canvassers, on November 25,
1967, proclaimed as elected protestee. Protestant would impugn the election of
Cabili on the ground that there were "flagrant violations of mandatory provisions of
law relating to or governing elections .." in that more than 200 voters were registered
per precinct contrary to the provision limiting such number of 200 only and that no
publication of the list of voters for each precinct was made up to the election day
itself, enabling persons who under the law could not vote being allowed to do so. As
a result of such alleged "flagrant violations of the laws relative to or governing
elections" around 8,300 individuals were allowed to vote illegally.
It was likewise asserted that not less than 8,000 qualified voters were unable to
exercise their right of suffrage in view of their failure, without any fault on their part,
to have the proper identification cards or the non-listing of their names in the list of
voters. It was stated further that even in the case of those individuals provided with
identification cards with their names included in the list of voters, they could not avail
themselves of their right of suffrage as their applications for registration could not be

found. Mention was also made of the fact that the final lists of voters and the
applications for registration were delivered to their respective precincts late on
election day itself thus preventing
them from voting. Moreover, confusion, so it was alleged, was caused by the
excessive number of voters being listed and many having been assigned to
precincts other than the correct ones.
What was thus objected to is the fact that illegal votes were cast by those not
qualified to do so, numbering 8,300 or more and that an approximately equal
number, who were duly registered with the
Commission on Elections, Iligan City, were unable to vote due to the above
circumstances. The proclamation then could not have reflected the true will of the
electorate as to who was the mayor
elected, as the majority of protestee Cabili over the protestant consisted of only
2,344 votes.
The prayer was for the proclamation of protestee as well as other candidates for
elective positions being set aside and declared null and void, protestant pleading
further that he be granted other such
relief as may be warranted in law and equity. The protest of the candidates for
councilor Legaspi and Barazon, in the other case against protestees was in
substance similarly worded.
In the first case, protestee Cabili moved to dismiss the petition on the following
grounds: "1. That the protest was filed beyond the reglementary period; 2. That the
lower court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the COMELEC being the
proper body to hear the same; 3. That the complaint states no cause of action."
The single order of dismissal in both cases as indicated was based on the lack of a
cause of action. The reasoning followed by the lower court in reaching the above
conclusion that there was no cause of action proceeded along these lines: "Mere
irregularities or misconduct on the part of election officers which do not tend to affect
the result of the elections are not of themselves either ground for contest or for
proper matters of inquiry. . . .There is no allegation in the protest that the alleged
irregularities committed by the election officers would tend to change the result of
the election in favor of the protestants and against the protestees.
ISSUE: WON the trial courts dismissal was valid.
HELD: Without the lower court having so intended, the dismissal would amount to
judicial abnegation of a sworn duty to inquire into and pass upon in an appropriate
4

proceeding allegations of misconduct and misdeeds of such character. Accordingly,

we reverse.
Why an election protest is more fitly and appropriately the procedure for determining
whether irregularities or serious violations of the electoral law vitiated the conduct of
elections was clearly and succinctly explained in the Moscoso decision, the opinion
coming from Justice Makalintal.
Thus: "The question of whether or not there had been terrorism, vote-buying and
other irregularities in the 1959 elections in Tacloban City should be ventilated in a
regular election protest, pursuant to Section 174 of the Election Code, and not in a
petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers from canvassing the
election returns and proclaiming the winning candidates for municipal offices."
It would follow then that if the grievance relied upon is the widespread irregularities
and the flagrant violations of the election law, the proper remedy is the one availed
of here, the protest. That such should be the case should occasion no surprise. If
that right be disregarded or frittered away, then popular sovereignty becomes a
myth.
A republic then to be true to its name requires that the government rests on the
consent of the people, consent freely given, intelligently arrived at, honestly
recorded, and thereafter counted.
Only thus can they be really looked upon as the ultimate sources of established
authority. It is their undeniable right to have officials of their unfettered choice. The
election law has no justification
except as a means for assuring a free, honest and orderly expression of their views.
It is of the essence that corruption and irregularities should not be permitted to taint
the electoral process.
It may not always be thus unfortunately. That should be the ideal however. If there be
a failure to observe the mandates of the Election Code, the aggrieved parties should
not be left remediless.
Under the law as it stands, it is precisely an election protest that fitly serves that
purpose. It was sought to be thus utilized in these two cases, perhaps in a rather
awkward and far from entirely
satisfactory manner. That in itself is no reason for the courts to slam the door against
any opportunity for redress. Yet, that is what would happen if the order of dismissal
complained of were not set aside.
Hence the inevitability of its reversal. The scope of our decision must not be
misinterpreted however.

All that it directs is that the protestees in both cases be required to answer.
Thereafter, if, as is not unlikely, there be a denial of the serious imputations made as
to the alleged irregularities, the lower
court could properly inquire into what actually transpired. After the facts are thus
ascertained in accordance with the accepted procedural rules, then the appropriate
law could be applied. It must be clearly emphasized that we do not at this stage
intimate any view as to the merit, or lack of it, of either protest. That would be
premature to say the least. All we do is to set aside the order of dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal of March 23, 1968, is reversed and the two
cases remanded to the lower court for proceeding and trial in accordance with this
opinion and the law. Without costs.
Dissenting opinion of Justice Puno in Tolentino vs Comelec
Parties: - Petitioners: Arturo Tolentino, Arturo Mojica
- Respondents: COMELEC, Ralph Recto, Gregorio Honasan
- Ponente: Carpio
Background:
This is a petition for prohibition to set aside the COMELECs Resolutions which
proclaimed official and final the 13 candidates elected as Senators in the May 14
2001 elections.
Facts of the Case
In Feb 2001, a Senate seat for a term expiring on June 30 2004 was vacated w/ the
appointment of then Sen. Guingona as VP of the PI.
The Senate then adopted Resolution #84 wc: 1) certified the existence of a vacancy
in the Senate & 2) called the COMELEC to fill up the said vacancy through a special
election to be held simultaneously w/ the regular election on May 14 2001, and 3)
declared the senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall
serve only for the unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona. Accdg to the Senate,
this Resolutn is for the guidance & implementatn of the COMELEC, &that it had
NO discretion to alter the said procedure.
Nobody filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of senator to serve the
unexpired 3yr term in the special electn. All the senatorial candidates filed the
certificates of candidacy for the 12 regular Senate seats w/ a 6yr term each.
5

COMELEC distributed nationwide official documents (eg Voter Info Sheet, List of
Candidates, Sample Ballot). The List of Candidates DID NOT provide 2 different
categories of Senate seats to be voted, namely the 12 regular 6-year term seats &
the single 3-year term seat. Nor did the ballots provide a separate space for the
candidate to be voted in the special election & instead provided 13 spaces for 13
senatorial seats.
Without any COMELEC resolution/notice on the time, place & manner of the special
election, the special election was held on the scheduled May 14 2001 regular
elections.
A single canvassing of votes for a single list of senatorial candidates was also done.
Petitioners assailed the manner by which the special election was conducted for
violating the precedents set by the 1951 & 1955 special elections, both of wc were
held simultaneously & yet distinctly w/ the regular general elections.
Thus, they pray that the Court declare that 1) NO special elections were held & that
2) Comelecs Resolutions that proclaim the Senatorial candidate who obtained the
13th highest # of votes as a duly elected be declared NULL&VOID
Issue/s
Procedural Issues: 1) WON the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter
bec respondents say it is a quo warranto proceeding (a proceeding wc determines
the right of a public officer in the exercise of his office & to oust him from it if his
claim is not well-founded), where only the Senate Electoral Tribunal can serve as
judge.
2) WON the petition is MOOT
3) WON the petitioner have locus standi
Substantive Issue: WON a special election to fill a vacant 3-yr term
Senate seat was validly held on May 14 2001, despite the lack of a call for such an
election & for lack of notice from COMELEC
Ratio Decidendi
The petition HAS NO MERIT.
Procedural Issues: 1) YES, the Court can properly exercise jurisdiction bec what
the petitioners are questioning here is the validity of the special election in wc
Honasan was elected, NOT his right in the exercise of his office as Senator. His
election is merely incidental to the petitioners case of action.

2) Although the petition may be moot, it is no bar for the Court to decide on its
resolution bec the question of the validity of a special election is likely to be repeated
3) YES, the Court shall be liberal in applying its rule of locus standi bec the issues
raised are of transcendental significance & paramount importance to the people, for
it involves the peoples right for suffrage.
Substantive Issue:
YES, a special election to fill a vacant 3-yr term Senate seat was validly held on May
14 2001. Although COMELEC DID NOT COMPLY w/ the requirements of RA 6645,
either strictly or substantially, it does NOT invalidate the special election. WHY?
A) Bec although no calls for special election were made by COMELEC, Sec 2 of RA
6645, as amended by RA 7166 already provides that in case of vacancy in the
Senate, the special election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously w/ the
next succeeding regular election. The law already charges the voters w/ knowledge
of this statutory notice & COMELECs failure to give additional notice did not negate
the calling of such special election, much less invalidate it.
B) Moreover, there is no proof that the COMELECs failure to give a formal notice of
the Office to be filled & the manner of determining the winner in the special election
actually misled voters & thereby changed the results of the election. After all, the
voters can be duly notified through other sources such as media reports & election
propaganda during the campaign.
C) Our election laws DO NOT require that a separate documentation or canvassing
of votes be made for a special election. COMELEC acted w/in its constitutional
powers when it chose to abandon the precedents of the 1951 &1955 special
elections & instead adopted the Senates Resolution 84 wc shall award to the
senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes, the unexpired
Senate term of Sen. Guingona. The Court shall not interfere.
note: the Senate (through Rocos suggestion), in Resolution 84 felt that giving the
3year term to the candidate w/ the 13th highest number of votes was being practical
& economical)
In fine, the Court is loathe to annul elections despite certain irregularities unless it is
impossible to distinguish wc laws are lawful & wc are not. This is to acknowledge the
fact that suffrage is one form of peoples direct participation in government, & it is
thus indispensable in a democratic society like ours.
***REMINDER to COMELEC*** : the Court however, reminded the COMELEC to not
take chances anymore in future elections. COMELEC reminded to next time, comply
strictly w/ all the requirements of the law regarding both regular & special elections.

Appendix:
1) Punos Dissenting Opinion (joined by Davide, Vitug, Ynares-Santiage & Tinga)
The electorate should have been informed of the time, place & manner of conduct of
the May 14 2001 special election for the single senatorial seat for the unexpired term
of VP Guingona. The cases of Tolentino, UNIDO, Blo Umpar Adiong & Hassan all
deepened the doctrine that a meaningful exercise of the right of suffrage in a
genuinely free, orderly&honest election is predicated upon an informed electorate.
The cases of Bince & Benito also teach us that correct ascertainment of the will of
the people is equally necessary. In not allowing the voter to separately indicate the
candidate he voted for the 3yr senatorial term, the voter was deprived of his right to
make an informed judgment based on his own reasons&valuations. Thus, his true
will in the special election was not ascertained.
It is the ponencias argument that RA 6645, as amended by RA 7166 already
provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special election to fill such
vacancy shall be held simultaneously w/ the next succeeding regular election.
However, this is NOT the intention of the said laws, for they still require that the
COMELEC issue an official notice of call of special elections. Likewise, neither RA
6645 nor RA 7166 contemplates the integration of the special election into the
regular election whereby candidates who filed certificates of candidacy for the
regular elections also automatically stand as candidates in the special election. The
Omnibus Election Code is clear that a candidate can run for only 1 position in an
election.
The ponencia likewise cites the Duquette case to lend support to its thesis that
statutory notice suffices. In Duquette, it was held that in the absence of an official
notice of the special election mandated by law to be held simultaneously w/ the
regular election, there should be actual notice of the electorate, as proven by the
voting of a significant percentage of the electorate. In the case at bar however, the
number of votes cast for the special election cannot be ascertained as the ballot did
not indicate separately the votes for special election. Thus, there is neither official
notice nor proof of actual notice.
The Senates observation that the procedure for the special election that it adopted
would be lost costly for the govt as the ballots need not be printed separately does
not justify the manner of the May 14 2001 special election. We cannot bargain the
electorates fundamental right to vote intelligently w/ of the coin of convenience.

Besides, even w/ the Senate observation, the regular ballot had to be modified
anyway, to include a 13th space.
Reliance on RA 6645 as amended by RA 7166 is ERRONEOUS, for under it, it is
the COMELEC and NOT the Senate wc is supposed to call & hold special elections
in case of vacancy. The Senate has NO POWER to impose on the COMELEC the
procedure for the special election.
In fine, the ponencias ruling will not only be a step back in time but also constitute a
fall in the nations rise to democracy. Free elections does not only mean that the
voter is not physically restrained from going to the polling booth but also that the
voter is unrestrained by the bondage of ignorance.
2) 1951 & 1955 elections: In the 1951 & 1955 elections, wc were supposed to
serve as models for special elections: a) a separate space was provided in the
official ballot for senatorial candidates running for the 2yr term, b) candidates for the
single Senate term of 2 yrs filed separate & distinct certificates of candidacy, c)
tallying & canvassing were separated for the regular & special elections.

II. Commission on Elections

1.

History

The Commission on Elections was created by a 1940 amendment to the 1935

Constitution. Its membership was enlarged and its powers expanded by the 1973
and 1987 Constitutions. The Commission exercises not only administrative, but
judicial and quasi-judicial powers.
The Executive Bureau
Before the creation of the Commission, supervision over the conduct of elections
was vested in the Executive Bureau, an office under the Department of Interior and
later directly vested in the Department itself when the Executive Bureau was
abolished.
There was, however, general dissatisfaction over the manner in which elections were
conducted under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. There was growing
suspicion that Secretaries of the Interior administered election laws not for the
purpose of securing honest and free elections, but to serve the political interest of
7

the party in power to which they belonged. They were never entirely free from
suspicion of acting with partisan bias.
The close official relationship between the president and the Secretary of the Interior
bred suspicion that elections served the incumbent Secretary's political interest. The
Secretary of the Interior was directly responsible to the President and his tenure of
office was dependent not only on the pleasure of the President, but also upon the
President's own continuance in office. This set-up only induced increasing distrust in
the verdict at the polls.

The 1973 Constitution enlarged the membership of the Commission from three to
nine but reduced their term of office from nine to seven years.

2.

3.

Statutory Commission
The situation impelled the National Assembly to propose the creation by
constitutional amendment of a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
and two members to take over the functions of the Secretary of the Interior relative to
elections.
By constitutional amendment ratified by the Filipino people in a plebiscite held on
June 17, 1940, all functions heretofore exercised by the Secretary of the Interior
relative to the conduct of elections were transferred to the Commission. However, as
the amendment could not be made effective in time for the 1940 elections, the
National Assembly through Commonwealth Act No. 607 created a statutory
Commission on Elections, giving thereto the same powers which the Commission
would have under the Constitution. The act became effective upon its approval on
August 22, 1940. The Commission immediately functioned on September 14, 1940,
and supervised the December 10, 1940 elections.
Constitutional Commission
The constitutional amendment creating the Commission was finally approved on
December 2, 1940. On June 21, 1941, the Commonwealth Act No. 657 was enacted
reorganizing the Commission as a constitutional body. The members of the statutory
Commission continued as member of the constitutional Commission. The
subordinate personnel, records, documents, and property together with its
unexpected balance in the appropriation were likewise transferred to the newlyorganized Commission.
The Chairman and Members of the Commission had a term of nine years each - a
member being replaced every three years- except those first appointed who were
given nine, six and three-years terms, respectively.

4.

Composition

1 chairman

6 commissioners
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
1. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at the time of their appointment;
2. At least 35 years of age;
3. College degree holders
4. Must not have been candidates for any election immediately preceding
the election;
5. Majority, including the Chairman, are members of the bar, in practice for
at least 10 years

reason for this is that the commission is a quasi-judicial

agency
Powers and Functions
Powers and Functions under the 1987 Constitution
As an independent body, it is clothed with the 3 powers of government:
1. Executive or administrative

to enforce and administer election laws 2. Quasi-legislative

to promulgate rules on all questions affecting the elections

and its rules of procedure
3. Quasi-judicial

To exercise original and appellate jurisdiction over certain

election contests
The powers and functions of the comelec are spelled out in the
Constitution, ART. IX-C Section 2: (EARS JDD ARRF)
1. ENFORCE AND ADMINISTER laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an ELECTION, PLEBISCITE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL;
2. REGISTER, political parties, orgs, and coalitions;
3. SUBMIT TO PRES. AND CONGRESS comprehensive report on conduct
of election, pleb, ref, recall.
4. JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over

Regional, provincial and city officials

8


All contests relating to elections, returns and qualifications
APPELLATE JURISDICTION over

Municipal officials decided by courts of general

jurisdiction

Barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction

5. DECIDE all questions affecting elections, including determination of the
number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors and registration of voters;
6. DEPUTIZE, with the concurrence of the president, law enforcement
agencies, including AFP, for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly elections;
7. ACCREDIT, citizens arms of the comelec.
8. RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS measures to minimize election
spending, limitation of places for propaganda materials and prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses and malpractice
(improvements);
9. RECOMMEND TO THE PRESIDENT the removal of any officers or
employee deputized or for the imposition of disciplinary actions for
violations of election laws;
10. FILE, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE cases of violations of election
laws
Powers and functions under the Omnibus Election Code
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over national and
local officials or employees, including members of any national or local law
enforcement agency; may also deputize ROTC cadets;
Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of the this
code or other laws; and require the payment of legal fees for business done
by comelec;
Summons parties to controversy, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, take testimony and investigate, conduct hearing, issue warrant of
arrest;
Avail assistance of any national or local law enforcement agency to execute
under its direct and immediate supervision any of its final decisions;
Punish contempt;
Enforce and execute decisions which shall have precedence over those
emanating from other authority, except SC and habeas corpus;
Prescribe forms to be used an election, plebiscite and referendum;
Procure any supplies and equipment for elections etc.

9. Prescribe use or adoption of latest technological and electronic devices;

10. Carry out a continuing and systematic campaign through newspaper of
general circulation, radios and other media to educate public;
11. Enlist non-partisan groups or organization of citizens from civic, youth,
professional, educational, business or labor sectors known for their probity,
impartiality and integrity and integrity with the membership and capability to
undertake a coordinated operation and activity to assists it in the
implementation of the provisions of the code and the resolutions, orders
and instructions of the commission;
12. Conduct hearings on controversies;
13. Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-election requirements in order
that voters shall not be deprived of their right of suffrage and certain groups
of rights granted them in the code.
*Unless indicated in the Code, COMELEC is authorized to fix the appropriate
period for the various prohibited acts enumerated therein.
Field Offices

NCR Offices
Regional Offices
Provincial Offices
City/Municipal Offices

Sec. 53. Field offices of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the following
field offices:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) Regional Election Office, headed by the Regional Election Director and assisted
by the Assistant Regional Director and such other subordinate officers or employees
as the Commission may appoint.
(2) Provincial Election Office, headed by the Provincial Election Supervisor and
assisted by such other subordinate officers or employees as the Commission may
appoint.
(3) City/Municipal Election Office, headed by the City/Municipal Registrar who shall
be assisted by an election clerk and such other employees as the Commission may
appoint.
The Commission may delegate its powers and functions or order the implementation
9

or enforcement of its orders, rulings, or decisions through the heads of its field
offices. (Sec. 53, Omnibus Election Code)
Sec. 54. Qualifications. - Only members of the Philippines Bar shall be eligible for
appointment to the position of regional director, assistant regional director, provincial
election supervisor and election registrar: Provided, however, That if there are no
members of the Philippine Bar available for appointment as election registrar, except
in cities and capital towns, graduates of duly recognized schools of law, liberal arts,
education or business administration who possess the appropriate civil service
eligibility may be appointed to said position.
Sec. 55. Office space. - The local government concerned shall provide a suitable
place for the office of the provincial election supervisor and his staff and the election
registrar and his staff: Provided, That in case of failure of the local government
concerned to provide such suitable place, the provincial election supervisor or the
election registrar, as the case may be, upon prior authority of the Commission and
notice to the local government concerned, may lease another place for office and the
rentals thereof shall be chargeable to the funds of the local government concerned.
Sec. 56. Changes in the composition, distribution or assignment of field offices. The Commission may make changes in the composition, distribution and
assignment of field offices, as well as its personnel, whenever the exigencies of the
service and the interest of free, orderly, and honest election so require: Provided,
That such changes shall be effective and enforceable only for the duration of the
election period concerned and shall not affect the tenure of office of the incumbents
of positions affected and shall not constitute a demotion, either in rank or salary, nor
result in change of status: and Provided, further, That there shall be no changes in
the composition, distribution or assignment within thirty days before election, except
for cause and after due notice and hearing, and that in no case shall a regional or
assistant regional director be assigned to a region; a provincial election supervisor to
a province; or a city or municipal election registrar to a city or municipality, where he
and/or his spouse are related to any candidate within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity as the case may be.
Purisima vs. Salanga (G.R. No. L-22335
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
AMANTE P. PURISIMA, petitioner,

December 31, 1965)

HON. ANGELINO C. SALANGA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos

Sur. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and GREGORIO CORDERO, respondents.
Doctrine: Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the expressed will of
the electorate. Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the
votes stated in the election returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for
canvass and proclamation. A comparison with the other copies, and, in case of
discrepancy, a recount, is the only way to remove grave doubts as to the correctness
of said returns as well as of ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.
In the election of November 12, 1963, Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were
among the candidates for any of the three offices of Provincial Board Member of
Ilocos Sur. After the election or on November 25, 1963 the provincial board of
canvassers met and started canvassing the returns for said office.
Purisima noted during the canvass that the returns from some precincts, forty-one
(41) in all, showed on their face that the words and figures for Cordero's votes had
been "obviously and manifestly erased" and superimposed with other words and
figures. For purposes of comparison, the Nacionalista Party copies of the returns for
the aforesaid precincts were submitted to the board. A discrepancy of 5,042 votes in
favor of Cordero was thereby found, thus:
Provincial Treasurer's copy: 7,277 votes for Cordero
Nacionalista Party's copy 2,235 votes for Cordero
A request for suspension of the canvass was thereupon made by Purisima. The
board of canvassers denied said request upon the ground that it was not yet
ascertainable if the discrepancies would materially affect the result. Canvass
proceeded.
After the returns had all been read, the result for the office of third (and last) member
of the Provincial Board was the following:
Cordero- 41,229 votes
Purisima- 39,372 votes.
Difference- 1,857 votes
10

Purisima again called attention to the erasures and discrepancies and asked for
suspension of canvass for him to have recourse to judicial remedy. Denying said
request, the board of canvassers finished the canvass and proclaimed Cordero the
winner, on November 28.
On November 29, Purisima filed a petition in the Commission on Elections to annul
the canvass and proclamation above-mentioned. The Commission on Elections
issued a resolution on November 30, annulling the canvass and proclamation, as
regards Cordero and Purisima.
Purisima, on December 10, filed in the Court of First Instance a petition for recount
under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code. Subsequently, motions to dismiss
the same were filed by the board of canvassers and by Cordero. In his motion to
dismiss, Cordero admitted the erasures and discrepancies on the face of the returns
from 41 precincts, but denied that said erasures were due to tampering or
falsification.
After a preliminary hearing on the motions to dismiss, the Court of First Instance, on
December 27, dismissed the petition for recount. And on December 28, Cordero
filed in the Commission on Elections a motion for resumption of the canvass.
Purisima, on January 2, 1964, moved for reconsideration of the Court of First
Instance's order of dismissal. In the same case, he also filed, on January 8, a
petition for preliminary injunction to restrain the holding of another canvass. Annexed
to said petition were certified photostatic copies of the Comelec's copies of the
returns from the 41 precincts in question. Furthermore, Purisima filed with the
Commission on Elections, on January 11, an opposition to the resumption of the
canvass.
Alleging that the Commission on Elections was about to order the canvass resumed,
Purisima came to this Court, on January 17, 1964, by petition for certiorari with
preliminary injunction. Petitioner asked that the lower court's order dismissing his
petition for recount be set aside and that the Commission on Elections be enjoined
from ordering resumption of the canvass until after the judicial recount.
On January 22, 1964 we ordered respondents to answer, and allowed preliminary
injunction to be issued as prayed for upon the posting of a bond of P500.00. After
respondents filed their answer the case was heard and submitted for decision.

The requisites for judicial recount are set forth in Section 163 of the Revised Election
Code:
When statements of precinct are contradictory. In case it appears to the provincial
board of canvassers that another copy or other authentic copies of the statement
from an election precinct submitted to the board give to a candidate a different
number of votes and the difference affects the result of the election, the Court of
First Instance of the province, upon motion of the board or of any candidate affected,
may proceed to recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of
determining which is the true statement or which is the true result of the count of the
votes cast in said precinct for the office in question. Notice of such proceeding shall
be given to all candidates affected.
In dismissing the petition for recount, respondent Judge stated that some of the
requisites were not present, namely: first, that it appears to the provincial board of
canvassers that a discrepancy exists; second, that said discrepancy is between the
copy submitted to the board and another authentic copy thereof; third, that said
authentic copy must also be submitted to the board.
First of all, it is not disputed that a candidate affected can file the petition for recount,
even if he does so alone, without the concurrence of the provincial board of
canvassers (Cawa v. Del Rosario, L-16837-40, May 30,1960). From the fact,
therefore, that the provincial board of canvassers has not petitioned for a recount it
cannot be inferred that they were not convinced a discrepancy existed.
In fact, when Purisima first called attention to the discrepancy between the
Nacionalista Party copies and the Provincial Treasurer's copies, the board of
canvassers admitted the discrepancy but stated that it was not yet ascertainable
whether the discrepancy would amount to enough votes as to affect the result. There
is no more question now that the number of votes involved in said discrepancy is
more than enough to alter the result.
Finally, in the motion to dismiss filed by the board of canvassers, the existence of the
discrepancy is not disputed, and the board merely raises the defense that the
recount is up to the court and not to said board (Annex D, Petition).
Passing on to the next point, the basis of the petition for recount was not merely a
discrepancy between the Nacionalista Party copies and the Provincial Treasurer's
copies of the returns. Paragraph 8 of said petition shows that, in addition, the
Commission on Elections' copies were relied upon:
11

That as a result of the aforesaid erasures, tampering and apparent falsifications,

there exist discrepancies between the Provincial Treasurer's copies (the basis of the
canvass) of the election returns in the precincts in question, on one hand, and the
copies pertaining to the Nacionalista Party and those pertaining to the Commission
on Elections, on the other, and that said discrepancies materially affect the result of
the election as between herein petitioner and respondent Gregorio Cordero;
Accordingly, even assuming for the nonce a point we do not here decide that
the Nacionalista Party copies are not copies that may be the basis of a petition for
recount, the fact remains that the Commission on Elections' copies were said to
reflect the same discrepancy with the Provincial Treasurer's copies. It is settled that
the Commission on Elections' copies are authentic copies within the meaning of
Section 163 of the Revised Election Code (Laws in v. Escalona, L-22540, July 31,
1964; Matanog v. Alejandro, L-22502-08, June 30, 1964.)
The trial court. however, ruled that the Commission on Elections' copies had no
application to the petition for recount because they were not submitted to the board
of canvassers. The record definitely shows that the reason why Purisima was not
able to submit to the board said Commission on Elections' copies was because the
board declined to suspend the canvass and proclamation.
It is the duty of the board of canvassers to suspend the canvass in case of patent
irregularity in the election returns. In the present case, there were patent erasures
and superimpositions, in words and figures on the face of the election returns
submitted to the board of canvassers. It was therefore imperative for the board to
stop the canvass so as to allow time for verification of authentic copies and recourse
to the courts (Javier v. Commission on Elections, L-22248, January 30, 1965). A
canvass or proclamation made notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting
proper remedies, is null and void (Ibid.). In fact, as stated, the Commission on
Elections declared the canvass and proclamation, made by respondent provincial
board of canvassers, null and void.
Since the board of canvassers prevented Purisima from securing the Commission
on Elections' copies of the returns to establish a discrepancy between them and the
Provincial Treasurer's copies, the failure to submit the Commission on Elections'
copies to said board should not prejudice Purisima's right to petition for recount
before the court. It was therefore grave abuse of discretion for respondent court to
refuse to consider the Commission on Elections' copies, regardless of the patent

and admitted irregularities on the face of the Provincial Treasurer's copies and the
alleged discrepancy amounting to thousands of votes sufficient to affect the results.
Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the expressed will of the
electorate. Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the votes
stated in the election returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for
canvass and proclamation. A comparison with the other copies, and, in case of
discrepancy, a recount, is the only way to remove grave doubts as to the correctness
of said returns as well as of ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.
WHEREFORE, the dismissal of the petition for recount is set aside, respondent
Judge is ordered to proceed with the petition for recount, and respondents
Commission on Elections and Provincial Board of Canvassers are enjoined, until
after the termination of proceedings in the petition for recount, from ordering or
holding another canvass and proclamation as between petitioner Purisima and
respondent Cordero.
Cauton vs COMELEC
LUCAS V. CAUTON, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and PABLO SANIDAD, respondents.
Antonio Barredo for petitioner.
Ramon Barrios for respondent Commission on Elections.
Pablo C. Sanidad and F. D. Villanueva and Associates for respondent Sanidad.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
In the national elections held on November 9, 1965, petitioner Lucas V. Cauton and
respondent Pablo Sanidad, along with Godofredo S. Reyes, were candidates for the
office of Representative in the second congressional district of Ilocos Sur.
During the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur of the votes
cast for the candidates for Representative in the second congressional district of
Ilocos Sur, and particularly after the Board had opened the envelopes containing the
copies of the election returns from each of the election precincts in the municipalities
of Candon, Santiago and Sta. Cruz that were presented by the Provincial Treasurer
of Ilocos Sur to the Board, respondent Sanidad brought to the attention of the Board
the fact that the entries of votes for the candidates for Representative in those
copies of the election returns that came from the envelopes presented by the
12

provincial treasurer differed from the entries appearing in the copies of the returns
from the same election precincts that were in the possession of the Liberal
Party.1wph1.t
Respondent Sanidad filed a petition with the Commission on Elections praying for
the opening of the ballot boxes in all the precincts of Candon, Santiago and Sta.
Cruz, in order to retrieve the election returns deposited therein so that those election
returns might be used in the canvass of the votes for the candidates for
Representative in the second district of Ilocos Sur, and that in the meantime the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sur be ordered to refrain from proclaiming
the winning candidate for the office of Representative in said district. The
Commission on Elections issued the restraining order prayed for by respondent
Sanidad and set his petition for hearing.
After hearing, the Commission on Elections found "that it had been clearly
established that the copies of the election returns for the Municipal Treasurer, for the
Commission on Elections and for the Provincial Treasurer for the municipality of
Santa Cruz have uniform alterations in the entries of the votes cast for
representative showing different number of votes compared with the Liberal Party
copies, while the copies of the election returns for the Commission on Elections and
the Provincial Treasurer for the municipalities of Candon and Santiago have likewise
uniform alterations and showing different numbers compared with the Liberal Party
copies ...."1The copies of the election returns that were furnished the municipal
treasurers of Candon and Santiago were never verified because the municipal
treasurers of those two municipalities did not comply with the subpoena duces
tecum issued by the Commission on Elections directing them to bring to the
Commission the copies of the election returns of the precincts in their respective
municipalities that were in their possession.
On December 22, 1965, respondent Commission on Elections issued an order
providing, among others, that
... to enable the aggrieved party to establish discrepancy between copies of the
election returns provided by law in the aforementioned precincts for the purpose of
obtaining judicial remedy under the provisions of Section 163 of the Revised
Election Code, the Commission Resolved ... to direct immediately the opening of the
ballot boxes of the municipalities of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago which are now
impounded and under the custody of the Zone Commander of the 1st PC Zone in
Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga solely for the purpose of retrieving

therefrom the corresponding election returns, copies for the ballot box, in all the
precincts of said municipalities.
Pursuant to the instructions of respondent Commission, contained in the resolution
of December 22, 1965, the ballot boxes from all the precincts in the municipalities of
Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago were opened by the Chief of the Law Enforcement
Division of the Commission, Atty. Fernando Gorospe, Jr., in the presence of
witnesses, and the envelopes containing the election returns found inside the ballot
boxes were taken and brought to Manila on December 23, 1965.
On the same date, December 23, 1965, herein petitioner, Lucas V. Cauton, filed
before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction,
praying that the resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections dated
December 22, 1965 ordering the opening of the ballot boxes used in all the precincts
of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago in the elections of November 9, 1965 be
annulled and set aside. The petition further prays that the Commission on Elections
be restrained from opening, the envelopes containing the election returns found in
the afore-mentioned ballot boxes and be ordered to return the said envelopes to the
corresponding ballot boxes. In his petition, petitioner alleges that the respondent
Commission on Elections acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the
resolution of December 22, 1965. This Court gave due course to the petition, but did
not issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. This petition is now the case
before Us.
Upon instructions by respondent Commission on Elections, on December 28, 1966,
the envelopes that were taken from the ballot boxes were opened and the election
returns were taken out and their contents examined and recorded by a committee
appointed by the Commission. This was done in a formal hearing with notice to the
parties concerned.
Respondent Pablo C. Sanidad filed his answer to instant petition on January 5,
1966, admitting some of the allegations and denying others, and maintaining that the
Commission on Elections had acted well within the bounds of its authority in issuing
the order of December 22, 1965. Respondent Commission on Elections also filed its
answer on January 5, 1966, maintaining that it has authority under the law to order
the opening of the ballot boxes as stated in its resolution of December 22, 1965.
In the meantime, on the basis of the discrepancies in the entries of the votes for the
candidates for Representative, between the election returns taken out of the ballot
boxes that were opened by order of the Commission of Elections and the election
13

returns submitted by the Provincial Treasurer of Ilocos Sur to the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Ilocos Sur, respondent Pablo C. Sanidad filed a petition with the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, docketed as Election Case No. 16-N, for a
recount of the votes in all the precincts of Candon, Sta. Cruz and Santiago, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 163 of the Revised Election Code.
On February 14, 1966, petitioner filed before this Court in urgent motion, in this
case, praying for the issuance of an order enjoining the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Sur (Branch II-Narvacan) from further proceeding with Election Case No. 16N, abovementioned, pending final decision of the instance case, upon the ground
that the recount of the ballots in that case in the court below would render the instant
case moot and academic. This motion was denied by this Court in a resolution dated
February 17, 1966.
The principal issue in the present case revolves on the of the resolution of the
respondent Commission of Elections, dated December 22, 1965, which orders the
opening of the ballot boxes used in all the precincts in the municipalities of Candon,
Sta. Cruz and Santiago, Ilocos Sur, during the elections of November 9, 1965 for the
purpose of retrieving therefrom the corresponding election returns, copies for the
ballot box, "to enable the aggrieved party to establish discrepancy between copies of
the election returns provided by law in the aforementioned precincts for the purpose
of obtaining judicial remedy under the provisions of Section 163 of the Revised
Election Code."
It is the stand of the petitioner that respondent Commission on Elections is without
jurisdiction to issue, or has acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing, the resolution in
question, so that said resolution is null and void and should not be given legal force
and effect. The petitioner contends that under Section 157 of the Revised Election
Code the Commission on Elections has authority to order the opening of the ballot
boxes "only in connection with an investigation conducted for the purpose of helping
the prosecution of any violation of the election laws or for the purely administrative
purpose but not when the sole purpose is, as in this case, to assist a party in trying
to win the election ...." The petitioner further, contends that "the mere fact that the
copies of the returns in the precincts in question in the possession of the Liberal
Party do not tally with the returns involving the same precincts in the possession of
the Provincial Treasurer, the Commission of Elections and the Nacionalista Party as
well does not legally support the validity of the resolution of the respondent
Commission in question ...."

We cannot sustain the stand of the petitioner. We believe that in issuing the
resolution in question the Commission on Elections simply performed a function as
authorized by the Constitution, that is, to "have exclusive charge of the enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and ... exercise all
other functions which may be conferred upon it by law." The Commission has the
power to decide all administrative questions affecting elections, except the question
involving the right to vote.3
This Court in a line of decisions has ruled that the Commission on Election has the
power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election
returns made by the board of canvassers. In the case of Albano vs. Arranz, L-19260,
January 31, 1962, this Court, through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, held as follows:
The suspension of the proclamation of the winning candidate pending an inquiry into
irregularities brought to the attention of the Commission on Elections was well within
its administrative jurisdiction, in view of the exclusive authority conferred upon it by
the Constitution (Art. X ) for the administration and enforcement of all laws relative to
elections. The Commission certainly had the right to inquire whether or not
discrepancies existed between the various copies of election returns for the
precincts in question, and suspend the canvass all the meantime so the parties
could ask for a recount in case of variance ....'
What the respondent Commission on Elections did in the case now before Us is just
what is contemplated in the abovequoted ruling of this Court. The power of the
Commission on Elections in this respect is simply administrative and supervisory
intended to secure the proclamation of the winning candidate based on the true
count of the votes cast. When the Commission on Elections exercises this power the
purpose is not for the Commission to help a candidate win the election but to bring
about the canvass of the true results of the elections as certified by the boards of
election inspectors in every precinct. The object of the canvass is to determine the
result of the elections based on the official election returns. In order that the result of
the canvass would reflect the true expression of the people's will in the choice of
their elective officials, the canvass must be based on true, genuine, correct, nay
untampered, election returns. It is in this proceedings that the Commission on
Elections exercises its supervisory and administrative power in the enforcement of
laws relative to the conduct of elections, by seeing to it that the canvass is based on
the election returns as actually certified by the members of the board of inspectors.
Once the Commission on Elections is convinced that the elections returns in the
hands of the board of canvassers do not constitute the proper basis in ascertaining
the true result of the elections, it should be its concern, nay its duty, to order the
14

taking of such steps as may be necessary in order that the proper basis for the
canvass is obtained or made available.
The election law requires the board of inspectors to prepare four copies of the
election return in each precinct one to be deposited in the ballot box, one to be
delivered to the municipal treasurer, one to be sent to the provincial treasurer, and
one to be sent to the Commission on Elections. In the case of the canvass of the
election returns for candidates for provincial or national offices, the election returns
received by the provincial treasurer from the boards of inspectors are used. It is the
duty of the provincial treasurer to turn over to the provincial board of canvassers the
election returns received by him from the boards of inspectors. If the Commission on
Elections is duly informed and it so finds, in appropriate proceedings, that the
election returns in the hands of the provincial treasurer are tampered, then the
Commission should afford the candidate adversely affected by the tampering an
opportunity to show that there exist authentic copies of the same election returns
which are not tampered. A recourse may be had to the copies received by the
Commission on Elections and to the copies received by the municipal treasurer. If it
is shown, that the copies in the hands of the Commission on Elections and of the
municipal treasurer are similarly tampered as the copies in the hands of the
provincial treasurer, then it becomes evident that all the three copies of the election
returns outside the ballot box do not constitute a reliable basis for a canvass. The
only copies left to be checked, whether they are also tampered or not, are the ones
inside the ballot boxes. Certainly, the Commission on Elections, in the exercise of its
power to administer and enforce the laws relative to the conduct of elections, may
order the opening of the ballot boxes to ascertain whether the copy inside each
ballot box is also tampered like the three copies outside the ballot box,
corresponding to each precinct. The Commission on Elections may do this on its
own initiative, or upon petition by the proper party. Once it is found that the copy of
the election return inside the ballot box is untampered, the Commission on Elections
would then have accomplished two things, namely: (1) secured a basis for the
prosecution for the violation of the laws relative to elections, and (2) afforded the
party aggrieved by the alteration of the election returns outside the ballot box a basis
for a judicial recount of the votes as provided for in Section 163 of the Revised
Election Code. Thus, the Commission on Elections has thereby made available the
proper and reliable basis for the canvass of the votes that will lead to the
proclamation by the board of canvassers of the true winner in the elections. In so
doing the Commission on Elections, as we have said, had performed its
constitutional duty of administering and enforcing the laws relative to the conduct of
elections with a view to promoting clean and honest elections the very purpose
for which the Commission on Elections was created by constitutional mandate.

In the case now before Us, the Commission on Elections issued the questioned
resolution "after hearing the arguments of the petitioner and the opposition thereto
and considering that it has been clearly established that the copies of the election
returns for the Municipal Treasurer, for the Commission on Elections and for the
Provincial Treasurer for the municipality of Sta. Cruz have uniform alteration in the
entries of the votes cast for representative showing different number of votes
compared with the Liberal Party copies, while the copies of the election returns for
the Commission of Elections and the Provincial Treasurer for the municipalities of
Candon and Santiago have likewise uniform alterations and showing different
numbers compared with the Liberal Party copies ..."5Indeed, in the face of this
finding by the Commission on Elections, which indicates a clear violation of the
election law, and which indicates an attempt to procure the proclamation of the
winner in the elections for Representative in the second congressional district of
Ilocos Sur by the use of tampered election returns, can the Commission on Elections
be remiss in the performance of its duties as a constitutional body committed with
the exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the
conduct of elections? The Revised Election Code gives to the Commission on
Elections the direct and immediate supervision over provincial, municipal and city
officials designated by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections
and included among these officials are members of the provincial board of
canvassers.6The provincial board of canvassers is enjoined by law to canvass all
the votes cast for Representatives on the basis of the election returns produced by
the provincial treasurer.7The Commission on Elections has a duty to enforce this law
and it has the duty to see to it that the election returns to be used for canvassing
must be genuine and authentic, not falsified or tampered with. Where the election
returns produced by the provincial treasurer have been shown to have been
tampered, and all the other copies outside the ballot boxes have also been shown to
have been tampered or falsified, it is certainly within the power of the Commission
on Elections to issue such order as would ascertain the existence of the genuine,
authentic and untampered election returns, and thus open the way for the summary
recount of the votes, in accordance with law, for the purposes only of the canvass of
the votes and the proclamation of the candidate found to have obtained the highest
number of votes. In the case now before Us, it is found by the Commission on
Elections that no other copies can be had except those deposited in the ballot boxes.
Hence, the necessity for the Commission to order the retrieving of the copies of the
election returns from the ballot boxes. An order to this effect does not affect the right
to vote or the validity of any vote cast, so that it is perfectly within the power of the
Commission on Elections to issue such an order in the exercise of its exclusive
power to administer and enforce the laws relative to the conduct of elections. It
15

would indeed be absurd to say that the Commission on Elections has a legal duty to
perform and at the same time it is denied the necessary means to perform said duty.
The purpose of the Revised Election Code is to protect the integrity of elections and
to suppress all evils that may violate its purity and defeat the will of the voters.8The
purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental requisites of popular
government.9The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do
everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the
elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be given a
considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the
accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created to promote free,
orderly, and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on
Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion,
should not be interfered with.10Technicalities, which are not conducive to free,
orderly and honest elections, but on the contrary may defeat the will of the sovereign
people as expressed in their votes, should not be allowed to hamper the
Commission on Elections in the performance of its duties. To sustain the petitioner in
the present case is to deny the Commission on Elections the power to retrieve the
copies of the election returns from the ballot boxes in order that the true number of
votes cast for a candidate may be known and thus permit a canvass on the basis of
election returns that are patently falsified. We cannot, and We must not, sanction the
stand of petitioner.
As We have adverted to, the Commission on Elections has the power to inquire
whether there exist discrepancies among the various copies of the election
returns. Of all the copies prepared by the board of inspectors the copy least
susceptible to being tampered with is the one deposited in the ballot box.
Where the three copies outside the ballot boxes appear to have been
uniformly altered, there is no plausible reason why the copy deposited in the
ballot box may not be used to determine whether discrepancies exist in the
various copies. Inasmuch as the Commission on Elections has the right to
determine whether said discrepancies exist, it must also have the right to
consult said returns, which cannot be done unless the ballot boxes are
opened. It is noteworthy that the Revised Election Code does not provide that
it is the courts that have the power to order the opening of the ballot box in a
situation like this.
Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, on which petitioner herein relies in
support of his stand in the present case, authorizes the opening of the ballot
box whenever it is the subject of an official investigation. It provides:

The municipal treasurer shall keep the boxes unopened in his possession in a
secure place and under his responsibility for three months, unless they are
the subject of an official investigation, or a component court or tribunal shall
demand them sooner, or the competent authority shall order their
preservation for a longer time in connection with any pending contest or
investigation.
Under this section the ballot boxes may be opened in case there is an election
contest. They may also be opened even if there is no election contest when
their contents have to be used as evidence in the prosecution of election
frauds.12Moreover, they may be opened when they are the subject of any
official investigation which may be ordered by a competent court or other
competent authority.
The "competent authority" must include the Commission on Elections which
is charged with the administration and enforcement of the laws relative to the
conduct of elections. In the instant case the Commission on Elections found
that it has been clearly established that the election returns outside the ballot
boxes, in all the precincts in the municipalities of Candon, Santiago and Sta.
Cruz, have been tampered with. It is within the power of the Commission to order
the investigation of that apparent anomaly that has connection with the conduct of
elections. The investigation may be in connection with the prosecution for the
violations of the election laws and at the same time to ascertain the condition of the
election returns inside the ballot boxes as compared with the election returns outside
the ballot boxes, for the same precincts. The opening of the ballot boxes may,
therefore, be prayed for by a candidate who is prejudiced by the apparent
falsification of the election returns outside the ballot boxes, and in ordering the
opening of the ballot boxes the purpose of the Commission is not to help a particular
candidate win an election but to properly administer and enforce the laws relative to
the conduct of elections.
From what has been said We hold that the order of December 22, 1965, being
questioned by the petitioner in the present case, was perfectly within the power of
the Commission on Elections to issue.
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition in the present case is dismissed,
with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Roque vs Comelec
16

Ponencia
Sep concurring opinion of CJ Puno
MR

Arroyo vs DOJ and COMELEC

Facts:
Due to allegations of massive electoral fraud and manipulation of election results in
the 2004 and 2007 National Elections, on August 2, 2011, the Comelec issued
Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a committee jointly with the
Department of Justice (DOJ).
On August 4, 2011, the Secretary of Justice issued Department Order No. 640
naming three (3) of its prosecutors to the Joint Committee.
On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011
creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the
2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases with
the mandate to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation on the basis of the
evidence gathered and the charges recommended by the Fact-Finding Team
created and referred.
The Fact-Finding Team, on the other hand, was created for the purpose of
gathering real, documentary, and testimonial evidence which can be utilized in
the preliminary investigation to be conducted by the Joint Committee.
The members of the Fact-Finding Team unanimously agreed that the subject of the
Initial Report would be the electoral fraud and manipulation of election results
allegedly committed during the May 14, 2007 elections. Thus, in its Initial Report
dated October 20, 2011, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the
results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South
Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated.
The Fact-Finding Team recommended that petitioner Abalos and ten (10) others be
subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for conspiring to
manipulate the election results in North and South Cotabato. Twenty-six (26)
persons, including petitioners GMA and Abalos, were likewise recommended for
preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for manipulating the election
results in Maguindanao. Several persons were also recommended to be charged
administratively, while others, including petitioner Mike Arroyo, were recommended
to be subjected to further investigation. The case resulting from the investigation
of the Fact-Finding Team was docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No. 001-2011.
Petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. The petitions were

eventually consolidated.
GMA filed before the Joint Committee an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to require
Senator Pimentel to furnish her with documents referred to in his complaint-affidavit
and for the production of election documents as basis for the charge of electoral
sabotage. GMA contended that for the crime of electoral sabotage to be established,
there is a need to present election documents allegedly tampered which
resulted in the increase or decrease in the number of votes of local and
national candidates. The Joint Committee denied the aforesaid motion. GMA
subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration.
On November 18, 2011, after conducting a special session, the Comelec en banc
issued a Resolution approving and adopting the Joint Resolution of the Joint
Committee subject to modifications. The dispositive portion of the Comelec
Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Joint DOJCOMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee in DOJ-COMELEC Case
No. 001-2011 and DOJ-COMELEC Case No. 002-2011, upon the
recommendation of the COMELECs own representatives in the
Committee, is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, subject to the following
MODIFICATIONS:
1. That information/s for the crime of ELECTORAL SABOTAGE be filed against
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, BENJAMIN ABALOS, SR., LINTANG H.
BEDOL, DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, SR. and PETER REYES; xxx
3. That the charges against JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, BONG SERRANO,
ALBERTO AGRA, ANDREI BON TAGUM, GABBY CLAUDIO, ROMY DAYDAY,
JEREMY JAVIER, JOHN DOE a.k.a BUTCH, be DISMISSED for insufficiency of
evidence to establish probable cause;
xxx
On even date, pursuant to the above Resolution, the Comelecs Law Department
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, an Information against
petitioner GMA, Governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr., and Atty. Lintang H. Bedol. The
case was raffled to Branch 112 and the corresponding Warrant of Arrest was
issued which was served on GMA on the same day.
On November 18, 2011, petitioner GMA filed with the RTC an Urgent Omnibus
Motion Ad Cautelam with leave to allow the Joint Committee to resolve the
motion for reconsideration filed by GMA, to defer issuance of a warrant of arrest
and a Hold Departure Order, and to proceed to judicial determination of probable
cause. She, likewise, filed with the Comelec a Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam
praying that its Resolution be vacated for being null and void. The RTC
nonetheless issued a warrant for her arrest which was duly served. GMA
thereafter filed a Motion for Bail which was granted.
17

Issues:
1. Whether or not Joint Order No. 001-2011 "Creating and Constituting a Joint DOJCOMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004
and 2007 National Elections Electoral Fraud and Manipulation Cases" is
constitutional in light of the following:

due process clause YES, it is constitutional

equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution- YES, it is constitutional

the principle of separation of powers- YES, it is constitutional

the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body- YES, it is

constitutional
2. Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction under the law to conduct
preliminary investigation jointly with the DOJ.- YES
3. Whether or not due process was observed by the Joint DOJ-COMELEC FactFinding Team and Preliminary Investigation Committee, and and the COMELEC in
the conduct of the preliminary investigation and approval of the Joint Panels
Resolution.
Held:
Jurisdiction over the validity of theconduct of the preliminary investigation
Substantive IssuesBases for the Creation of theFact-Finding Team and Joint
Committee
Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the powers and
functions of the Comelec. Paragraph (6) thereof vests in the Comelec the power
to: (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute
cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting
election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
The grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and prosecute election
offenses as an adjunct to the enforcement and administration of all election laws
is intended to enable the Comelec to effectively insure to the people the free,
orderly, and honest conduct of elections. The failure of the Comelec to exercise
this power could result in the frustration of the true will of the people and make a
mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote.
The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was reflected in
Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, to wit: Section 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its
duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute
the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms

of the government: Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails
to act on any complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant may file
the complaint with the office of the fiscal [public prosecutor], or with the Ministry
Department of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
Under the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary investigation is
vested exclusively with the Comelec. The latter, however, was given by the
same provision of law the authority to avail itself of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government.Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants
are given continuing authority as deputies to conduct preliminary investigation of
complaints involving election offenses under election laws and to prosecute the
same. The complaints may be filed directly with them or may be indorsed to them
by the petitioner or its duly authorized representatives.
Thus, under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct
preliminary investigation had been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors had
been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated
authority given by the Comelec. The reason for this delegation of authority has
been explained in Commission on Elections v. Espaol: The deputation of the
Provincial and City Prosecutors is necessitated by the need for prompt
investigation and dispensation of election cases as an indispensable part of the
task of securing fine, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. Enfeebled
by lack of funds and the magnitude of its workload, the petitioner does not have a
sufficient number of legal officers to conduct such investigation and to prosecute
such cases.
Section 43 of R.A. No. 9369 reads:
Section 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
SEC. 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly
authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other
prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of
all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the
same.72
As clearly set forth above, instead of a mere delegated authority, the other
prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent
jurisdiction with the Comelec to conduct preliminary investigation of all election
offenses and to prosecute the same.
It is, therefore, not only the power but the duty of both the Comelec and the
DOJ to perform any act necessary to ensure the prompt and fair
investigation and prosecution of election offenses. Pursuant to the above
constitutional and statutory provisions, and as will be explained further below, we
18

find no impediment for the Comelec and the DOJ to create the Joint
Committee and Fact-Finding Team for the purpose of conducting a thorough
investigation of the alleged massive electoral fraud and the manipulation of
election results in the 2004 and 2007 national elections relating in particular
to the presidential and senatorial elections.
Constitutionality of Joint-Order No. 001-2011
Equal Protection Clause
Unlike the matter addressed by the Courts ruling in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, Joint Order No. 001-2011 cannot be nullified on the ground
that it singles out the officials of the Arroyo Administration and, therefore, it
infringes the equal protection clause.
The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 was expressly created for the purpose of
investigating alleged graft and corruption during the Arroyo Administration since
Executive Order No. 1 specifically referred to the "previous administration"; while
the Joint Committee was created for the purpose of conducting preliminary
investigation of election offenses during the 2004 and 2007 elections. While
GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary investigation,
not all respondents therein were linked to GMA as there were public officers who
were investigated upon in connection with their acts in the performance of their
official duties. Private individuals were also subjected to the investigation by the
Joint Committee.
As the constitutional body granted with the broad power of enforcing and
administering all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, and tasked to ensure free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections, the Comelec has the authority to
determine how best to perform such constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this
authority, the Comelec issues various resolutions prior to every local or national
elections setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the conduct of the
elections. This shows that every election is distinct and requires different
guidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond to existing
circumstances.
Moreover, as has been practiced in the past, complaints for violations of election
laws may be filed either with the Comelec or with the DOJ. The Comelec may
even initiate, motu proprio, complaints for election offenses.
Pursuant to law and the Comelecs own Rules, investigations may be
conducted either by the Comelec itself through its law department or
through the prosecutors of the DOJ. These varying procedures and treatment
do not, however, mean that respondents are not treated alike. Thus, petitioners
insistence of infringement of their constitutional right to equal protection of the law

is misplaced.
Due Process
It is settled that the conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court proceedings,
subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process.
Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the
prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts as a quasijudicial officer. The authority of a prosecutor or investigating officer duly
empowered to preside over or to conduct a preliminary investigation is no less
than that of a municipal judge or even an RTC Judge.
It must also be emphasized that Joint Order No. 001-2011 created two bodies,
namely: (1) the Fact-Finding Team tasked to gather real, documentary and
testimonial evidence which can be utilized in the preliminary investigation to be
conducted by the Joint Committee; and (2) the Joint Committee mandated to
conduct preliminary investigation. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that there is
only one body which acted as evidence-gatherer, prosecutor and judge.
Separation of powers
Petitioners claim that the Joint Panel is a new public office as shown by its
composition, the creation of its own Rules of Procedure, and the source of funding
for its operation. It is their position that the power of the DOJ to investigate the
commission of crimes and the Comelecs constitutional mandate to investigate
and prosecute violations of election laws do not include the power to create a new
public office in the guise of a joint committee. Thus, in creating the Joint Panel, the
DOJ and the Comelec encroached upon the power of the Legislature to create
public office.
As clearly explained above, the Comelec is granted the power to investigate, and
where appropriate, prosecute cases of election offenses. This is necessary in
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. On the other hand,
the DOJ is mandated to administer the criminal justice system in accordance with
the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the crimes,
prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system. It is
specifically empowered to "investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute
offenders and administer the probation and correction system." Also, the provincial
or city prosecutors and their assistants, as well as the national and regional state
prosecutors, are specifically named as the officers authorized to conduct
preliminary investigation. Recently, the Comelec, through its duly authorized legal
offices, is given the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the
government such as the DOJ, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election
offenses.
19

Undoubtedly, it is the Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court and not the
assailed Joint Order which give the DOJ and the Comelec the power to conduct
preliminary investigation. No new power is given to them by virtue of the assailed
order. As to the members of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team, they
perform such functions that they already perform by virtue of their current
positions as prosecutors of the DOJ and legal officers of the Comelec. Thus, in no
way can we consider the Joint Committee as a new public office.
Independence of the Comelec
Petitioners claim that in creating the Joint Panel, the Comelec has effectively
abdicated its constitutional mandate to investigate and, where appropriate, to
prosecute cases of violation of election laws including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices in favor of the Executive
Department acting through the DOJ Secretary. Under the set- up, the Comelec
personnel is placed under the supervision and control of the DOJ. The
chairperson is a DOJ official. Thus, the Comelec has willingly surrendered its
independence to the DOJ and has acceded to share its exercise of judgment and
discretion with the Executive Branch.
Prior to the amendment of Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Comelec
had the exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses. In the
discharge of this exclusive power, the Comelec was given the right to avail and, in
fact, availed of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government such
as the prosecutors of the DOJ. By virtue of this continuing authority, the state
prosecutors and the provincial or city prosecutors were authorized to receive the
complaint for election offense and delegate the conduct of investigation to any of
their assistants. The investigating prosecutor, in turn, would make a
recommendation either to dismiss the complaint or to file the information. This
recommendation is subject to the approval of the state, provincial or city
prosecutor, who himself may file the information with the proper court if he finds
sufficient cause to do so, subject, however, to the accuseds right to appeal to the
Comelec.
Clearly, the Comelec recognizes the need to delegate to the prosecutors the power
to conduct preliminary investigation. Otherwise, the prompt resolution of alleged
election offenses will not be attained. This delegation of power, otherwise known
as deputation, has long been recognized and, in fact, been utilized as an effective
means of disposing of various election offense cases. Apparently, as mere
deputies, the prosecutors played a vital role in the conduct of preliminary
investigation, in the resolution of complaints filed before them, and in the filing of
the informations with the proper court.
In view of the foregoing disquisition, we find no impediment for the creation of a Joint

Committee. While the composition of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team
is dominated by DOJ officials, it does not necessarily follow that the Comelec is
inferior. Under the Joint Order, resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable
cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance
with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. This shows that the Comelec, though it acts
jointly with the DOJ, remains in control of the proceedings. In no way can we say
that the Comelec has thereby abdicated its independence to the executive
department.
Validity of the Conduct ofPreliminary Investigation
In questioning the propriety of the conduct of the preliminary investigation in her
Supplemental Petition, GMA only raises her continuing objection to the exercise of
jurisdiction of the Joint Committee and the Comelec. There is, therefore, no
impediment for the Court to rule on the validity of the conduct of preliminary
investigation.
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound for trial
and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and penalty is not a mere
formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accused's claim to a
preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due
process.
In a preliminary investigation, the Rules of Court guarantee the petitioners basic due
process rights such as the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint, the
affidavits, and other supporting documents, and the right to submit counteraffidavits, and other supporting documents in her defense.
Admittedly, GMA received the notice requiring her to submit her counter-affidavit.
Yet, she did not comply, allegedly because she could not prepare her counteraffidavit. She claimed that she was not furnished by Senator Pimentel pertinent
documents that she needed to adequately prepare her counter-affidavit.
The Joint Committee, however, denied GMAs motion which carried with it the denial
to extend the filing of her counter-affidavit. Consequently, the cases were
submitted for resolution sans GMAs and the other petitioners counter-affidavits.
This, according to GMA, violates her right to due process of law.
The subpoena issued against respondent therein should be accompanied by a copy
of the complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents. GMA also has the
right to examine documents but such right of examination is limited only to the
documents or evidence submitted by the complainants (Senator Pimentel and the
Fact-Finding Team) which she may not have been furnished and to copy them at
her expense.
While it is true that Senator Pimentel referred to certain election documents which
served as bases in the allegations of significant findings specific to the protested
20

municipalities involved, there were no annexes or attachments to the

complaint filed. As stated in the Joint Committees Order dated November 15,
2011 denying GMAs Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam, Senator Pimentel was
ordered to furnish petitioners with all the supporting evidence. However, Senator
Pimentel manifested that he was adopting all the affidavits attached to the
Fact-Finding Teams Initial Report. Therefore, when GMA was furnished with
the documents attached to the Initial Report, she was already granted the
right to examine as guaranteed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure and the
Rules on Criminal Procedure. Those were the only documents submitted by
the complainants to the Committee.
We must, however, emphasize at this point that during the preliminary investigation,
the complainants are not obliged to prove their cause beyond reasonable doubt. It
would be unfair to expect them to present the entire evidence needed to secure
the conviction of the accused prior to the filing of information. A preliminary
investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties
respective evidence but the presentation only of such evidence as may engender
a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused
is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Precisely there is a trial to
allow the reception of evidence for the prosecution in support of the charge.
With the denial of GMAs motion to be furnished with and examine the documents
referred to in Senator Pimentels complaint, GMAs motion to extend the filing of
her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence was consequently denied.
Indeed, considering the nature of the crime for which GMA was subjected to
preliminary investigation and the documents attached to the complaint, it is
incumbent upon the Joint Committee to afford her ample time to examine the
documents submitted to the Joint Committee in order that she would be able to
prepare her counter-affidavit. She cannot, however, insist to examine
documents not in the possession and custody of the Joint Committee nor
submitted by the complainants. Otherwise, it might cause undue and
unnecessary delay in the disposition of the cases. The constitutional right to
speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings
but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and
in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Any party to a
case has the right to demand on all officials tasked with the administration of
justice to expedite its disposition.
To recapitulate, we find and so hold that petitioners failed to establish any
constitutional or legal impediment to the creation of the Joint DOJ-Comelec
Preliminary Investigation Committee and Fact-Finding Team.

First, while GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary
investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to GMA; thus, Joint Order
No. 001-2011 does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Second, the due process clause is likewise not infringed upon by the alleged
prejudgment of the case as petitioners failed to prove that the Joint Panel itself
showed such bias and partiality against them. Neither was it shown that the
Justice Secretary herself actually intervened in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation. More importantly, considering that the Comelec is a collegial body,
the perceived prejudgment of Chairman Brillantes as head of the Comelec cannot
be considered an act of the body itself.
Third, the assailed Joint Order did not create new offices because the Joint
Committee and Fact-Finding Team perform functions that they already perform by
virtue of the Constitution, the statutes, and the Rules of Court.
Fourth, in acting jointly with the DOJ, the Comelec cannot be considered to have
abdicated its independence in favor of the executive branch of government.
Resolution No. 9266 was validly issued by the Comelec as a means to fulfill its
duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as
an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
credible elections. The role of the DOJ in the conduct of preliminary investigation
of election offenses has long been recognized by the Comelec because of its lack
of funds and legal officers to conduct investigations and to prosecute such cases
on its own. This is especially true after R.A. No. 9369 vested in the Comelec and
the DOJ the concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses. While we uphold the validity of Comelec Resolution No. 9266
and Joint Order No. 001-2011, we declare the Joint Committees Rules of
Procedure infirm for failure to comply with the publication requirement.
Consequently, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the 1993
Comelec Rules of Procedure govern.
Fifth, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They were furnished a copy
of the complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting documents submitted to the
Joint Committee and they were required to submit their counter-affidavit and
countervailing evidence. As to petitioners Mike Arroyo and Abalos, the pendency
of the cases before the Court does not automatically suspend the proceedings
before the Joint Committee nor excuse them from their failure to file the required
counter-affidavits. With the foregoing disquisitions, we find no reason to nullify the
proceedings undertaken by the Joint Committee and the Comelec in the electoral
sabotage cases against petitioners.
Ongsioko Reyes vs. COMELEC
21

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

JOSEPH
SOCORRO
B.
TAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Facts:
The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction resolution of the Commission on
Election ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the
position of the Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an Amended
Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina
Ongsiako Reyes, the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material
representations.On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of
candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an MR on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013,
COMELEC en banc denied her MR.
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013
Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013 Resolution final
and Executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano
Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has yet to assume
office at that time, as her term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to
petitioner, the COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly
proclaimed20 because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the
HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of
Representatives.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is proclaimed as
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of
the House of Representative of Marinduque.
Held:

Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only
after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as
stated in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a
Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these
requisites: (1) valid proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not
assumed office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a
valid oath must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and (2) in open session. Here, although she made the oath before Speaker
Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open session
and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed
complied.
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion
is alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be struck down as having been
done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent
and
gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show that
grave abuse of discretion exists.
MR (October 22, 2013) DENIED

II.
1.

VOTERS

Qualified for suffrage

QUALIFICATIONS OF A VOTER (provided for by the Constitution)
[CAR]

Citizenship by birth or naturalization

Age a person may be registered as a voter although he

is less than 18 years at the time of registration if he will
be at least 18 at the time of the election

Residence- the term residence as used in the election

law, imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed
place but also personal presence in that place coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention. It is to be
understood not in its common acceptation as referring to
dwelling or habitation but rather to DOMICILE or
LEGAL RESIDENCE.
22

certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or

not an individual has satisfied the Constitutions residency qualification
requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or
appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It would be plainly ridiculous for
a candidate to deliberately and knowingly make a statement in a certificate of
candidacy which would lead to his or her disqualification.

RESIDENCE QUALIFICATION OF VOTER / CANDIDATE

as used in election law, imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place
but also personal presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention
Place of his domicile or legal residenceThat place where the elector makes
his permanent or true home, his principal place of business, and his family
residence, if he has one; where he intends to remain indefinitely, and without
a present intention to depart, when he leaves it he intends to return to it, and
after his return he deems himself at home
Residence is a matter of intention may be inferred from his acts, activities,
and utterances
Once acquired in a certain place, it will be deemed to continue there until a
new one has been acquired
In order to acquire a new domicile by choice (VOLUNTARY), there must
concur:
o o residence or bodily presence in the new locality;
o o intention to remain there;
o o intention to abandon the old domicile
In other words, there must be basically animus manendi coupled with animus
non rivertendi.
The mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the
intention to abandon it does not result in the loss or change of domicile
Registration and voting by a person in another place do not by themselves
constitute abandonment of the legal residence, where the stay in the former
cannot be considered as voluntary but a necessity in order to continue his
studies
Absence from the residence of origin to practice a profession does not
constitute loss of residence
Not necessary that a person should have a house in order to establish his
residence and domicile in a municipality
There is nothing wrong in an individual changing residences so he could run
for an elective post, for as long as he is able to prove with reasonable
certainty that he has effected a change of residence for election law purposes
for the period required by law.
Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC Residence, for election purposes, is used
synonymously with domicile. It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a

2.

A minor follows the domicile of his parents.

The presumption that the wife automatically gains the husbands domicile by
operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term
residence in Art 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one area
where the two concepts are well delineated. What the wife acquires upon
marriage is actual residence and she is not deemed to have lost her domicile
of origin.
Padilla, J., dissenting:
There must also be actual presence in the place and not just mere intent to
retain it as the domicile of origin. This is in line with the view that the house
representatives / elective officials must be familiar with the environment and
problems of the locality where he intends to run. (one cannot be that familiar
with the locality without actual presence)
Regalado, J., dissenting:
Three types of domicile: 1. by origin or birth2. by choice3. by operation of law
Davide, Jr., J., dissenting:
Wife does not automatically regain domicile of origin upon the death of the
husband. Upon death, the wife is given a chance to elect a domicile, but
failing to elect such will lead to the conclusion that she will retain the domicile
of the deceased husband.
Disqualifications

DISQUALIFICATIONS FROM VOTING (SEC 118 Omnibus Election Code):

The following shall be disqualified from voting:
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less
than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon or granted amnesty; Any such person disqualified to vote shall
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence;
23

2.

3.

Adjudged by final judgment of having committed any crime involving

disloyalty to the duly constituted government (rebellion, sedition, violation of
the anti-subversion and firearms law, or any crimes against national
security) unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance
with law; Provided that he shall automatically reacquire the right to vote
upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence;
Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority unless
subsequently declared as otherwise

* the above persons are not qualified to vote even if they have the necessary
qualifications
3.

Local absentee voters

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 157 (LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING LAW)

PROVIDING FOR ABSENTEE VOTING BY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF
GOVERNMENT WHO ARE
AWAY FROM THE PLACES OF THEIR
REGISTRATION BY REASON OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS ON ELECTION DAY.
WHEREAS, under the electoral law now in force the rule is that a person has to be
physically present in the polling place whereof he is a registered voter in order to be
able to vote;
WHEREAS, the only exception is that established by Section 169 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, which allows members of the board of election inspectors to
vote in the polling place where they are assigned on election day, under certain
conditions;
WHEREAS, there are other persons who, by reason of public functions and duties,
are assigned on election day in places other than their place of registration, and
under existing rules, are thus unable to vote;
WHEREAS, the democratic principle requires the broadest participation in electoral
and similar exercises by persons who have all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to vote;
WHEREAS, government officials and employees who are assigned to places other
than their place of registration must not be deprived of their right to participate in
electoral exercises;
Section 1. Any person who by reason of public functions and duties, is not in
his/her place of registration on election day, may vote in the city/municipality
where he/she is assigned on election day: provided, that he/she is a duly
registered voter.

Sec. 2. Thirty (30) days before the election, the appropriate head of office shall
submit to the Commission on Elections a list of officers and employees of the office
who are registered voters, and who, by reason of their duties and functions, will be in
places other than their place of registration, and who desire to exercise their right to
vote, with the request that said officers and employees be provided with application
forms to cast absentee ballots in their place of assignment.
The list and the request shall be under oath.
Sec. 3. Upon verification by the Commission on Elections that the persons included
in the list are qualified voters, it shall transmit the exact number of application forms
to the head of the office making the request.
Sec. 4. The application forms shall be returned duly accomplished to the
Commission on Elections not later than April 25, 1987.
Sec. 5. Upon verification of the applications, the Commission shall transmit the exact
number of absentee ballots to the appropriate head of the government office for
distribution to the applicants.
Sec. 6. The head of the office shall prepare a sworn report on the manner of
distribution of the absentee ballots, indicating therein the number of ballots
transmitted to each province, the names of the persons to whom the absentee
ballots are delivered, and the serial numbers of the ballots. It shall be accompanied
by a certificate of eligibility to vote absentee for each particular voter.
Sec. 7. For the purpose of the 1987 congressional election, the absentee voters
shall vote only for candidates for senator.
Sec. 8. The voters who cast absentee voters shall vote one week before election
day. They shall do so by delivering to the Commission on Elections Regional
Director, or the Provincial Election Supervisor or the City or Municipal Election
Registrar of the place of their assignment the special Commission on Elections
absentee ballot within two security envelopes, the one containing the absentee
ballots indicating only that it is an envelope of the Commission on Elections, and the
other envelope indicating the name of the absentee voter and his/her affidavit
number.
Sec. 9. The Commission on Elections official concerned to whom the absentee vote
is delivered shall immediately transmit by the fastest means available to the
Commission on Elections the special Commission on Elections absentee ballot
within two security envelopes so that the same are in the central office of the
Commission one day before the elections.
The transmittal letter shall indicate the names of the persons who cast the absentee
votes, their voters affidavit numbers and their certificates of eligibility to vote
absentee.

24

Sec. 10. The Commission on Elections shall canvass the votes cast by absentee
voters and shall add the results of the same to the votes reported throughout the
country.
Sec. 11. The Commission shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to
implement this Executive Order.
Sec. 12. Section 169 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall remain in force and effect,
and shall continue to govern the voting privilege of members of the board of election
inspectors. All laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 13. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
Approved: 30 March 1987
ABSENTEE VOTING (RA 7166: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED
NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS AND FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS,
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)
approved: Nov. 26, 1991
Section 12. Absentee Voting. - Absentee voting as provided for in Executive Order
No. 157 dated March 30, 1987 shall apply to the elections for President, VicePresident and Senators only and shall be limited to members of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police and other government officers
and employees who are duly registered voters and who, on election day, may
temporarily be assigned in connection with the performance of election duties to
place where they are not registered voters.
4.

OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTERS

R.A. No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), as amended by
R.A. NO. 10590 aka The Overseas Voting Act of 2013.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 10590

"SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as 'The Overseas Voting Act
of 2013."
Section 2. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9189 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act:
"(a) Certified List of Overseas Voters (CLOV) refers to the list of registered
overseas voters whose applications to vote overseas have been approved
by the Commission, said list to be prepared by the Office for Overseas
Voting of the Commission, on a country-by-country and post-by-post
basis. The list shall be approved by the Commission in an en banc
resolution.

"(j) Overseas Voter refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to

register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is
abroad on the day of elections.
"(k) Overseas Voting refers to the process by which qualified citizens of
the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote.

Section 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 4. Coverage. - All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not
otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the
day of elections, may vote for President, Vice-President, Senators and
Party-List Representatives, as well as in all national referenda and
plebiscites."

AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9189, ENTITLED "AN ACT

PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING BY
QUALIFIED CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES ABROAD, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"

Section 4. Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9189 is hereby amended to read as

follows:

"(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
Philippine laws;

"SEC. 5. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from

registering and voting under this Act:

25

"(b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and
who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country, except those who have
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225,
otherwise known as the 'Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003;
"(c) Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a
Philippine court or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote
under this subsection shall automatically acquire the right to vote upon the
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and
"(d) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or
incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by
the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments
concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such
person is no longer insane or incompetent."
Section 5. Section 6 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 6. Personal Overseas Registration and/or Certification. - Registration
and/or certification as an overseas voter shall be done in person at any post
abroad or at designated registration centers outside the post or in the
Philippines approved by the Commission.
"Field and mobile registration centers shall be set up by the posts concerned to
ensure accessibility by the overseas voters.

"(a) A career official of the DFA, as Chairperson;

"(b) The most senior officer from the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) or any government agency of the Philippines maintaining offices
abroad, as member: Provided, That in case of disqualification or nonavailability
of the most senior officer from the DOLE or any government agency of the
Philippines maintaining offices abroad, the Commission shall designate a career
official from the embassy or consulate concerned; and
"(c) A registered overseas voter of known probity, as member.
"The Commission shall appoint the members of the RERB upon the
recommendation of the DFA-OVS.
"The RERB in the OFOV shall be based in the main office of the Commission
and shall be composed of a senior official of the Commission as the
Chairperson and one (1) member each from the DFA and the DOLE, whose
rank shall not be lower than a division chief or its equivalent.
"No member of the RERB shall be related to each other or to an incumbent
President, Vice-President, Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
representing the party-list system of representation, within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
"Each member of the RERB shall be entitled to an honorarium at the rates
approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)."

"All applicants shall submit themselves for live capture of their biometrics.

Section 7. A new Section 8 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as

follows:

"The Commission shall issue an overseas voter identification card to those

whose applications to vote have been approved."

"SEC. 8. Duties and Functions of the RERB. - The RERB shall have the
following duties and functions:

Section 6. A new Section 7 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as

follows:

"(a) Post in the bulletin boards of the embassy or consulates or at the OFOV, as
the case may be, and in their respective websites, the names of the applicants
and the dates when their applications shall be heard, as well as the place where
the RERB will hold its hearing;

"SEC. 7. Resident Election Registration Board (RERB); Composition,

Appointment, Disqualification and Compensation. - The RERB shall be
composed of the following:

26

"(b) Notify, through the OFOV, all political parties and other parties concerned of
the pending applications through a weekly updated publication in the website of
the Commission;

its filing on the basis of documents submitted but not later than one hundred
twenty (120) days before the start of the overseas voting period. The resolution
of the RERB shall be immediately executory, unless reversed or set aside by the
Court.

"(c) Act on all applications received;

"(d) Notify all applicants, whose applications have been disapproved, stating the
reasons for such disapproval;
"(e) Prepare a list of all approved applications during each hearing and post the
same at the bulletin boards of the embassy or consulates or at the OFOV, as
the case may be, and in their respective websites;
"(f) Deactivate the registration records of overseas voters; and
"(g) Perform such other duties as may be consistent with its functions as
provided under this Act."
Section 8. A new Section 9 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 9. Petition for Exclusion, Motion for Reconsideration, Petition for
Inclusion. "9.1. Petition for Exclusion. - If the application has been approved, any
interested party may file a petition for exclusion not later than one hundred
eighty (180) days before the start of the overseas voting period with the proper
Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court in the City of Manila or where the overseas
voter resides in the Philippines, at the option of the petitioner.
"The petition shall be decided on the basis of the documents submitted within
fifteen (15) days from its filing, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days
before the start of the overseas voting period. Should the Court fail to render a
decision within the prescribed period, the ruling of the RERB shall be
considered affirmed.
"9.2. Motion for Reconsideration. - If the application has been disapproved, the
applicant or the authorized representative shall have the right to file a motion for
reconsideration before the RERB within a period of five (5) days from receipt of
the notice of disapproval. The motion shall be decided within five (5) days after

"9.3. Petition for Inclusion. - Within ten (10) days from receipt of notice denying
the motion for reconsideration, the applicant may file a petition for inclusion with
the proper Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court in the City of Manila or where the
overseas voter resides in the Philippines, at the option of the petitioner.
"The petition shall be decided on the basis of the documents submitted within
fifteen (15) days from filing, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days
before the start of the overseas voting period. Should the Court fail to render a
decision within the, prescribed period, the RERB ruling shall be considered
affirmed.
"Qualified Philippine citizens abroad who have previously registered as voters
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the 'Voter's Registration
Act of 1996, shall apply for certification as overseas voters and for inclusion in
the NROV. In case of approval, the Election Officer concerned shall annotate
the fact of registration/certification as overseas voter before the voter's name as
appearing in the certified voters' list and in the voter's registration records."
Section 9. A new Section 10 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 10. Transfer of Registration Record. - In the event of change of voting
venue, an application for transfer of registration record must be filed by the
overseas voter with the OFOV, through its Chairperson, at least one hundred
eighty (180) days prior to the start of the overseas voting period: Provided, That
those who would eventually vote in the Philippines should register within the
time frame provided for local registration in the municipality, city or district where
they intend to vote: Provided, further, That those who have registered in the
municipality, city or district where they resided prior to their departure abroad
need not register anew: Provided, finally, That transferees shall notify the OFOV,
through its Chairperson, of their transfer back to the Philippines at least one
hundred eighty (180) days prior to the next national elections for purposes of
cancelling their names from the CLOV and of removing their overseas voter's
registration from the book of voters."
27

Section 10. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 11 and
is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 11. System of Continuing Registration. - The Commission shall ensure
that the benefits of the system of continuing registration are extended to
qualified overseas voters. Registration shall commence not later than six (6)
months after the conduct of the last national elections. Towards this end, the
Commission shall be authorized to utilize and optimize the use of existing
facilities, personnel and mechanisms of the various government agencies for
purposes of data gathering and validation, information dissemination and
facilitation of the registration process.
"Pre-departure Orientation Seminars (PDOS), services and mechanisms
offered and administered by the DFA, the DOLE, the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), the Overseas Workers' Welfare
Administration (OWWA), the Commission on Filipinos Overseas and by other
appropriate agencies of the government and private agencies providing the
same services shall include the salient features of this Act and shall be utilized
for purposes of supporting the overseas registration and voting processes.
"All employment contracts processed and approved by the POEA shall state the
right of migrant workers to exercise their constitutional right of suffrage within
the limits provided for by this Act."
Section 11. Section 8 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 12 and
is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 12. Requirements for Registration. - Every Filipino registrant shall be
required to furnish the following documents:
"(a) A valid Philippine passport. In the absence of a valid passport, a
certification of the DFA that it has reviewed the appropriate documents
submitted by the applicant and has found them sufficient to warrant the
issuance of a passport, or that the applicant is a holder of a valid passport but is
unable to produce the same for a valid reason;
"(b) Accomplished registration form prescribed by the Commission; and
"(c) Applicants who availed themselves of the 'Citizen Retention and
Reacquisition Act' (Republic Act No. 9225) shall present the original or certified

true copy of the order of approval of their application to retain or reacquire their
Filipino citizenship issued by the post or their identification certificate issued by
the Bureau of Immigration.
"The Commission may also require, additional data to facilitate registration and
recording.1wphi1 No information other than those necessary to establish the
identity and qualification of the applicant shall be required.
"All applications for registration and/or certification as an overseas voter shall be
considered as applications to vote overseas. An overseas voter is presumed to
be abroad until she/he applies for transfer of her/his registration records or
requests that her/his name be cancelled from the NROV."
Section 12. Section 9 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 13 and
is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 13. National Registry of Overseas Voters (NROV). - The Commission
shall maintain a National Registry of Overseas Voters or NROV containing the
names of registered overseas voters and the posts where they are registered.
"Likewise, the Commission shall maintain a registry of voters (ROV) per
municipality, city or district containing the names of registered overseas voters
domiciled therein. The Commission shall provide each and every municipality,
city or district with a copy of their respective ROVS for their reference."
Section 13. A new Section 14 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 14. Deactivation of Registration. - The RERB shall deactivate and
remove the registration records of the following persons from the corresponding
book of voters and place the same, properly marked and dated, in the inactive
file after entering any of the following causes of deactivation:
"(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment by a Philippine
court or tribunal to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided,
however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon the expiration of five (5) years
after service of sentence, as certified by the Clerks of Courts of the Municipal,
Municipal Circuit, Metropolitan, Regional Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan;
28

"(b) Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent,

unless such disqualification has been subsequently removed by a declaration of
a proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent;
"(c) Any person who did not vote in two (2) consecutive national elections as
shown by voting records; and

"SEC 17. Cancellation of Registration. - The RERB shall cancel the registration
records of those who have died, as certified by either the posts or by the local
civil registrar, and those who have been proven to have lost their Filipino
citizenship."
Section 18. A new Section 18 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:

"(d) Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the courts.
"The fact of deactivation shall be annotated in the NROV and the corresponding
ROV."
Section 14. Section 10 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 15.
"SEC. 15. Notice of Registration and Election. - The Commission shall, through
the posts cause the publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the
place, date and time of the holding of a regular or special national election and
the requirements for the participation of qualified citizens of the Philippines
abroad, at least six (6) months before the date set for the filing of applications
for registration.
"The Commission shall determine the countries where publication shall be
made, and the frequency thereof, taking into consideration the number of
overseas Filipinos present in such countries. Likewise, the Commission and the
DFA shall post the same in their respective websites."
Section 15. Sections 11 and 12 of the same Act are hereby deleted.
Section 16. A new Section 16 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 16. Reactivation of Registration. - Any overseas voter whose registration
has been deactivated pursuant to the preceding section may file with the RERB
at any time, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before the start of
the overseas voting period, a sworn application for reactivation of registration
stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist."
Section 17. A new Section 17 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:

"SEC. 18. Voters Excluded from the NROV Through Inadvertence. - Any
registered overseas voter whose name has been inadvertently omitted from the
NROV may, personally or through an authorized representative, file with the
RERB through the OFOV or the post exercising jurisdiction over the voter's
residence, an application under oath for reinstatement not later than one
hundred twenty (120) days before the start of the voting period.
"The RERB shall resolve the application within one (1) month from receipt
thereof, otherwise the application shall be deemed approved."
Section 19. A new Section 19 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 19. Application for Correction of Entries and Change of Name. - Any
registered overseas voter who intends to change her/his name by reason of
marriage, death of husband, or final court judgment; or to correct a mispelled
name or any erroneous entry in the NROV, CLOV and voter's identification card
may, personally or through an authorized representative, file an application
under oath for change of name or correction of entries with the RERB through
the OFOV or the post exercising jurisdiction over the voter's residence not later
than ninety (90) days before the start of the voting period.
"The RERB shall resolve the application within one (1) month from receipt
thereof, otherwise the application shall be deemed approved."
Section 20. Section 13 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 20
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 20. Preparation and Posting of Certified List of Overseas Voters. - The
Commission shall prepare the Certified List of Overseas Voters or CLOV not
later than ninety (90) days before the start of the overseas voting period, and
29

furnish within the same period electronic and hard copies thereof to the
appropriate posts, which shall post the same in their bulletin boards and/or
websites within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
"Subject to reasonable regulation and the payment of fees in such amounts as
may be fixed by the Commission, the candidates, political parties, accredited
citizens' arms, and all other interested persons shall be furnished copies
thereof: Provided, That nongovernmental organizations and other civil society
organizations accredited by and working with the Commission as partners on
overseas voters' education and participation shall be exempt from the payment
of fees."
Section 21. Section 14 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 21
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 21. Printing and Transmittal of Ballots, Voting Instructions, Election
Forms and Paraphernalia. -

Section 22. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 22

and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 22. Regulation on Campaigning Abroad. - Personal campaigning, the use
of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign spending shall be
governed by the laws and regulations applicable in the Philippines: Provided,
That all forms of campaigning abroad within the thirty (30)-day overseas voting
period shall be prohibited."
Section 23. A new Section 23 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 23. Voting. - Voting may be done either personally, by mail or by any
other means as may be determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the
Commission shall issue the necessary guidelines on the manner and
procedures of voting.

"21.1. The Commission shall cause the printing of ballots for overseas voters,
and all other accountable election forms in such number as may be necessary,
but in no case shall these exceed the total number of approved applications.
Security markings shall be used in the printing of ballots for overseas voters.

"The OFOV, in consultation with the DFA-OVS, shall determine the countries
where voting shall be done by any specific mode, taking into consideration the
minimum criteria enumerated under this Act which shall include the number of
registered voters, accessibility of the posts, efficiency of the host country's
applied system and such other circumstances that may affect the conduct of
voting.

"21.2. The Commission shall present to the authorized representatives of the

DFA and of the accredited major political parties the ballots for overseas voters,
voting instructions, election forms and other election paraphernalia for scrutiny
and inspection prior to their transmittal to the posts.

"The Commission shall announce the specific mode of voting per country/post
at least one hundred twenty (120) days before the start of the voting period."

"21.3. The Commission shall transmit, as far as practicable, but not later than
forty-five (45) days before the day of elections, by special pouch to all posts the
exact number of ballots for overseas voters corresponding to the number of
approved applications, along with such accountable forms necessary to ensure
the secrecy and integrity of the election.
"21.4. The authorized representatives of accredited major political parties shall
have the right to be present in all phases of printing, transmittal, and casting of
mailed ballots abroad. Unclaimed ballots properly marked as such, shall be
cancelled and shipped to the Commission by the least costly method."

Section 24. Section 16 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 24

and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 24. Casting and Submission of Ballots. "24.1. Upon receipt by the SBEI of the ballots for overseas voters, voting
instructions, election forms and other paraphernalia, they shall make these
available on the premises to the qualified overseas voters in their respective
jurisdictions during the thirty (30) days before the day of elections when
overseas voters may cast their vote. Immediately upon receiving it, the overseas
voter must fill-out her/his ballot personally, in secret, without leaving the
premises of the posts concerned.
30

"24.2. The overseas voter shall personally accomplish her/his ballot at the post
that has jurisdiction over the country where she/he temporarily resides or at any
polling place designated and accredited by the Commission.
"24.3. The overseas voter shall cast her/his ballot, upon presentation of the
voter identification card issued by the Commission or such other documents
deemed by the SBEI at the post as sufficient to establish the voter's identity.

"24.10. x x x."
Section 25. Section 17 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 25
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 25. Voting by Mail. "25.1. x x x

"24.4. x x x
"(a) x x x;
"24.5. The posts concerned shall keep a complete record of the ballots for
overseas voters, specifically indicating the number of ballots they actually
received, and in cases where voting by mail is allowed under Section 25 hereof,
the names and addresses of the voters to whom these ballots were sent,
including proof of receipt thereof. In addition, the posts shall submit a formal
report to the Commission and the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
created under this Act within thirty (30) days from the day of elections. Such
report shall contain data on the number of ballots cast and received by the
offices, the number of invalid and unclaimed ballots and other pertinent data.
"24.6. Ballots not claimed by the overseas voters at the posts, in case of
personal voting, and ballots returned to the posts concerned, in the case of
voting by mail, shall be cancelled and shipped to the Commission by the least
costly method within six (6) months from the day of elections.
"24.7. Only ballots cast, and mailed ballots received by the posts concerned in
accordance with Section 25 hereof before the close of voting on the day of
elections shall be counted in accordance with Section 27 hereof. All envelopes
containing the ballots received by the posts after the prescribed period shall not
be opened, and shall be cancelled and shipped to the Commission by the least
costly method within six (6) months from the day of elections.
"24.8. A special ballot Reception and Custody Group composed of three (3)
members shall be constituted by the Commission from among the staff of the
posts concerned, including their attached agencies, and citizens of the
Philippines abroad, who will be deputized to receive ballots and take custody of
the same preparatory to their transmittal to the SBEI.

"(b) x x x; and
"(c) x x x.
"25.2. The overseas voter shall send her/his accomplished ballot to the
corresponding post that has jurisdiction over the country where she/he
temporarily resides. She/He shall be entitled to cast her/his ballot at any time
upon her/his receipt thereof: Provided, That the same is received before the
close of voting on the day of elections. The overseas absentee voter shall be
instructed that her/his ballot shall not be counted if not transmitted in the special
envelope furnished her/him.
"25.3. Only mailed ballots received by the post before the close of voting on the
day of elections shall be counted in accordance with Section 27 hereof. All
envelopes containing the ballots received by the posts after the prescribed
period shall not be opened, and shall be cancelled and disposed of
appropriately, with a corresponding report thereon submitted to the Commission
not later than thirty (30) days from the day of elections."
Section 26. A new Section 26 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 26. Voting Privilege of Members of the SBEI, SBRCG and SBOC. Government employees posted abroad who will perform election duties as
members of the SBEI, SBCRG and SBOC shall be allowed to vote in their
respective posts: Provided, That they are registered either in the Philippines or
as overseas voters."

"24.9. x x x
31

Section 27. Section 18 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 27

and is amended to read as follows:

parties and accredited citizens' arms with copies thereof via facsimile, electronic
mail and any other means of transmission equally safe, secure and reliable.

"SEC. 27. On-Site Counting and Canvassing. -

"x x x

"27.1. x x x

"27.5. x x x

"27.2. For these purposes, the Commission shall constitute as many SBEIs as
may be necessary to conduct and supervise the counting of votes as provided
in Section 27.2 hereof. The SBEIs to be constituted herein shall be composed
of a Chairman and two (2) members, one (1) of whom shall be designated as
poll clerk. The ambassador or consul-general, or any career public officer
posted abroad designated by the Commission, as the case may be, shall act as
the Chairman; in the absence of other government officers, the two (2) other
members shall be citizens of the Philippines who are qualified to vote under this
Act and deputized by the Commission not later than sixty (60) days before the
day of elections. All resolutions of the SBEIs on issues brought before it during
the conduct of its proceedings shall be valid only when they carry the approval
of the Chairman.

"27.6. x x x. For purposes of this Act, the returns of every election for President
and Vice-President prepared by the SBOCs shall be deemed a certificate of
canvass of a city or a province.

"Immediately upon the completion of the counting, the SBEIs shall transmit via
facsimile and/or electronic mail the results to the Commission in Manila and the
accredited major political parties.
"x x x
"27.3. x x x
"27.4. The SBOC composed of the highest ranking officer of the post as
Chairperson, a senior career officer from any of the government agencies
maintaining a post abroad and, in the absence of another government officer, a
citizen of the Philippines qualified to vote under this Act and deputized by the
Commission, as vice chairperson and member-secretary, respectively, shall be
constituted to canvass the election returns submitted to it by the SBEIs.
Immediately upon the completion of the canvass, the chairperson of the SBOC
shall transmit via facsimile, electronic mail, or any other means of transmission
equally safe and reliable the Certificates of Canvass and the Statements of
Votes to the Commission, and shall cause to preserve the same immediately
after the conclusion of the canvass, and make it available upon instructions of
the Commission. The SBOC shall also furnish the accredited major political

"27.7. x x x."
Section 28. A new Section 28 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 28. Authority to Explore Other Modes or Systems Using Automated
Election System. - Notwithstanding current procedures and systems herein
provided, for the proper implementation of this Act and in view of the
peculiarities attendant to the overseas voting process, the Commission may
explore other more efficient, reliable and secure modes or systems, ensuring
the secrecy and sanctity of the entire process, whether paper-based, electronicbased or internet-based technology or such other latest technology available, for
onsite and remote registration and elections and submit reports and/or
recommendations to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee."
Section 29. A new Section 29 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 29. Procurement of Facilities, Equipment, Materials, Supplies or
Services. - To achieve the purpose of this Act, the Commission may, likewise,
procure from local or foreign sources, through purchase, lease, rent or other
forms of acquisition, hardware or software, facilities, equipment, materials,
supplies or services in accordance with existing laws, free from taxes and
import duties, subject to government procurement rules and regulations."
Section 30. A new Section 30 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:

32

"SEC. 30. Establishment of an Office for Overseas Voting (OFOV) Under the
Commission. - The Commission is hereby authorized to establish an OFOV
tasked specifically to oversee and supervise the effective implementation of the
Overseas Voting Act: Provided, That its secretariat shall come from the existing
secretariat personnel of the Commission on Elections."
Section 31. A new Section 31 of the same Act is hereby inserted to read as
follows:
"SEC. 31. Creation of the Department of Foreign Affairs Overseas Voting
Secretariat (DFA-OVS). - A secretariat based in the DFA home office is hereby
created to assist the OFOV, and to direct, coordinate and oversee the
participation of the DFA in the implementation of the Overseas Voting Act:
Provided, That its secretariat shall come from the existing secretariat personnel
of the DFA."

Section 35. Section 22 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 34

and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 34. Assistance from Government Agencies. - All government officers,
particularly from the DFA, the DOLE, the DOTC, the PPC, the POEA, the
OWWA, the Commission on Filipinos Overseas and other government offices
concerned with the welfare of the Filipinos overseas shall, to the extent
compatible with their primary responsibilities, assist the Commission in carrying
out the provisions of this Act. All such agencies or officers thereof shall take
reasonable measures to expedite all election activities, which the Commission
shall require of them. When necessary, the Commission may send supervisory
teams headed by career officers to assist the posts.
"Likewise, consular and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the
overseas voting processes shall be made available at no cost to the overseas
voters."

Section 32. Section 19 of the same Act is hereby deleted.

Section 33. Section 20 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 32
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 32. Information Campaign. - The Commission, in coordination with
agencies concerned, shall undertake an information campaign to educate the
public on the manner of overseas voting for qualified overseas voters. It may
require the support and assistance of the DFA, through the posts, the DOLE,
the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the Philippine
Postal Corporation (PPC), the POEA, the OWWA and the Commission on
Filipinos Overseas.
Such information campaign shall educate the Filipino public, within and outside
the Philippines, on the Philippine Electoral System, the rights of overseas
voters, overseas voting processes and other related concerns. Information
materials shall be developed by the Commission for distribution, through the
said government agencies and private organizations. No government agency
shall prepare, print, distribute or post any information material without the prior
approval of the Commission."
Section 34. Section 21 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 33.

Section 36. Section 23 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 35

and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 35. Security Measures to Safeguard the Secrecy and Sanctity of Ballots.
- At all stages of the electoral process, the Commission shall ensure that the
secrecy and integrity of the ballots are preserved. The OFOV of the
Commission shall be responsible for ensuring the secrecy and sanctity of the
overseas voting process. In the interest of transparency, all necessary and
practicable measures shall be adopted to allow representation of the
candidates, accredited major political parties, accredited citizens' arms and
nongovernment organizations to assist, and intervene in appropriate cases, in
all stages of the electoral exercise and to prevent any and all forms of fraud and
coercion.
"No officer or member of the foreign service corps, including those belonging to
attached agencies shall be transferred, promoted, extended, recalled or
otherwise moved from his current post or position one (1) year before and three
(3) months after the day of elections, except upon the approval of the
Commission."
Section 37. Section 24 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 36
and is amended to read as follows:
33

"SEC. 36. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it
shall be unlawful:

"36.8. For any person to engage in partisan political activity abroad during the
thirty (30)-day overseas voting period;

"36.1. For any officer or employee of the Philippine government to influence or

attempt to influence any person covered by this Act to vote, or not to vote, for a
particular candidate. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prohibit free
discussion regarding politics or candidates for public office;

"36.9. For any person who is not a citizen of the Philippines to participate, by
word or deed, directly or indirectly through qualified organizations/associations,
in any manner and at any stage of the Philippine political process abroad,
including participation in the campaign and elections.

"36.2. For any person to deprive another of any right secured in this Act, or to
give false information as to one's name, address, or period of residence for the
purposes of establishing the eligibility or ineligibility to register or vote under this
Act; or to conspire with another person for the purpose of encouraging the
giving of false information in order to establish the eligibility or ineligibility of any
individual to register or vote under this Act; or, to pay, or offer to pay, or to
accept payment either for application for registration, or for voting;

"The provision of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, and with due
regard to the Principle of Double Criminality, the prohibited acts described in
this section are electoral offenses and shall be punishable in the Philippines.

"36.3. For any person to steal, conceal, alter, destroy, mutilate, manipulate, or in
any way tamper with the mail containing the ballots for overseas voters, the
ballot, the election returns, or any record, document or paper required for
purposes of this Act;
"36.4. For any deputized agent to refuse without justifiable ground, to serve or
continue serving, or to comply with one's sworn duties after acceptance of the
deputization;
"36.5. For any public officer or employee or accredited or deputized organization
or association to cause the preparation, printing, distribution or posting of
information or material, without the prior approval of the Commission;
"36.6. For any public officer or employee to cause the transfer, promotion,
extension, recall of any member of the foreign service corps, including members
of the attached agencies, or otherwise cause the movement of any such
member from the current post or position one (1) year before and three (3)
months after the day of elections, without securing the prior approval of the
Commission;
"36.7. For any person who, after being deputized by the Commission to
undertake activities in connection with the implementation of this Act, shall
campaign for or assist, in whatever manner, candidates in the elections;

"The penalties imposed under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, as
amended, shall be imposed on any person found guilty of committing any of the
prohibited acts as defined in this section: Provided, That the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person found guilty
under Section 36.3 hereof without the benefit of the operation of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. If the offender is a public officer or a candidate,
the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period. In addition, the
offender shall be sentenced to suffer perpetual disqualification to hold public
office and deprivation of the right to vote."
Section 38. Section 25 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 37
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 37. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - A Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee is hereby created, composed of the Chairperson of the
Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and
Laws, and seven (7) other Senators designated by the Senate President, and
the Chairperson of the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms,
and seven (7) other Members of the House of Representatives designated by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Provided, That, of the seven (7)
members to be designated by each House of Congress, four (4) should come
from the majority to include the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and
the remaining three (3) from the minority.
"The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee shall have the power to monitor
and evaluate the implementation of this Act."

34

Section 39. Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the same Act are hereby renumbered as
Sections 38, 39 and 40, respectively.
Section 40. Section 29 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 41
and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 41. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act shall be included in the budgets of the Commission on Elections and
the DFA in the annual General Appropriations Act."
Section 41. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall
promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation and enforcement of the
provisions of this Act within sixty (60) days from the effectivity thereof.
In the formulation of the rules and regulations, the Commission shall coordinate
with the DFA, the DOLE, the POEA, the OWWA and the Commission on
Filipinos Overseas. Nongovernment organizations and accredited Filipino
organizations or associations abroad shall be consulted.
Section 42. Amending Clause. - Consistent with the amendments introduced by
this Act, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9189, on the declaration of policy, is,
hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the prime duty of the State to provide a
system of honest and orderly overseas voting that upholds the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot. Towards this end, the State ensures equal opportunity to
all qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad in the exercise of this fundamental
right."

Detainee, PWDs, IPs, Mediua

1. DETAINEE VOTING is the process by which a registered detainee voter, whose
registration record is not transferred, deactivated, cancelled or deleted, may still
exercise his right to vote.
COMELEC Resolution 9371, dated 06 March 2012, has defined a detainee to be
any person who is:

confined in jail, formally charged for any crime/s and awaiting/undergoing

trial; orserving a sentence of imprisonment for less than one (1) year; or
whose conviction of a crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any
crime against national security or for any other crime is on appeal.

An express lane will be provided for them

2. PWDs
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10366]
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO ESTABLISH
PRECINCTS ASSIGNED TO ACCESSIBLE POLLING PLACES EXCLUSIVELY
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND SENIOR CITIZENS
(b) Persons with Disabilities refer to qualified voters who have long-term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers
may hinder their full and effective participation in the electoral processes on an
equal basis with others.
PWD-friendly precincts
To make precincts accessible and inclusive, they should be near the entrance of the
building.
It should be free of physical barriers.
It should have all necessary services for PWDs and senior citizens.
The BEI should also set up a separate area in the precinct for the exclusive use of
PWDs and senior citizens.
There should be an express lane for PWDs, senior citizens, heavily pregnant
women, and detainee voters. They should be allowed to vote as soon as they arrive.
Indigenous peoples from remote locations may also avail of the express lane.
Assistance in the Accomplishment of Application Form. A person with disability or
senior citizen who cannot by himself or herself accomplish an application for
registration, by reason of illiteracy or physical disability, shall be assisted by the
Election Officer in the preparation of his or her application form, or by any member
of an accredited citizens arm, or by a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree, or if he or she has none present, by any person of his or her
confidence who belongs to the same household.

35

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.
3. Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous peoples from remote locations may also avail of the express lane.
The Pilot Indigenous Peoples (IP) Voting was successfully conducted in Oriental and
Occidental Mindoro during 9 May 2016 National and Local Elections. Voting took
place in all the twenty three (23) pilot voting centers in the Mindoro Provinces.
The Pilot IP Voting Process was launched by the Commission on Election
(COMELEC) in order to address problems on access, discrimination and "hakot" of
IP voters on election day. On March 14, 2016, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 10080 which outlined the General Instructions on the process of Pilot
IP Voting in selected voting centers in the Mindoro Provinces.

4.

Media

Voting under the LAV (local absentee voting) program are government officials and
employees, members of the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the
Philippine, and media practitioners that are registered voters but will not be able to

vote on Election Day due to the performance of their functions.

Government officials and employees as well as the police and military will be voting
at designated voting centers identified by their superiors. Media men are to vote at
the Comelec offices where they also filed their applications to avail of the local
absentee voting.
Macalintal vs COMELEC
FACTS: Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the validity of the
said act on the following grounds, among others:
1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant abroad can be
allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he executes an affidavit stating his
intent to return to the Philippines, is void because it dispenses of the requirement
that a voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in the
place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the
election;
2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim
winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of
winning candidates for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it
violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintals arguments are correct. HELD: No.
1.
Therecanbenoabsenteevotingiftheabsenteevotersarerequiredtophysicallyresideinthe
Philippines within the period required for non-absentee voters. Further, as
understood in election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence,
one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile
is the place where one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who
executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a
resident of the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee voter
to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as
an absentee voter.
2. The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of
Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the winners in the vicepresidential and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress
allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of the
presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no
way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
People vs Corral
36

G.R. No. L-42300

January 31, 1936

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AMADEO CORRAL, defendant-appellant.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Appellant was charged having voted illegally at the general elections held on June 5,
1934. After due trial, he was convicted on the ground that he had voted while
laboring under a legal disqualification. The judgment of conviction was based on
section 2642, in connection with section 432. of the Revised Administrative Code.
Said Section 432 reads as follows:
The following persons shall be disqualified from voting:
(a) Any person who, since the thirteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and
ninety-eight, has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer not less than eighteen
months of imprisonment, such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon.
(b) Any person who has violated an oath of allegiance taken by him to the United
States.
(c) Insane of feeble-minded persons.
(d) Deaf-mutes who cannot read and write.
(e) Electors registered under subsection (c) of the next proceeding section who,
after failing to make sworn statement to the satisfaction of the board of inspectors at
any of its two meetings for registration and revision, that they are incapacitated for
preparing their ballots due to permanent physical disability, present themselves at
the hour of voting as incapacitated, irrespective of whether such incapacity be real or
feigned.
And section 2642 provides:

Whoever at any election votes or attempts to vote knowing that he is not entitled so
to do, ... shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more
than one year and by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one
thousand pesos, and in all cases by deprivation of the right of suffrage and
disqualification from public office for a period of not more than four years.
It is undisputed that appellant was sentenced by final judgment of this court
promulgated on March 3, 1910,1 to suffer eight years and one day of presidio mayor.
No evidence was presented to show that prior to June 5, 1934, he had been granted
a plenary pardon. It is likewise undisputed that at the general elections held on June
5, 1934, the voted in election precinct No. 18 of the municipality of Davao, Province
of Davao.
The modern conception of the suffrage is that voting is a function of government.
The right to vote is not a natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is a
privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as are most likely to
exercise it for the public good. In the early stages of the evolution of the
representative system of government, the exercise of the right of suffrage was
limited to a small portion of the inhabitants. But with the spread of democratic ideas,
the enjoyment of the franchise in the modern states has come to embrace the mass
of the audit classes of persons are excluded from the franchise. Among the the
generally excluded classes are minors idiots, paupers, and convicts.
The right of the State to deprive persons to the right of suffrage by reason of their
having been convicted of crime, is beyond question. "The manifest purpose of such
restrictions upon this right is to preserve the purity of elections. The presumption is
that one rendered infamous by conviction of felony, or other base offense indicative
of moral turpitude, is unfit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The
exclusion must for this reason be adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for
protection and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not the denial of
a personal right. (9 R.C.L., 1042.)
Upon the facts established in this case, it seems clear that the appellant was not
entitled to vote on June 5 1934, because of section 432 of the Revised
Administrative Code which disqualified from voting any person who, since the 13th
day of August, 1898, had been sentenced by final judgment to offer not less than
eighteen months of imprisonment, such disability not having been removed by
plenary pardon. As above stated, the appellant had been sentenced by final
judgment to suffer eight years and one day of presidio mayor, and had not been
granted a plenary pardon.
37

Counsel for the appellant contend that inasmuch as the latter voted in 1928 his
offense had already prescribed, and he could no longer be prosecuted for illegal
voting at the general election held on June 5, 1934. This contention is clearly without
merit. The disqualification for crime imposed under section 432 of the Revised
Administrative Code having once attached on the appellant and not having been
subsequently removed by a plenary pardon, continued and rendered it illegal for the
appellant to vote at the general elections of 1934.
Neither is there any merit in the contention advanced by counsel for the appellant
that the disqualification imposed on the latter must be considered as having been
removed at the expiration of his sentence. This claim is based upon an erroneous
theory of the nature of the disqualification. It regards it as a punishment when, as
already indicated, the correct view is that it is imposed, "for protection and not for
punishment,. the withholding of a prvilege and not the denial of a personal right."
Judicial interpretation and long established administrative practice are against such
a view.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.
Villa-Real, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
AVANCEA, C.J., dissenting:
The appealed judgment affirmed by the majority members of this court sentences
the appellant for having voted in the general election held on June 5, 1934, in the
municipality of Davao, Province of Davao, being disqualified from voting. The
appellant, in my opinion, was not disqualified from voting.
The appellant was sentenced to the penalty of eight years and one day of prision
mayor in the year 1910. This penalty carried with it, as an accessory, disqualification
from the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. He began to serve his
sentence on April 11, 1910. He was granted a conditional pardon on July 31, 1913.
Inasmuch as the accessory penalty of disqualification from the right of suffrage was
not expressly remitted in this pardon, it is understood that he complied with and

extinguished this part of the sentence on April 12, 1918. Therefore, under the
penalty imposed upon the appellant, he was not disqualified from voting in 1934.
The majority, however bases its decision on section 432 of the administrative Code
which reads:
The following persons shall be disqualified from voting:
(a) Any person who, since the thirteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and
ninety-eight, has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer not less than eighteen
months of imprisonment, such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon.
The language of the law is not clear whether the disqualification referred to therein is
only for the term of the sentence or for the entire life time of the convict. The majority
however, interprets this provision in the latter sense to which I do not agree, it being
contrary to the spirit thereof.
If the interpretation of the majority were correct, section 432 of the Administrative
Code would not harmonize with the latter provisions thereof (secs. 2636, 2637,
2639, 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645, 2646, 2647, 2649, 2652, 2654, 2656,
2657, 2658 and 2659) on offenses relative to elections and elective officers,
imposing the penalties of imprisonment and disqualification from the right of suffrage
for a period not exceeding five and fourteen years, respectively. Supposing that in
one of said cases, for instance that of an election inspector who willfully signs a false
statement of the result of a ballot (sec. 2639), the penalty of imprisonment for more
than eighteen months is imposed upon him could be disqualified from voting during
his entire lifetime, in accordance with section 432, if the interpretation of the majority
is correct, and it would be to no purpose still to sentence him to him to the penalty of
disqualification from the right of suffrage for a period not exceeding fourteen years.
It cannot be said to harmonize these provisions, that the disqualification from the
right of suffrage should be imposed only when the penalty of imprisonment imposed
therein less than eighteen months because it is expressly required that both
penalties be imposed in all cases.
Neither can it be said that section 432 governs all cases, in general, and sections
2336 et seq. govern the specific cases referred to therein, because there would be
no justice in the law. One may be sentenced to more than eighteen months of
imprisonment for having committed the crime of serious physical injuries, for
38

instance, through reckless negligence or in self-defense, but without having used the
means reasonably necessary therefor, and according to the majority opinion he will
be disqualified from voting during his entire who, abusing his position, willfully
commits a falsehood in connection with a ballot entrusted to him, after serving his
sentence which does not exceed fourteen years, will again be qualified to vote. This
cannot be the result countenanced by the law. If the law in more serious cases
wherein an attempt is made directly against the cleanliness of the election, not
disqualifies the guilty party from the right of suffrage for a period not exceeding
fourteen years, it cannot be supposed that its intention is to forever disqualify
therefrom the party guilty of a crime which bears no relation to the exercise of

suffrage and which does not involve the degree of moral turpitude as in the other
case.
I am of the opinion that this anomaly can be avoided only by interpreting section 432
in the sense that the disqualification referred to therein is merely during the term of
the sentence.

39