You are on page 1of 34

1. Bautista vs. COMELEC [G.R. Nos. 154796-97 October 23, 2003] En Banc, J.

Carpio FACTS: On June 10,
2002, Bautista filed his certificate of candidacy for Punong Barangay in Lumbangan for the July 15, 2002
barangay elections. Election Officer Jareño refused to accept Bautista's certificate of candidacy because
he was not a registered voter in Lumbangan. On June 11, 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus
against Election Officer Jareño with the Regional Trial Court of Batangas. The trial court ordered Election
Officer Jareño to accept Bautista's certificate of candidacy and to include his name in the certified list of
candidates for Punong Barangay. In compliance with the trial court's order, Election Officer Jareño
included Bautista in the certified list of candidates for Punong Barangay. At the same time, Election
Officer Jareño referred the matter of Bautista's inclusion in the certified list of candidates with the
COMELEC Law Department on 5 July 2002. Thereafter, the COMELEC Law Department recommended
the cancellation of Bautista's certificate of candidacy since he was not registered as a voter in
Lumbangan. The COMELEC en banc failed to act on the COMELEC Law Department's recommendation
before the barangay elections on 15 July 2002. During the 15 July 2002 barangay elections, Bautista and
private respondent Alcoreza, ere candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in Lumbangan.
Bautista obtained the highest number of votes (719) while Alcoreza came in second with 522 votes, or a
margin of 197 votes. Thus, the Lumbangan Board of Canvassers proclaimed Bautista as the elected
Punong Barangay. Meanwhile, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5404 on 23 July 2002 and Resolution No.
5584 on 10 August 2002 ("COMELEC Resolutions"). In Resolution No. 5404, the COMELEC en banc
resolved to cancel Bautista's certificate of candidacy. On the other hand, Resolution No. 5584 expressed
COMELEC's policy regarding proclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered voters
in the place of their election. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584;
2. Whether or not the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when the COMELEC en banc issued
Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 3. Whether Bautista was a registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan
when he filed his certificate of candidacy; and

4. Whether or not it was proper to proclaim Alcoreza as Punong Barangay in view of the alleged
disqualification of the winning candidate Bautista. HELD: 1. A division of the COMELEC should have first
heard this case. The COMELEC en banc can only act on the case if there is a motion for reconsideration
of the decision of the COMELEC division. Hence, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction when
it ordered the cancellation of Bautista's certificate of candidacy without first referring the case to a
division for summary hearing. The proceeding on the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy does not
merely pertain to the administrative functions of the COMELEC. Cancellation proceedings involve the
COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions. 2. The opportunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to
present verbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. There is due process when a party is able to
present evidence in the form of pleadings. However, the COMELEC did not give Bautista such
opportunity to explain his side. The COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 without
prior notice and hearing. A summary proceeding does not mean that the COMELEC could do away with
the requirements of notice and hearing. The COMELEC should have at least given notice to Bautista to
give him the chance to adduce evidence to explain his side in the cancellation proceeding. The COMELEC
en banc deprived Bautista of procedural due process of law when it approved the report and
recommendation of the Law Department without notice and hearing. 3. Bautista was aware when he
filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he lacked one of the
qualifications - that of being a registered voter in the barangay where he ran for office. He therefore
made a misrepresentation of a material fact when he made a false statement in his certificate of
candidacy that he was a registered voter in Barangay Lumbangan. An elective office is a public trust. He
who aspires for elective office should not make a mockery of the electoral process by falsely
representing himself. The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the
electoral process.Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, false representation of a material fact
in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy.
The material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office. A
candidate guilty of misrepresentation may be (1) prevented from running, or (2) if elected, from serving,
or (3) prosecuted for violation of the election laws. 4. It is a well-settled doctrine that the COMELEC
cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in case the
winning candidate is ineligible or disqualified. The exception to this well-settled rule was

mentioned in Labo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections which held that the exception is predicated on the
concurrence of two assumptions, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is
disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's disqualification so as
to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of
the ineligible candidate. Following Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code provides for the rule regarding
permanent vacancy in the Office of the Punong Barangay, the highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member, or in the case of his permanent disability, the second highest ranking sangguniang member,
shall become the Punong Barangay. Thus, the proclamation of the second placer Divina Alcoreza as
winner in lieu of Bautista is void. 2. LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, et. al. vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 162759 August
4, 2006 En Banc, J. Garcia FACTS: Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9225 which accords to such applicants the right of suffrage, among others. Long
before the May 2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as
"overseas absentee voter" only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the United States that, per a
COMELEC letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs dated September 23, 2003 they have yet no right
to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the
Constitution. The same letter, however, urged the different Philippine posts abroad not to discontinue
their campaign for voter’s registration, as the residence restriction adverted to would contextually affect
merely certain individuals who would likely be eligible to vote in future elections. ISSUE: Whether or not
petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship
pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189. HELD: Yes. It is very likely that a
considerable number of those unmarried children below eighteen (18) years of age had never set foot in
the Philippines. Now then, if the next generation of "duals" may nonetheless avail themselves the right
to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act, then there is neither no rhyme nor
reason why the petitioners and other present day "duals," provided they meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be denied the

FACTS:Petitioner Julio Ozamiz is a resident of Jimenez. 19 July 1999) Davide. In other words. 1970 Concepcion. Respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the petition for exclusion. On September 30. DOMINO vs. On march 30.J. 1967. the court may pass upon any question necessary to decide the issue therein raised. Congress could not have plausibly intended such absurd situation. 3. he filed with the Court of First Instance of said province. Misamis Occidental and a registered voter of the same municipality. The authority to order the inclusion in or exclusion from the list of voters necessarily carries with it the power to inquire into and settle all matters essential to the exercise of said authority unless the law provides otherwise. they alleged that Domino. much less a registered voter of the province of sarangani where he seeks election. 4.. . if the determination of said issue depends upon his political status. Jr. but. a petition for the exclusion of respondent Eleuterio Quimbo from the list of voters of said municipality alleging that he is a citizen of China. L-28228 August 31. Zosa G. No. whatever said decision may be. nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election. private respondents filed with the COMELEC a petition to deny due course to or cancel COC . contrary to his declaration in the COC. 1967. 1998. not only as regards the nationality of the person concerned. this appeal. C. C. Quimbo filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground “that the petition fails to allege jurisdictional facts”.R. is not a resident. On October 7. Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative district of the province of sarangani indicating in his certificate that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2 months immediately preceding the election. even as his right to vote. Ozamiz vs. Hence. COMELEC (GR. including the question of citizenship of the person sought to be stricken from the list of voters. Furthermore.J FACTS: On march 25 1998. it would neither be conclusive on his political status. a decision in an exclusive proceeding declaring a voter a Filipino does not constitute res adjudicate. ISSUE:Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to inquire into the citizenship of Quimbo. HELD:In proceedings for the exclusion of voters.right of suffrage as an overseas absentee voter. presided over by respondent Judge.No 134015.

Such jurisdiction continues even after election. this petition.On may 6 1998. returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after the candidate has became a member of the House of Representatives. In the instant case. if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the election. It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases. ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition a quo for the disqualification of the petitioner? HELD: As previously mentioned. the COMELEC issued a Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. Domino then filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution which was denied by the COMELEC en banc. Domino was not proclaimed a Congressman-elect of the Lone Congressional District of the Province of Sarangani by reason of a Supplemental Omnibus Resolution issued by the Comelec on the day of the election ordering the suspension of Domino’s proclamation should he obtain the winning number of votes. that the HRET’s sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to all election. it is the COMELEC and not the Electoral Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the issue of his ineligibility as a candidate. Hence. J: Facts:The cases were filed by petitioners asking the Commission to hold a special election due to a failure of election in twelve municipalities and a partial failure of . The result of the election shows that Domino garnered the highest number of votes over his opponents for such position. and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest number of votes provided further that the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or has taken his oath of office. 134340. the COMELEC has jurisdiction to deny due course or to cancel COC. Pangandaman vs Comelec (GR No. Hence. considering that the resolution disqualifying him as a candidate had not yet become final and executory. Considering that Domino has not been proclaimed as Congressman-elect he cannot be deemed a member of the House of Representatives. the COMELEC 2nd division promulgated a resolution declaring Domino disqualified as a candidate for the position for lack of the 1 year residency requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his COC. 5. This resolution was issued by COMELEC in view of the non-finality of its resolution disqualifying Domino as a candidate for the position. On the day of the election. 25 November 1999) Ynares-Santiago. 3046 ordering that the votes cast for Domino be counted but to suspend the proclamation if winning.

election in eleven municipalities. so as the proclamation of the winning candidates. 150469. Lanao Del Norte. The first involves a question of fact. As clearly provided by the law. Manamparan were among the candidates for mayor in the Municipality of Nunungan. . Thus. 6. suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. only thirty-six (36) functioned. After the special election. the location of polling places shall be the same as that of the preceding regular election. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a case. as such election was not genuinely held and resulted in failure to elect on account of fraud. which was granted. The provision invoked can not be construed in the manner that would defeat the purpose and spirit for which the law was enacted. suspension or failure to elect may still be considered reasonably close to the date of the election not held. Thus the proclamation was deferred as the number of registered voters would affect the election results. Issue: Whether or not the result of the special election was valid due to the transfer of polling places in adjacent areas. A special election was set for the remaining (4) precincts. Ruling: No. petitioner insist on a strict compliance with the holding of special elections not later than thirty (30) days after failure to elect pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code Issue:Whether or not the 30 day period in holding a special election must be strictly complied with. 3 July 2002) Facts: Jun Rascal Cawasa and private respondent Adbulmalik M. Ruling:No. a proclamation that is a result of an illegal act is void and cannot be ratified by such proclamation and subsequent assumption of office. the holding of elections within the next few months from the cessation of the cause of the postponement. and (2) It should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held. The Comelec en banc promulgated a resolution annulling the results of the special elections of the 4 precincts and annulling the proclamation of the winning candidates. While the proclamation of a candidate has the effect of terminating pre-proclamation issues. Cawasa was proclaimed Mayor. Manamparan filed an appeal and petition for the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Cawasa and for the annulment of the special election results. Thereafter. Cawasa vs Comelec (GR No. as there was a failure of election in the remaining four (4) precincts. Out of the forty (40) precincts in Nunungan. The Comelec ruled that the result of the special elections in the 4 contested precincts were declared annulled. In fixing the date for special elections the Comelec should see to it that: (1) It should not be later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect.

however. enjoining the Comelec from proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate. Senator Agapito Aquino intervene with Comment for the dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the law does not allow preproclamation controversy involving the election of members of the Senate. Chavez vs Comelec (GR No. allegedly nationwide. Abdula prayed that the proclamation of Samad be nullified and that he be enjoined from assuming as mayor of Kabuntalan.354 precincts nationwide.348 precincts in 13 provinces. with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.Subsequently. "Chavez" votes were not credited in favor of petitioner. 105323. Petitioner samad filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City an . Vice-President. Subsequer Agapito Aquino filed a Motion for tly. On the other hand. 8. A directive over radio and TV ordering all "Chavez" votes to be credited in favor of petitioner. A simple reading of the petition would readily show that petitioner has no cause of action. ordered an ivestigation to be conducted and required elec supervisor Cabacungan to comment on the petition. Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. As a result. Petitioner filed an urgent petition for prohibition and mandamus. Ruling: No. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has a cause of action. as the "Chavez" votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election Inspectors. However. Confusion arose. What is allowed is the correction of "manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns. Samad sought the nullification of the proclamation made in favor of Abdula and the calling of a special election in three precincts. the name “Chavez” was not deleted from the list of qualified voters. scan the ballots for "Chavez" votes which were invalidated or declared stray and credit said scanned "Chavez" votes in favor of petitioner. One board. 3 July 1992) Facts: Melchor Chavez was disqualified from running as Senator for the 1992 elections. In the case at bar. petitioner prays not only for a restraining order enjoining the proclamation of the 24th highest ranking senatorial candidate but also prays that judgment be rendered requiring the Comelec to re-open the ballot boxes in 80. Samad v COMELEC Samad and Pagayao were both proclaimed as mayor elect by two different canvassing boards. Petitioner contends that the radio and TV announcements did not reach the BEI at the 170. which declared samad as mayor. 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides that pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in elections for President. Sec.7. the controversy presented being one in the nature of a preproclamation. was headed by Pagayao and the other was headed by Saga. It is quite obvious that petitioner's prayer does not call for the correction of "manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns. Comelec then summoned both election registrars saga and pagayao to appear before the comelec.

shall remain active cases. COMELEC directed the Office of the Executive Director to constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of verifying which of the two sets of statements of votes upon which the two different proclamation documents were based was genuine. In need of a temporary OIC-mayor. Candao on the other hand . Ampatuan v Comelec Ampatuan and candao both ran for governor of Maguindanao. Candao filed a petition with the Comelec for the annulment of election results and/or declaration of failure of elections in several municipalities in Maguindanao. Both petitions in the COMELEC and in the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato were directed at the illegality of the composition of the Saga board and of the proclamation of the private respondent. not being pre-proclamation controversies. 9. and in some precincts. In addition to that. was illegally constituted because it was not approved by election supervisor Atty. 2489 stated that all pending petitions for disqualification. Abdula was appointed by pres fidel ramos.action against the private respondent for quo warranto and prohibition with preliminary injunction wc was granted. Ampatuan then filed for the lifting of said order which was granted and then led to the proclamation of ampatuan as governor of maguindanao. After finding that both cert off canvass and proclamation prepared by Saga and Pagayao. 1992. comelec suspended the proclamation of winners. COMELEC Resolution No. which prompted COMELEC to also create a special board of canvassers to continue the canvassing of votes in said province. They claim that the elections were a sham since the ballots were filled-up en masse the night before the elections. the ballot boxes. until the issues therein are finally resolved by the Commission. Cabacungan. official ballots. which proclaimed abdula as mayor. 1992 because it was declared by COMELEC that the issue raised is meritorious. Such designation was questioned by Samad. Moreover the quo warranto proceedings was not a proper remedy because both the petitioner and the private respondent claimed to have assumed the office of the mayor of Kabuntalan whereas the purpose of such proceeding is to unseat an official on the ground of disloyalty and fraud. Samads petition for the nullification of proclamation of abdula was not only for the annulment of Abdula's proclamation but also for the holding of special elections in three precincts since it was reported that 2 precints were not included in the counting. As a result. Jurisdiction remained with COMELEC. and other election paraphernalia were not delivered at all. Even assuming the petition was a purely pre-proclamation case. failure of elections or analogous cases. the proceedings to continue beyond June 30. the board of canvassers headed by Saga. Issues: W/N jurisdiction over the present controversy remained with the COMELEC or was vested in the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City upon the filing of the petition for quo warranto YES. it could nevertheless continue beyond June 30. Further. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. without prejudice to the resolution of the prayer for special elections in Kabuntalan.

They argued that the conduct of technical examination would make the summary nature of the proclamation of failure of elections useless. but an election protest. may conduct technical examination of election documents. chairperson Mamalinta distributed to the parties present a report on the status of canvassing. . While in the former. DATU ANGAS and THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULTAN SA BARONGIS [G. Technical examination of 4 to 7 precincts was also ordered. Out of the 98 precincts. ampatuan. 150111. Their assumption into office does not give rise to the presumption that it is legal since the respondents have put into question the conduct of elections which led to their proclamation. January 31. the municipal board of canvassers issued 4 separate rulings excluding 5 election returns for reasons such as (1) the copy of the ER for local position is not original. Whether the Comelec has been divested of its juridiction to hear and decide repondent’s petition for declaration of failure of elections after petitioners have been proclaimed.A Pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results. and compare and analyze voter’s signatures and thumbprints. filed the present petition. the Comelec en banc has authority to annul election results and/or declare a failure of elections. (2) the ER is not the Board copy and the data on the votes of the candidates are manifestly tampered by touch and go. could warrant a failure of elections. examination of the election returns is limited on its face. As provided in Sec. Before the start of the canvass. They claimed that the proper remedy for the respondents is not a declaration of failure of election. R. J. Maguindanao in the May 14. No.filed a petition to the SC to set aside such proclamation but was unfortunately denied. the latter. 10. the Comelec is duty bound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of the respondents’ allegations. In this case. 2002] Pardo. COMELEC. (3) the envelope has no outer seal and the ER contained in the envelope has no inner seal. 6 of the OEC. Petitioners. 2001 election. the Comelec ordered a consolidation of the respondent’s petition for declaration of failure of elections. or failure of elections. Petitioner Utto and respondent Datu Angas were candidates for the position of the mayor of the municipality of Sultan sa Barongis. Petition is DISMISSED. Despite the assumption into office of the petitioners. the Comelec is not deprived of its jurisdiction even if the petitioners have already assumed office. The respondent’s exhaustive allegation of massive fraud and terrorism should not be taken lightly since if these were proven. UTTO v. In the case at bar.

private respondent Jamael M. Petitioner had a lead of 198 votes over his adversary. to annul the elections and the proclamation of candidates in the said Municipality alleging that there was a massive substitution of voters. a special civil action covered by Rule 26 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. No. Comelec issued a resolution directing the inclusion of 5 election returns excluded by the municipal board of canvassers during the canvass of votes and a resolution finding petitioner’s proclamation to be illegal and void ab initio. 19. rampant and pervasive irregularities in the voting procedures in precincts no. Lanao del Sur. 3743 and Sec 193 of the OEC. MACABAGO v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G. as well as affidavits tending to prove that serious irregularities were committed in the conduct of the elections in the subject precincts. Petitioner averred that private respondent raised a pre-proclamation controversy and it should be proper if he files an election protest. Comelec subsequently found that the aforementioned 5 election returns were valid and should have been included in the canvass. Private respondent appended thereto photocopies of random Voters Registration Records (VRRs) evidencing the fraud and deceit that allegedly permeated the electoral process.R. The fact that a candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise by the Comelec of the authority to annul any canvass and proclamation illegally made. W/N Utto’s proclamation was valid. the municipal board of canvassers proceeded with the proclamation of the candidates for municipal offices.20. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be made the basis of a proclamation. Macabago was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers as the winning candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor of Saguiran. SR. Where a proclamation is null and void. docketed as SPC-01-234. 28 and 29 and the failure of the BEI to comply with the COMELEC Resolution No. 2002 CALLEJO. The board proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of the municipality. the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the Comelec of the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. 11. COMELEC declared that the petition was one for the annulment of the election or declaration of failure of election in the municipality. Utto files a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul these resolutions. Salacop. 152163 November 18. J: FACTS: Petitioner Sabdullah T. as well as the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. thus the COMELEC concluded that there . NO. Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC against petitioner and the proclaimed Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors.Despite respondent’s manifestation to appeal the ruling.

In her opposition to private respondent’s objection. 2) the utilization of the watchers. Lee (petitioner) and Leovic R. HELD: YES. who were under the direct supervision of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI). Carpio-Morales. ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for issuing an order that private respondent raised a pre-proclamation controversy instead of an election protest.Lee vs G. July Deonida 4. 28A2 in barangay Bucalbucalan. the Board of Canvassers (BOC). 01-124. Sorsogon City on the grounds that 1) no entries were made for the position of congressman. and 2) Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were utilized to fill up election returns. counsel for private respondent objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. On May 18. 2) there was no pre-proclamation for . No. 2001. Dioneda (private respondent) were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City. The COMELEC thus committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the same.: Facts:The case is a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the February 11. Comelec 157004 and Leovic R. was limited only to the filling up of the entries affecting the party-list and justified by the severe lack of personnel to perform the task. 41150266 for Precinct No. 12. 2003 J. petitioner alleged that 1) the omitted entry in the election return pertains to the position of congressman which cannot be a subject of pre-proclamation controversy. The error is correctible by the special civil action for certiorari. Sorsogon in the May 14. Lanao del Sur. Sally A.was convincing proof of massive fraud and noted that the lead was only 124 votes visa-vis the 474 voters of the contested precincts and the outcome of the petition would adversely affect the results of the election. The COMELEC should have ordered the dismissal of the petition instead of issuing the assailed order.R. nor is such petition one for annulment of the elections or for a declaration of failure of elections in the municipality of Saguiran. The grounds alleged by private respondent in his petition before the COMELEC are those for a regular election protest and are not proper in a preproclamation controversy. During the canvassing of the election returns. Petitioner filed with this Court the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure praying for the reversal of the COMELEC order. 2001 elections. and 3) the alleged defect does not affect the integrity of the election return. finding that the 1) questioned election return was clear and regular on its face. 2003 En Banc Resolution1 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPC No.

2003 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was promulgated without giving her notice. Private respondent thereupon filed on the same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling. including petitioner as city mayor. it is not conclusive on the COMELEC nor on this Court in light of what transpired during the proceedings before the BOC in which the members of the BEI were examined and gave the explanations behind the omission of entries for the position of congressman. ruled for the inclusion of the return. as provided under the following provision of Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.docketed as SPC No. As to the third error raised by petitioner. the BOC proclaimed the winning candidates. hence the present petition. As to the second error raised by petitioner. and 3) the grounds relied upon by private respondent are all directed against the proceedings of the BEI and not the BOC. praying for its dismissal." citing the case of Loong v.The petitioner file a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. 01-124. 2003. This argument is bereft of merit . 2001. would have lapsed. In the meantime. or on May 19. as the case at bar is a pre-proclamation controversy. 2) Whether or not public respondent gravely abused its discretion when it rendered the assailed resolutions despite the clear and apparent lack of factual and legal basis to support the same 3) Whether or not public respondent committed procedural lapses in the promulgation of the assailed resolutions which affects the fairness standard Held: As to the first issue. While the BOC indeed found the questioned election return clear and regular on its face. 2003. the same is untenable. Issue: 1) whether or not public respondent is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind election returns and investigate election irregularities in pre- proclamation controversies. the petitioner’s argument is bereft of merit.members of the House of Representatives and party list. she argues that the January 10. said counsel would not have known that said resolution was already promulgated and the 5-day period from the date of promulgation to file a motion for reconsideration. Commission on Elections. the COMELEC is "restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go [beyond] or behind them and investigate election irregularities. By Resolution of January 10. Petitioner filed her answer to the COMELEC petition. assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the exclusion of the questioned election return and the annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. Private respondent thus filed on May 23. the COMELEC Second Division granted the petition of private respondent and accordingly excluded the questioned return from the canvass and nullified the proclamation of petitioner. 2001 before the COMELEC a petition. and that were it not for her counsel’s "accidental" visit to the COMELEC on January 13.

During the canvassing of votes. 2004 elections. Lanao del Sur. and that the Board was precipitate in proclaiming petitioner as the winning candidate. in ordering the exclusion of the questioned return. Held: Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code defines a pre-proclamation controversy as "any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission. 166229 June 29. as private respondent has manifested on record that he is intending to appeal the Board’s ruling. Private respondent admits that the exclusion of the contested returns is a ground for election protest. transmission. Private respondent also contended that the contested election returns should have been excluded from the canvass. The lack of merit of petitioner’s arguments notwithstanding. the ballot- contents of which were tallied and reflected in the return. Pandi were mayoralty candidates in Poona-Bayabao. and if it was intact.g.R. threat and intimidation were employed on the voters. e. Private respondent filed with Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an appeal from the ruling of the Board. Petitioner filed his Comment and/or Answer to the appeal. custody and appreciation of the election returns. 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation. alleging massive fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the elections.2 and proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate. or any matter raised under Sections 233. 2005) Austria-Martinez J. padding of ballots and existence of flying voters. force. Issue: Whether the appeal from the Board of Canvassers to the COMELEC (First Division) interjected by private respondent makes a case for a pre-proclamation controversy. receipt.too as the 5-day period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date of receipt of copy of the decision. snatching of ballots. 234.. LUCMAN vs. but he also argues that the COMELEC may go beyond the face of the returns to determine whether the elections in the precincts involved are a sham.: Facts: Petitioner Bairansalam Laut Lucman and private respondent Mosama M. substitution of voters. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (Board) overruled private respondent’s objections on the disputed returns. COMELEC (G. the COMELEC. 13. private respondent objected to the inclusion of ten election returns. Private respondent also filed a motion to annul proclamation and/or to suspend the effects of proclamation pendente lite." . during the May 10. No. should have determined the integrity of the ballot box. double voting. arguing that the grounds relied upon by private respondent are not proper in a pre-proclamation controversy but in an election protest. it should have ordered its opening for a recounting of the ballots if their integrity was similarly intact.

R. Also. Consequently. Candao were both candidates for Governor of the Province of Maguindanao in the May 8.e. all subsequent actions by the COMELEC in relation to private respondent’s appeal are null and void. as correctly argued by petitioner. 6667 (March 16. 123230 April 18. The Second Division of Respondent Commission subsequently nullified on July 11. 2004. During the pendency of the said petitions.. However. and the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining private respondent’s petition/appeal. Finally.In the present case. Hence. casting of votes by double registrants in the same precincts (double entry). 1995 elections. forcing them to leave the counting room. No. intimidation. and that despite his manifestation that he will appeal the Board’s ruling on the returns. in his appeal to the COMELEC. private respondent alleged that the denial to his objections to the contested election returns were not made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers in the prescribed form. J: Facts: Petitioner Norodin M. Matalam and Private Respondent Zacaria A. and correctible by the present special civil action for certiorari. were not prepared simultaneously with the appreciation of the ballots/counting of votes. and that the Board of Election Inspectors merely copied the entries on the tally boards and records of votes made by petitioner’s watchers. private respondent’s watchers were threatened by petitioner’s watchers. MATALAM vs. in violation of Section 44 of COMELEC Resolution No.NORODIN M. 1997 Panganiban. the election returns is obviously manufactured and/or falsified. However. it contains alterations. COMELEC and CANDAO G. the proclamation of Candao was reinstated. there were "massive substitution of voters. 1995 the said proclamation of Candao. he further alleged that the elections held in the precincts clustered in the Pooni Lomabao Central Elementary were tainted with massive election irregularities. the Provincial Board of Canvassers on June 30. snatching of ballots from the voters by people identified with the Lucman who filled them up against the will of the voters. 1995 proclaimed Respondent Candao as the duly elected governor of Maguindanao. 2004). it proceeded with petitioner’s proclamation. 14. According to private respondent. The Comelec held that in the absence of a strong evidence establishing the spuriousness of the returns. Matalam challenged before the respective Municipal Boards of Canvassers the authenticity of the election returns. i. it is not authentic. force or coercion. the basic rule that the election returns shall be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports . the objections initially raised by private respondent before the Municipal Board of Canvassers were proper in a pre-proclamation controversy. private respondent’s cause of action before the COMELEC is proper for an election protest and not a pre-proclamation controversy. and flying voters …" Private respondent also alleged that the counting of votes on May 11. threats.

is to be heard summarily and decided on as promptly as possible. In a pre- proclamation controversy. is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities. 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections. notwithstanding that COMELEC did not include provincial supplemental COC’s in Maguindanao. The petition must fail because it effectively implores the Court to disregard the statutory norm that pre- proclamation controversies are to be resolved in a summary proceeding. Barbers vs. with COMELEC stating that even if Barbers should win from said places. it is clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy which. and instead to determine whether fraud or irregularities attended the election process. as a rule. 2005 CARPIO. Barbers . Hence. J. proclaimed the first Eleven duly elected Senators. this petition for certiorari. 165691 June 22. Issue: May the Comelec in a Pre-Proclamation Case Go Beyond the Face of the Election Returns? Ruling: No. a technical examination runs counter to the nature and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy. by its very nature.of the results of the count of the votes for canvassing and proclamation purposes must perforce prevail. 2004. He asks the Court to ignore the fact that the election returns appear regular on their face. Again. Lanao del Norte and a Baranggay in Nueva Vizcaya. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 15. That the election returns were obviously manufactured must be evident from the face of the said documents themselves. the COMELEC sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers for the election of Senators. On June 2. Comelec G. 2004 COMELEC proclaimed Biazon as the 12th duly elected Senator. it would not materially alter the result of the election in favor of Biazon.R. Because what he is asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of evidence aliunde and the meticulous examination of voluminous election documents. On May 24. the Comelec en banc denied the motions for reconsideration and technical examination.” Barbers further asserts that said COC’s if counted will alter the election results significantly. Subsequently. Barbers filed a petition with COMELEC to nullify said proclamation for being ‘illegal and premature having been based on an incomplete canvass. Facts: Petitioner Barbers and private respondent Biazon were candidates for reelection to the Senate in the May 10. COMELEC special division denied the same. the Comelec. No. he also filed a motion for technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the registered voters of Maganoy appearing in the Voter's Affidavit and the List of Voters for the purpose of proving that no election was conducted therein. The petition is not meritorious.

ABBAS v. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in the meantime had voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in the hearings and deliberations of the respondent tribunal in both SET Case No. Barbers should have filed an Election protest before the Electoral Tribunal. amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in proclaiming Biazon. Hence. Held: The petition must fail. In addition COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. 002-87 on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case. 00287 and SET Case No. The COMELEC enjoys the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty. 1987 congressional elections by the Commission on Elections. Rene Saguisag. Issue: Whether or not public respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. J: FACTS: The petitioners filed before the respondent Tribunal an election contest docketed as SET Case No. It suffices to say that the COMELEC based it’s ruling in the assailed Resolution and official records of the COMELEC. with the exception of Senator Estrada but including Senator Juan Ponce Enrile filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of SET Case No. 83767 OCTOBER 27. 1988 GANGAYCO. Since the election results will not materially affect the results of the election. The respondent Tribunal was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators The petitioners. Before that. as respondents therein. 001-87. this petition before the Court for Certiorari with Injunction against the COMELEC in the proclamation of Biazon for Senator.motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the COMELEC en banc for lack of merit. one of the respondents in the said case had filed a petition to Recuse and later a supplemental petition to recuse the same Senator-Members of the Tribunal. the latter being another contest filed by Augusto's Sanchez against him. 16. without including the supplemental COC’s. since the uncanvassed voter’s return would not materially affect the election re sults. . SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL GR NO. it will be immaterial whether COMELEC used the PCOC’s and the MCOC’s in the subsequent canvass. considering that there is an available and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to annul the COMELEC’s assailed proceeding. 002-87 against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11. Certiorari and prohibition will not lie in this case. Sen. We take pains to emphasize that after the proclamations.

with Lachica as it’s congressional candidate for the 2nd District of Sorsogon. The petition was for the request of a recount in 4 precincts during the 1965 elections. he stated that the petition was set forth for oral argument for Dec. against respondent judge Yap of the CFI of said province. as well as the Election officers and the other congressional candidate Peralta of the Nacionalista Party. as his conscience dictates. 1966. absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest. The Court in a Resolution of December 3. 17. of the petition filed before him by the petitioner herein and the Liberal Party. HELD: To our mind. 20. by respondent Peralta. the performance of which is in the highest public interest as evidenced by its being expressly imposed by no less than the fundamental law. The Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such. Yap Facts: This is a petition for certiorari with a preliminary injunction filed by petitioners Lachica and the Liberal Party. ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate-Member of the SET may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any case.The petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought and that the doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the foundation petition of the questioned Resolutions does not rule out a solution both practicable and constitutionally unobjectionable. The proposed amendment to the Tribunal's Rules (Section 24)—requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified. petition being . 1965 gave due course to the petition to be answered within 10 days. The Petition was in response to the nullification of respondent Judge Yap. Lachica vs. and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice. the amendment of the respondent Tribunal's Rules of procedure so as to permit the contest being decided by only three Members of the Tribunal. but no injunction was issued. No Senator-Member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any case before said Tribunal. namely. Thereafter in the manifestation filed on January 14. refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment. Every Member of the Tribunal may. the remaining members shall constitute a quorum. 1965 at which date counsel for the opposing parties appealed and argued for their respective sides. this is the overriding consideration—that the Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform.

18. Private respondent Bernal moved for reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division with the COMELEC en banc. The Constitution provides that both the Senate and Congress shall have their Electoral Tribunal. April 20. Nos. which shall be the sole judge of all election contests pertaining to election returns and the qualification of the candidates. . with his exercise of the prerogative vested in such position. Prior to proclamation of respondent Peralta. The duly proclaimed ViceMayor Betita. 1965. Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lachica’s prayer for nullification of the proclamation of Peralta is valid. COMELEC ( G. this Court could very Well pass on the validity of the action of respondent Judge Yap in an appropriate proceeding.submitted for decision. petitioner sought the exclusion of election returns for 3 precincts of Barangay Pantalan owing to alleged acts of terrorism. Petitioner filed with COMELEC en banc a motion to cancel Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and motion declare void petitioner’s proclamation on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motion when he filed quo warranto action. During the canvassing by the MBC.R. 141952-53. clear and complete. Held: The Court held no. averred that the petition of Lachica has been rendered moot and academic. J: Facts: Petitioner Dumayas and respondent Bernal were rival candidates for the position in Mayor of Carles. it would not only curtail the plenary grant of authority to the Electoral Tribunal but likewise could result in an unseemly wrangling between such Constitutional agency and the Court.2001 ) Quisimbing. intimidation and coercion committed in said precincts during the casting and counting of votes. This grant of power is full. The MBC denied petitioner’s objections and proceeded with the canvass which showed respondent Bernal garnering more votes than the petitioner. if the matter were not left to the exclusive and sole appraisal and judgement of the Electoral Tribunal. Private respondent Bernal filed an urgent motion to declare void petitioner’s proclamation. and private respondent Bernal filed n action for quo warranto against petitioner before the RTC of Iloilo. After such proclamation and much more so after the oath of office was taken by the candidate proclaimed. Iloilo in the May 1998 synchronized elections. The MBC proclaim petitioner winner of the election. Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC Second Division which excluded election returns from 3 precincts and directed the MBC to reconvene and finish the canvass of the remaining or uncontested returns and then. to proclaim the winning mayoralty candidate. The above manifestation was noted and not having denied said proclamation petitioners now pray that the Court rule on the merits of the petition. Respondent Peralta having been proclaimed and upon assuming said office on December 30.DUMAYAS vs.

The election irregularities cited by the petitioner would require the presentation of evidence which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy which is summary in nature. Agusan. . The only evidence presented by the petitioner to prove the alleged irregularities were the self-serving contracts of his watchers and inspectors. Issue: Whether the COMELEC was correct in including in the canvass the election returns of the contested precincts? Held: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. Facts: In the general elections held on November 8.The COMELEC en banc reversed the decision of the Second Division. Garcia continued with his candidacy and the question of his ineligibility became an issue in the campaign. and constituted a new MBC. the executive secretary of the Nationalista Party impugned the sufficiency of the certificate of candidacy filed in behalf of Garcia. The certificate of candidacy of Luison was filed by the Nacionalista Party of the locality duly signed by the chairman and secretary respectively. GARCIA. the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Garcia as the mayor elect of Tubay. For this reason. Returns cannot be excluded on mere allegations that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns on their face appear to be regular and without any physical signs of tampering.ANACLETO LUISON vs. 19. counted all the votes cast for Garcia as valid and credited him with them in the election. FIDEL A. He also filed a protest in the same court on the same ground that Garcia was ineligible because the Commission declared his certificate of candidacy null and void on Elections. Agusan. Luison filed a petition of quo warranto in the proper court of first instance for the purpose of disputing his ineligibility and securing his consequent ouster from office. 1955. D. Believing that Garcia is ineligible to hold office. Luison and Fidel A. while the certificate of candidacy of Garcia was filed by the local branch of the Liberal Party but it was merely signed by one who was a candidate for vice mayor. D. Garcia were the only candidates for mayor of Tubay. Notwithstanding the adverse ruling of the Commission on Elections. whereupon the Commission on Elections. in spite of the adverse ruling of the Commission on Elections. annulled the petitioner Dumayas’ proclamation. Respondent Bernal was proclaimed by the newly-constituted MBC as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality. And when the time came for the counting and appreciation of the ballots. but the petition was dismissed for lack of merit on a motion filed by respondent. Luison took one step further. Consequently. Anacleto M. issued a Resolution declaring Garcia ineligible to run for the Office. the board inspectors. after making its own investigation. Petitioner Dumayas asked the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution.

Clemente was proclaimed the winner and was scheduled to take his oath of office on June 7. Pangasinan. filed with the Municipal Circuit Court of Labrador-Sual a “petition contesting the election” of Clemente. it may be said that a candidate who files a protest against one who has been proclaimed as having received the highest number of votes basing his protest cannot disguise his action so as to make his protest a justification to be seated in office. Regatcho. Considering the fundamental difference existing between the nature of a petition for quo warranto and that of an election protest.Issue:Whether the protestee being ineligible and protestant having obtained the next highest number of votes. and that the action has prescribed because it was filed 20 days after Clemente’s proclamation. Nine days after the election of Clemente.R. et. he cannot convert an action for quo warranto into an election protest. The Court declares that neither protestee nor protestant has been validly elected and so none is entitled to the position of mayor of Tubay. December 21. In such case the electors have failed to make a choice and the election is a nullity. A protest to disqualify a protestee on the ground of ineligibility is different from that a protest based on frauds and irregularities where it may be shown that protestant was the one really elected for having obtained a plurality of the legal votes. In other words. that Regatcho had already filed a similar case in the Sual municipal court. Instead of pursuing that municipal court case. Clemente filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Agusan. the defeated candidate. while Teofilo Regatcho obtained 70 votes for barangay captain. J. 1982. L-61946. 1982 held at Barangay Balaoen.. He interposed the defenses that he “can read and write a little in Ilocano”. Sual. The general rule is that the fact a plurality or a majority of the votes are cast for an ineligible candidate at a popular election does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. Then. Isabelo Clemente obtained 97 votes. G. Clemente opposed the petition for quo warranto filed in the CFI. as required by Section 7 of the Barangay Election Law. Cleto. al. 1982. On June 5. 1982 with the CFI of Pangasinan a quo warranto action against Clemente on the ground that he does not know how to read and write. No. 20. This is because these two cases are fundamentally different in nature and in purpose. prescription and lack of personality to file the petition since even if Clemente were declared ineligible. Ruling: Our answer is in the negative. Teofilo Regatcho vs. Regatcho could not be proclaimed barangay captain because he . Regatcho filed on June 4. Judge Emmanuel G. FACTS: In the election of May 17. 1983 Aquino. the latter can be declared entitled to hold the office to be vacated by the former.

J. 20. 21. He was mistaken in abandoning the case and refilling it in the CFI. which provides: Sec. No. 169865 July 21. 2004. He acted in good faith. “A sworn petition contesting the election of any barangay official shall be filed with the city or municipal or metropolitan trial court.” That second paragraph of section 20 of the Barangay Election Law is modified reenactment of section 8 of the Revised Barangay Charter and section 7 of the Barrio Autonomy Law. On may 17.__. Batas Pambanse Blig. and not the COMELEC nor the Regional Trial Court. The decision of the municipal or city or metropolitan trial court may appealed within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof to the Regional Trial Court (CFI) which shall decide within thirty days from submissions. has the jurisdiction over quo warranto actions regarding the barangay captain’s ineligibility HELD: Yes. Inclusion and exclusion cases. In the interest of justice. Civil Code). . “Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Regatcho acted correctly in filing a case in the municipal circuit trial court of Labrador-Sual contesting Clemente’s election. Jurisdiction over such cases is vested in the appropriate city or municipal or metropolitan trial court pursuant to the 1982 Barangay Election Law. The trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days after the filing thereof. Cebu on May 13. 2004 over his opponent respondent Amytis Batao.did not obtain plurality of votes. and protests. Although section 20 refers to “election protests”.: Facts: Virginio Villamor was proclaimed mayor of Carmen. it may be construed as embracing Regatcho’s quo warranto action which is not compliance as an ordinary quo warrranto case. 2006 Ynares-Santiago. ISSUE: Whether or not the municipal trial court or the municipal circuit trial court. he should be allowed to revive the said case in the municipal circuit trial court of Labrador-Sual. 222. In the instant case. as the case may be. Comelec G. within ten days from the date of the proclamation of the winners. and whose decision shall be final. 526. villamor v comelec Villamor vs.R. The case was dismissed on the ground that Comelec has jurisdiction over the case. respondent filed a petition to annul the proclamation of petitioner on the ground of illegal composition of the MBC...” (Art.

R. 1999. Branch 90. Petitioner. No. Petitioner appealed the order granting respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Whether or not the trial court prematurely admitted respondent’s election protest pending a pre-proc controversy. 1998. Thereafter. SR. The Office of the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation of the complaint. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. The Law Department of the petitioner conducted the requisite preliminary investigation. In the meantime. Comelec en banc dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Florentino A. section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that the “trial court cannot entertain a motion for reconsideration of its decision in an election contest affecting municipal officers filed by the aggrieved party. Gerardo Macapagal and Inocencio Rodelas filed a criminal complaint for violation of Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code (vote selling) against the witnesses of Florentino A. 2. G. Cavite. But in this case. Presiding Judge. 22. of violation of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (vote buying) and filed the same with the Law Department of the COMELEC. Whether or not the trial court can act on the motion for reconsideration on election protest. Issues: 1. Thus. Cavite. subsequent filing of election contest amounted to abandonment of the pre-proc controversy filed earlier. The filing of the petition to annul did not suspend the period within which to file an election protest.. respondents. it was filed four days after the proclamation of Villamor. No. FACTS: During the elections on May 11.and it wasraffled to the Comelec 2nd division.” But may appeal to the Comelec within five days after the receipt of a copy of decision. December 10. He executed an Affidavit-Complaint charging the incumbent Municipal Mayor Atty. On May 24. among others. DOLORES L. No. 149164-73. Bautista was the official candidate of the Lakas for the position of Municipal Mayor of Kawit. On February 25. after which it submitted its comments and recommendations to the COMELEC En Banc. J. respondent’s petition to annul the proclamation is based on the ground of illegal composition of the Board and thus. Federico Hit Poblete. HON. in his capacity as a deputy of the petitioner. the COMELEC En Banc resolved to file necessary information against respondents with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. Regional Trial Court. vs. Imus. it is a pre-proc controversy. 2004respondent filed an election protest with the RTC and this petition was subsequently denied for lack of jurisdiction for it was filed one day late. it issued a resolution finding probable cause . 2. Bautista. 2003 CALLEJO. ESPAñOL. It should have been filed before the proclamation of the winner. Held: 1.

the witnesses appealed the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor to the petitioner COMELC. The prosecutors deputized by the petitioner are subject to its authority. As such. Thus. it is the COMELEC which has the exclusive power to conduct (the) preliminary investigation thereof. recommended that the petitioner nullify the Resolution of the Office of the Cavite Provincial for the reason that the witnesses are exempt. and was done without prior authority of the Court. The Public Prosecutor opposed the COMELEC’s motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (a) the exemption under the last paragraph of Section 28 of Republic Act No. contending under the Section 265 of the Code. On June 23. and to prosecute the same. a motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner in the RTC of Cavite.against the respondents for violations of Section 261(a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. the acts of the petitioner itself. But on the same day. and filed separate Informations against them with the RTC of Cavite. motu proprio or through an appeal. under Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. control and supervision in respect of the particular functions covered by such deputation. the recommendation or resolution of investigating officers in the preliminary investigation. The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are. Whether or not there is still a need to revoke the authority of the provincial prosecutor from handling the cases even if COMELEC had already directed the law department to file a motion to dismiss these cases. from prosecution for violation of Section 261(a)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code. hence. the COMELECs Law Department. 6648. it is also the COMELEC which has the exclusive power to review. denied the appeal of the witnesses for lack of jurisdiction. ISSUES: 1. No. 2000. Whether or not the accused are exempt from criminal prosecution. and (c) the review of the Provincial Prosecutors resolution made by the petitioner was a re-investigation of the case.c The COMELEC in a resolution. The trial court also held that the issue of whether or not the accused are exempt from prosecution and consequent conviction for vote-buying is a matter addressed to the Court and not to the petitioner. Acting on the appeal. this exemption will not apply to the charge for vote-selling which was the crime charged (b) the resolution of the petitioner denying the appeal of Bautista’s witnesses had become final and executory. HELD: 1. the witnesses a motion to withdraw the Law Department’s delegated authority to direct the office of the Provincial Prosecutor or to move for suspension of the prosecution of their criminal cases. 6646. in legal contemplation. 6646 applies only to the offense of vote-buying. 2. Such authority may . The COMELEC En Banc approved the resolution. holding that the petitioner had no absolute power to grant exemptions under Section 28 of Republic Act No. it is no longer subject to review by the petitioner.c The trial court denied the motion of the petitioner COMELEC.

The conduct of a preliminary investigation of election offenses for the purpose of determining whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged revoked or withdrawn any time by the petitioner. to testify against law violators. 6648 to exempt those who have committed election offenses under Section 261 (a) and (b) but volunteer to give informations and testify on any violation of said law in any official investigation or proceeding with reference to which his information and testimony is given. either expressly or impliedly. The general rule is that the petitioner must investigate. This power is concomitant with its authority to enforce election laws. therefore. To enable the petitioner to comply with its mandate to investigate and prosecute those committing election offenses. the petitioner is mandated to conduct a preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same. charge and prosecute all those committing election offenses without any discrimination to ensure a clean. (1)Yes. should be subjected to trial is the function of the petitioner. directives or orders of the petitioner in relation to election cases such prosecutors are deputized to investigate and prosecute. the only option of such provincial or city prosecutor is to seek relief from the petitioner as its deputy. The power to grant exemptions is vested solely on the petitioner. including law violators themselves. Otherwise. being mere deputies or agents of the petitioner. Neither should the respondent. provincial or city prosecutors deputized by the petitioner are expected to act in accord with and not contrary to or in derogation of the resolutions. The immunity statute seeks a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege against self-incrimination and the legitimate demands of government to encourage citizens. The Court will not even interfere with the finding of the petitioner absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Moreover. orderly and speedy elections. A joint preliminary investigation thereof must be conducted and the appropriate Information filed in court against all the offenders. investigate election offenses and prosecute those committing the same. or where it believes that successful prosecution of the case can be done by the petitioner. The withdrawal by the petitioner of its deputation of the provincial or city prosecutors may not be interfered with or overruled by the trial court. This principle emanates from the COMELECs exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same except as may otherwise be provided by law. Under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code. it has been vested with authority under the last paragraph of Section 28 of Republic Act No. when in its judgment such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the process to promote the common good. The law is an immunity statute which grants transactional immunity to volunteers from investigation and prosecution for violation of Section 261 (a) and (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. The exercise of such power should not be . The statute operates as a complete pardon for the offenses to which the information was given.

Blg. . 115022 August 14. unless the petitioner commits a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Blg. 1992. 1995 Puno. He claimed that this transfer violated COMELEC resolution No. Jovencio D. J: FACTS: Buenaventura C. 1992 synchronized national and local elections. Is this transfer ipso facto makes respondent Maniego liable for an election offense under Section 261(h) of B. 2333 and section 261 (h) of B. which prohibit the transfer of any employee in the civil service 120 days before the May 11. 23. However. assigned Jovencio D.2333 took effect on January 15.P. No.P. Respondent Maniego was charged with a violation of Section 261 (h) of B. a day after the said transfer was done. Manila International Container Port. 881 was already enforceable. No. customs operation chief. Blg. Maniego.interfered with by the trial court. Collection District II Bureau of Customs . Blg. thus.P.1993 and January 25. 881.R.P. 881? HELD: 1. it cannot be said that Section 261 of B. people v reyes G. Ebio filed with the COMELEC a complaint protesting his transfer. Resolution No. Respondent Maniego claimed that he has not done any offense because the above transfer was not with in the date the act is punishable by election offense. as special assistant on January 14. The resolution was effective on the seventh day after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. 1992. Collector of Customs. ISSUES: 1. The trial court granted respondent Maniego motion to quash on September 23. Neither may this Court interfere with the petitioners exercise of its discretion in denying or granting exemptions under the law. Ebio. 881. 1995.

Benipayo and the other appointees took their oath and assumed their respective offices. DE GUZMAN in his capacity as Officer- InCharge. respondents. ANGELINA G. Benipayo removed Matibag from her position as Director IV of COMELEC’s EID and replaced Cinco. J. Finance Services Department of the Commission on Elections. The appointments were once again renewed. Such appointment was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. VELMA J. vs. Appointment On March 22. 2001. ALFREDO L. 2nd Renewal On June 8. CINCO. BENIPAYO. On April 2001. MA. JR. The President submitted the appointments for confirmation. The appointees took their oath and assumed office. and GIDEON C. The Commission of Appointments again failed to confirm the appointments since the congress adjourned before the Commission could act on their appointments. Carpio.24. President Arroyo then appointed ad interim. and filed and administrative complaint with the COMELEC Law department against Benipayo alleging that her reassignment .. Matibag appealed to COMELEC en banc. J. Such appointment was renewed by the succeeding COMELEC commissioners and chairpersons. 1st Renewal On June 1. petitioner. BORRA. 2001. RESURRECCION Z. MATIBAG. Matibag was then reassigned to the COMELEC Law department. 2001. President Arroyo renewed the appointments. FLORENTINO A. 2001. Nature of Petition: Petition for Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order FACTS: COMELEC en banc appointed Matibag as Director IV of the COMELEC’s Education and Information Department. Benipayo denied her request. Benipayo as the COMELEC chairman and others as commissioners. TUASON. The last renewal was on February 15. Matibag asked for reconsideration in the light of her removal from the EID and reassignment to the Law department.

Matibag claims that the ad interim appointments of Benipayo. Her petition was denied. and other pertinent laws. the Supreme Court Held that Matibag sustains substantial injury if Benipayo was indeed invalidly appointed as Chairman of the COMELEC. she also filed an instant petition questioning the appointment and the right to remain in office of Benipayo. ISSUES: Satisfaction of Requirements of Judicial Review Temporary appointments prohibited by the Constitution 3. President Arroyo renewed once more the appointments on September 6. 2001. and 4. Number 3 is present since Matibag questioned the constitutionality of the ad interim appointments of Benipayo and others when she filed her petition before the Supreme Court. Invalidity of renewals following the prohibited first ad interim appointment 4. They immediately took their oath and assumed office. in the exercise of sound discretion. 3rd Renewal Meanwhile. (1)the existence of an actual and appropriate controversy. The court finds no merit on such allegations. Furthermore. (2)a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional issue. 3. and (4) the constitutional issue is the lis mota of the case. Pending the complaint with the Law department. Borra and Tuason. as Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC. as well as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and reappointments of its Chairman and members. which is the earliest opportunity for pleading the constitutional issue before a competent body.violated Section 261 (h) of the Omnibus Election Code. With regards to number 2. Respondents argue that Matibag did not comply with 2. respectively. . Borra and Tuason violate the constitutional provisions on the independence of the COMELEC. (3)the exercise of the judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity. There is no doubt petitioner raised the constitutional issue on time. the time when a constitutional issue may be passed upon. Reassignment was done without prior approval of the COMELEC HELD: Requirements of Judicial Review. this Court may determine.

The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. Article IX-C of the Constitution. The phrase "without reappointment" applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. This interpretation renders inutile the confirming power of the Commission on Appointments. unless the constitutionality of Benipayo’s ad interim appointment and assumption of office is resolved. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. This is the lis mota of the case. While the Constitution mandates that the COMELEC "shall be independent"36. this provision should be harmonized with the President’s power to extend ad interim appointments. There must be a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment . For this reason. and can even be disapproved or simply by-passed by the Commission on Appointments. The period from the time the ad interim appointment is made to the time it lapses is neither a fixed term nor an unexpired term. To hold that the independence of the COMELEC requires the Commission on Appointments to first confirm ad interim appointees before the appointees can assume office will negate the President’s power to make ad interim appointments. Temporary appointments Petitioner posits the view that an ad interim appointment can be withdrawn or revoked by the President at her pleasure. petitioner claims that an ad interim appointment is temporary in character and consequently prohibited by the last sentence of Section 1 (2). This was not accepted by the Supreme Court. An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. Renewals An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by inaction of the Commission on Appointments does not constitute a term of office. This is contrary to the rule on statutory construction to give meaning and effect to every provision of the law. It will also run counter to the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. the legality of petitioner’s reassignment from the EID to the Law Department cannot be determined. To hold otherwise would mean that the President by his unilateral action could start and complete the running of a term of office in the COMELEC without the consent of the Commission on Appointments.At last. whether or not such person completes his term of office.

as the Chief Executive of the COMELEC. 1992. that Benipayo is the de jure COMELEC Chairman. Both the spouses Daquioags and Herrera alleged that they brought the bozes home since it was already late and they didn’t know that they needed permission from the Comelec registrar before they could do so. she was charged with several offenses.can apply. February 19. 38. 35. 37. Yes. 38-A. Cagayan had formed the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) to observe and monitor the conduct of elections. the Chairman is not required by law to secure the approval of the COMELEC en banc. Issue: 1.R. Held: 1. 4. 25. She alleged that the information iiis nooot valid and sufficient for it charges multiple offenses. and they saw the missing ballot boxes. 261 (z) nos. the polling places of Mocag and Mabini were located at Mocag Elementary School which had no electric power supply. The PPCRV went to the houses of the Daquioags and Herrera. the parishioners of Baggao.15. Herrera vs. Although the law provides that the information should charge only one offense and in this case. 217. Also.J. coordinator of PPCRV was informed that the ballot boxes of precinct nos. Whether or not the information is valid and sufficient 2. 140651.: Facts: During the May 11. In the exercise of this power. We have ruled. The remedy of the petitioner would have been to move to quash the information but due to failure to assert this before she pleaded in the information is deemed a waiver. . On May 12. and consequently he has full authority to exercise all the powers of that office for so long as his ad interim appointment remains effective. And all of them were subsequently convicted of the said offenses. The Chairman. To hold otherwise will lead to absurdities and negate the President’s power to make ad interim appointments. 13. 39 and 51 were not yet submitted to the office of the Municipal Treasurer. it is still considered valid. The Information is valid and sufficient. Arnold Alonzo.2002 Bellosillo. They charged for violations of Secs. No. Reassignment without approval of the COMELEC Petitioner’s posturing will hold water if Benipayo does not possess any color of title to the office of Chairman of the COMELEC. is expressly empowered on his own authority to transfer or reassign COMELEC personnel in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Whether or not the petitioner was properly convicted of the offense of which she was charged. Due to the circumstances. CA G. Only Herrera interposed the instant petition for review on certiorari. 37-A. 39 and 51 respectively. however. that the spouses Bernardino and Flordelita Daquioag and Estelita Herrera were the poll chairmen of precincts 38. 1992 elections. Their petitions for reconsiderations were denied.21 of the Omnibus Election Code.CASE DISMISSED.

. MANUEL CALUPITAN III. DE JESUS. The Comelec En Banc promulgated a resolution dismissing the charges against the respondents all on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. Yes. G. It is clear that she failed to deliver the ballot box to the treasurer on time and that transfer was made without authorization from the Comelec. who had been repeatedly identified by columnist Teodoro Benigno as a key member of the Sulu Hotel Operation (SHO). FRANCISCO CANCIO. and Norberto Gonzales' affidavit. She was properly convicted of the offense of which she was charged. 1993. 128054 October 16. Petitioner.. 1992 elections.2. Ronaldo Puno. Petitioner also alleged that Malacanang illegally diverted P330 from the Countryside Development Fund to the Department of Interior and Local Government which disbursed this huge amount shortly before the May 11. CAPULONG JR. INC. She was charged with violating sec 217 of the Omnibus Election Code. public respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) received from petitioner Kilosbayan a letter informing the former of two serious violations of election laws and requesting that these offenses and malpractices be investigated promptly. JR. respondent Enriquez's testimony before the Commission on Appointments. DILG Budget Officer Barata's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. LEONORA V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. KILOSBAYAN. in a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee held on November 22. FERNANDO. J. which had reportedly engaged in dirty election tricks and practices in said elections. FERNANDO A.. Therefore.. FRANKLIN DRILON. supplies and all pertinent papers and documents to the city or municipal treasurer. as revealed by DILG Budget Officer Barata. vs. documentary evidences like copies of Teodoro Benigno's newspaper articles on the SHO's use of PYHSDFI-obtained CDF. 1993 hearing of the Commission of Appointments. BENITO R. and that no other evidence except Mr. CESAR SARINO. No. The COMELEC En Banc unanimously held that newspaper clippings are hearsay and of no evidentiary value. respondents. In support of the letter- complaint. 26. Budget Secretary Salvador Enriquez admitted P70 million was released by his department in favour of a private entity. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ. tally sheets and other paraphernalia from the polling place to her residence. JIMMY DURANTE.” And Herrera was charged with transferring the ballot boxes. RONALDO V. were submitted by petitioner. Health and Sports Development Foundation." headed by Mr. the so-called "Philippine Youth. RAFAEL G. QUINTIN S. Benigno's articles were submitted to prove the existence of the so-called Sulo Hotel Operations. DOROMAL. SANTIAGO. MELVYN MENDOZA. VICENTE CARLOS. petitioners. TIBURCIO RELUCIO. 1993.R. 1997 hERMOSISIMA. in its letter-complaint alleged that in the October 5. and it provides that offense is “failure by the members of the BEI and watchers to immediately deliver the ballot box. CATINDIG. PUNO.: FACTS:On December 14. EMILIO C.

The contention of petitioner Kilosbayan — that it is the Comelec that is duty-bound to search for evidence to prove its letter-complaint — is downright erroneous. ISSUE:Whether or not the COMELEC is duty-bound to search for evidence to prove a complaint HELD: No. They met Brgy.: Facts: On June 15. petitioner’s contentions as to the the nature and amount of expenditure within a short period of time are not sufficient to meet the quantum proof required to establish that said contributions were made for partisan political activity. Hence. to follow through his accusation and prove his complainant. of the accusation. the complaint must be dismissed. their respective evidences. J. the Comelec passes upon the contending parties' respective submission and proofs and weighs the fact and circumstances established therefrom. February 4.R. Capt. Reynaldo and Adrian Baytan decided to register for the May 1998 elections. as it is his responsibility. the preliminary investigation is not an occasion for the Comelec to. they realized that their residence is situated within the jurisdiction of Brgy 28. notwithstanding the lack of denial or any evidence in controversion. 83A of Brgy. Kilosbayan filed a petition to the Supreme Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion to COMELEC for refusing and/or neglecting to gather more evidence of respondents' culpability. 27. pursuant to its constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses. 41762472 and 41762470. A complainant. Baytan Vs. 1997. as a duty. 41762473. in acting upon an election offense complaint in the course of preliminary investigation. The task of the Comelec as investigator and prosecutor. 2003 Carpio. initially facilitates the confrontation process between the complainant and the respondents by requiring the submission of and interfacing. who in effect accuses another person of having committed an act constituting an election offense. since any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent and does not at all have to make a response or reaction to the charges against him. acting upon any election offense complaint. Reynato. has the burden. This registration was evidenced by Voter’s Registration Record Nos. Then they proceeded to precinct 129-A of Brgy 28 to register as evidenced . The Comelec. spoonfeed the complainant with evidence needed to prove its case. 18 Cavite City. If the complainant fails to proffer the necessary evidence to show probable cause. Ultimately. is not the physical searching and gathering of proof in support of a complaint for an alleged commission of an election offense.Moreover. Contrary to the asseveration of petitioner Kilosbayan. Roberto Ignacio on their way and he led them to register in Precinct no. After they registered. COMELEC G. No. 153945.

they registered as residents of 709 Magcawas st. No. the Law Department. Brgy 18-Maya. . the Comelec en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. The Comelec affirmed the recommendation of Ravanzo. Whether or not honest mistake and good faith be taken into consideration in double registration. Therefore. On August 21. the Comelec has administrative powers which may be exercised en banc or in two divisions. 42662969.s Registration Record Nos. Petitioners then moved for reconsideration which the Comelec en banc denied. Brgy. 42662968 and 42662917. 1997. their address is 709 T. it shown that in the first registration. On January 10-1998. There are inconsistencies between the two registrations. Cavite City. Whether or not Comelec en banc committed grave abuse when they took cognizance of the case in the first instance. The letter was sent after their second registration was accomplished and after the election officer of Cavite City has already reported their act of double registration to a higer official. Ravanzo recommended filing information for double registration against the petitioners. who endorsed the matter to the Regional Director for prosecution. under the constitution. In fact. Issues: 1. While in the second registration. Double registration is malum prohibitum. Held: 1. 1997. No. On September 16. The letter that was sent to Comelec asking for advice on how to cancel their second registration would not be enough to show that there is good faith. Juanito Voter. requesting for advice on how to cancel their previous registration and also stated the reason for their second registration. endorsed the case to the Provincial Election Supervisor for resolution. 2. Gomez Extension st. Cavite City. petitioners sent a letter to the COMELEC. 28-Taurus. the Election Officer of Cavite City forwarded copies of petitioners’ voters registration records to Provincial Election Supervisor. 2. Eventually. The claim of lack of intent and goodfaith cannot be considered.