Lonzanida vs COMELEC, G.R. No.

135150 case brief

summary
Lonzanida vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150 case brief summary
July 28, 1999

Facts: Petitioner Lonzanida was duly elected and served two consecutive terms as municipal
mayor of San Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections
Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and was again proclaimed winner. He
assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation was contested and resulted
to declaring his opponent winning the election and ordered Lonzanida to vacate the office. In the
May 11, 1998 elections Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy. His opponent filed a
petition for disqualification on the grounds that it is a violation of the three-term rule. COMELEC
granted the petition. Petitioner filed a petition challenging the validity of the COMELEC resolution.

WON COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification
after petitioner was proclaimed winner.

R: proclamation or the assumption of office of a candidate against whom a

petition for disqualification is pending before the COMELEC does not divest the
COMELEC of jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and to resolve it on the
merits.

Section 6 of RA 6646 specifically mandates that:

Sec. 6. Effects of disqualification Case.- any candidate who has been declared
by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for
him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final
judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives
the winning number of votes in such election, the court or commission shall
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon
motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof
order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
The clear legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and
hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e., until judgment is
rendered. The outright dismissal of the petition for disqualification filed before the
election but which remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate
sought to be disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate and may
encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the petition
until after he has been proclaimed.
It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to
prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute
him for violation of the election laws. Obviously, the fact that a candidate has
been proclaimed elected does not signify that his disqualification is deemed
condoned and may no longer be the subject of a separate
investigation. (Lonzanida vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 135150. July 28, 1999)

ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC

MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC

Facts:
Petitioner is a national organization which represents the lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list
organization to public respondent. However, due to moral grounds, the latter
denied the said petition. To buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain
biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that since their
ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuissance.
In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its
Article 201.

A motion for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner filed this instant Petition
on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the
exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech
and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of
the Philippines international obligations against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a
concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the
petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the first
time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the
Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made untruthful statements in its
petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification
reports by COMELECs field personnel.

Issue:
WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause of the Constitution;
WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal
grounds.
Held: moral disapproval, not suffct govt int to justify exclusion of homesexuals. LGBT can be
repsntd even Xenum in L.
Crucial element is wh comply w/ consti re and RA7941. Not if specifically enum

Caballero v comelec

Petitioner[3] and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud,

Jr.[4] were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the
Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013
elections. Private respondent filed a Petition[5] to deny due course to
or
Cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the
latter made a false representation when he declared in his COC that
he was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a
Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof.

n May 3, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution

finding that petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC
when he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan,
Batanes within one year prior to the election

Petitioner contends that when private respondent filed a petition to

deny due course or to cancel his COC with the Office of the Municipal
Election Officer of Uyugan, Batanes, a copy thereof was not
personally served on him; that private respondent later sent a copy of
the petition to him by registered mail without an attached affidavit
stating the reason on why registered mail as a mode of service was
resorted to. Petitioner argues that private respondent violated Section
4, paragraphs (1)[15] and (4),[16] Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, thus, his
petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's certificate of
candidacy should have been denied outright.

Issue: HE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN

DISREGARDING THE CLEAR IMPORT OF PROCEDURAL RULES
PROVIDED FOR UNDER COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9523
PROMULGATED ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2012.

Held: OMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal

construction Unlike an ordinary civil action, an election contest is
imbued with public interest. It involves not only the adjudication of
private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also the
paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real
choice of the electorate. And the tribunal has the corresponding duty
to ascertain, by all means within its command, whom the people truly
chose as their rightful leader.[19]
As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be
liberally construed in order that the will of the people in the choice of
public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office, for an indefinite
period, one whose right to it is uncertain and under suspicion. It is
imperative that his claim be immediately cleared, not only for the
benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can
only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure that
protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action.

Thus Petn certio dismissed and COC cancelled. and reson affirmed

Note: as issue if domicile:

Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship

under Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or
effect on his residence/domicile. He could still retain his
domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in
the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Sama
FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO
GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 216572, September 01, 2015

FACTS: Feliciano Legaspi sought for the disqualification of Alfredo Germar, Rogelio
Santos Jr. and Roberto Esquivel on the ground of rampant vote-buying during the days
leading to the elections. Germar emerged as the highest vote getter in the mayoralty
race. Santos, for his part, also appeared to have secured enough votes to be the second
councilor of the municipality. Esquivel, though, failed in his bid to become vice-mayor of
Norzagaray.

The COMELECs Special First Division has disqualified Germar and Santos. Motions for
Reconsideration were filed which resulted in a split vote. A rehearing was conducted
insofar as the electoral aspect of the case but the COMELEC en banc again failed to
come up with a majority consensus. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the
disqualification case based on Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedures, which states that When the Commission en banc is equally divided in
opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard, and if on
rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally
commenced in the Commission.

Unconvinced, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely erred in dismissing the disqualification
case filed against the respondents.

RULING: The COMELEC en banc did not err when it dismissed the electoral aspect of
the case when it was unable to reach a majority vote after the rehearing.

Section 7 of Article 1X-A of the Constitution obliges the COMELEC, like the other
constitutional commissions, to decide all cases or matters before it by a "majority vote of
all its members." When such majority vote cannot be mustered by the COMELEC en
banc, Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules provides the mechanism to avert a
non-decision.

Verily, the COMELEC en banc is first required to rehear the case or matter that it cannot
decide or resolve by the necessary majority. When a majority still cannot be had after
the rehearing, however, there results a failure to decide on the part of the COMELEC en
banc. The provision then specifies the effects of the COMELEC en banc's, failure to
decide:

1. If the action or proceeding is originally commenced in the COMELEC, such

action or proceeding shall be dismissed;

2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand

affirmed; or
 3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

The high court ruled that the failure of COMELEC en banc to reach majority votes on the
petition properly results in its dismissal as it further clarified that a motion for
reconsideration as a mere continuation of an existing process and does not change the
nature of the case filed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the COMELEC dismissing the
disqualification case filed against a mayor, a vice mayoral aspirant and a
councilor in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The high court through Associate Justice Jose
Perez dismissed the petition for