Review Notes 10.

RA 8045 – Synchronized Election Act, Amending RA 7166

– (June 7, 1995)
In 11. RA 7941 – Party-List System Act – (March 3, 1995)
12. RA 7887 –Act Instituting Electoral Reforms, Amending RA
ELECTION LAWS 7166 – (Feb 20, 1995)
13. RA 7166 – Synchronized Elections Act – (November 26,
By 1991)
14. RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, – January 5,
Atty. Hilario Justino F. Morales 1988
15. RA 9369 - Automated Election System Law, January,
Law Professor & 2007
Head, Department of Political Law
SLU College of Law C. Rules of Procedure
1. COMELEC Rules of Procedure
Pre-bar Reviewer, Powerhaus Law Review Center 2. Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
3. Rules of the Senate/House of Representatives Electoral
June, 2009 Tribunal
4. SC Rules of Procedure for Election Contest Involving
ELECTIONS LAWS Municipal Officials; SC AO 54-2007 and Rules of Court
The major laws governing/affecting elections in the Philippines are: (suppletory to the specific rules adopted by electoral
A. Constitutional Provisions tribunals)
1. Article V on Suffrage, 1987 Philippine Constitution
2. Article IX – C, Provisions on Commission on Elections I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. Statutory Laws
1. BP 881 – Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines – 1.
Suffrage, Election Defined
(December 3, 1985) This law, as amended, repealed PD 2.
Theories on Suffrage
1296- Election Code of 1978. PD 1296 repealed RA 6388 3.
Theory prevailing in the Philippines
– Election Code of 1971. RA 6388 repealed RA 180- The 4.
System of Election adopted in the Philippines
Revised Election Code. 5.
Constitutional Mandate of Congress – Sec. 2, Art. V Phil.
2. RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of Constitution
2003 II. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
3 RA 9189 – The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
4 RA 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 1. Composition, Qualifications, Appointment, Term of Office 1.1
5. RA 9006 – Fair Election Act, Amending RA 6646 – Composition – Sec. 1(1) Art. IX-C
(February 13, 2001) 1.2 Qualifications
6. RA 8295 – Lone Candidate Law – (June 6, 1997) o Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201SCRA 210 1.3
7. RA 8436 – Election Modernization Law - December 22 Appointment
1997 o Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192SCRA358 o
8. RA 8189 – The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 – (June Gaminde vs COA, 347 SCRA 655
11, 1996) o Matibag vs Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
9. RA 8173 – Act Granting All Citizens’ Arm Equal 1.4 Term of Office
Opportunity To Be Accredited by the COMELEC, 1.5 Disabilities/Inhibitions/Disqualifications
Amending RA 7166 – (December 20, 1995) 1.6 Safeguards to insure the independence of the
COMELEC
2. En Banc and Divisions Cases, Decisions, Rules
x Sarmiento vs COMELEC, 212 SCRA 307
x Zarate vs COMELEC, 318 SCRA 608
x Baytan vs COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703
x Milla vs Balmores-Laxa, 408 SCRA 679
x Repol vs COMELEC 428 SCRA 321
x Sandoval vs COMELEC, 323 SCRA 403
x Soller vs COMELEC, 339 SCRA 685
x Garvida vs Sales 271 SCRA 764
x Torres vs COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583
x Faelnar vs COMELEC, 331 SCRA 429
x Kho vs COMELEC, 279 SCRA 463
x Mutilan vs COMELEC GR No. 1712248,
April 2, 2007
2.2 Decisions
x Cua vs COMELEC, 156 SCRA 587
x Estrella vs COMELEC, 428 SCRA 789
x Dumayas Jr. vs COMELEC 357 SCRA
358
x Ambil vs COMELEC 344 SCRA 358
2.3 Rules concerning pleadings and practice – Sec 6 Art
IX-A & Sec. 5(5) Art VIII PC
x Pangarungan vs COMELEC, 216 SCRA
522
3. Constitutional Powers and Functions
a. Enforce and administer laws relative to conduct of
elections.
x Gallardo vs Judge Tabamo, 218 SCRA
253
x Cayetano vs COMELEC, 479 SCRA 513
x Buac vs COMELEC, 421 SCRA 92
b. Decide elections contests involving regional, provincial
and city officials
x Flores vs COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484
x Mercado vs BES, 243 SCRA 422
x Veloria vs COMELEC, 211 SCRA 907
x Beso vs Aballe, 326 SCRA 100
x Antonio vs COMELEC, 315 SCRA 62
x Marquez vs COMELEC, 313 SCRA 103
x Carlos vs COMELEC, 346 SCRA 571
c. Decide all questions affecting elections
x Filipinas Eng’g vs Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25
x Nacionalista Party vs COMELEC, 84 Phil
49
x Alunan vs Mirasol, 276 SCRA 501
d. Deputize law enforcement agencies with the
concurrence of the President
 People vs Basilla, 179 SCRA 87
e. Register political parties and accredit its citizens arms
f. File petitions for inclusion and exclusions; investigate and
prosecute violation of election laws
g. Recommend to Congress measures to improve election
laws
h. Recommend the imposition of disciplinary action upon
an employee it has deputized for violation of its order.
x Tan vs COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353
i. Regulation of public entities and media – Sec. 4, Art. IX-C
x Sanidad vs COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
x NPC vs COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1
x Adiong vs COMELEC, 207 SCRA 12
x Osmeña vs COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447
x TELEBAP vs COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337
x ABS-CBN vs COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811
j. Make minor adjustments of the apportionment of
legislative districts. (Sec 2, Ordinance appended to the
Constitution)
x Montejo vs COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415
k. Adjust the apportionment in case of creation of new
provinces or cities. (Sec. 3, Ordinance appended to the
Constitution)
l. Pardon, etc., of violators of election laws.
m. Promulgate rules of procedure concerning pleadings and
practice before it or any of its offices. (Sec. 6, Art IX-C)
n. Submit report on how a previous elections was
conducted.
4. Statutory Powers – Secs 2, 52& 57, BP 881; EO 292 (Admin
Code of the Phils)
a. Power to declare failure of election and call for special
election
b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation
controversies –Sec. 242, BP 881
c. Issue writs of certiorari, prohibition
x Beso vs Aballe, 326 SCRA 100
x Carlos vs Angeles, 346 SCRA 571
x Relampagos vs Cumba
x Edding vs COMELEC 246 SCRA 502
d. Summons parties to a controversy pending before it
 e. Enforce and execute its decisions and orders
f. Punish contempts provided for in the Rules of Courts.
x Masangcay vs COMELEC. 6 SCRA 27
x Dimaporo vs Dumarpa, 177 SCRA 478
g. Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the
Election Code.
h. Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control
over officials required to perform duties relative to the
conduct of election.
i. Prescribe forms to be used in the election.
j. Procure any supplies, equipment, materials or services
needed for the holding of election
k. Carry out continuing and systematic campaign to educate
the public about elections
l. Prescribe the use or adoption of the latest technological
and electronic devices –Section 52 (i) BP 881 and Section.
6, RA 8436
m. Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-election
requirements such as registration of voters
n. Enlist non-partisan groups to assist.
5. Judicial Review of Decisions
o Reyes vs RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41
o Guerrero vs COMELEC, 336 SCRA 458
o Torres vs COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583
o Ambil vs COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358
o Salva vs COMELEC, 340 SCRA 506
o Chavez vs COMELEC, 221 SCRA 315
III. VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION; PRECINCTS AND
POLLING PLACES
1. Date, System of Continuing Registration of Voters RA 8189
 AKBAYAN vs COMELEC, GR #C 147066, March
21, 2001
 KABATAAN Party List vs COMELEC, GR No.
189868, Dec. 15, 2009
1. Qualifications for Suffrage
 Romualdez vs RTC, 227 SCRA 445
 Macalintal vs COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July
11, 2003
 Nicolas Lewis vs COMELEC, GR No. 162759,
Aug. 4, 2006
2. Disqualifications; Grounds, Removal of Disqualification Sec. 11
RA 8189
4. Illiterate and disabled voters including Persons with
Disabilities and Senior Citizens
5. Inclusion and Exclusion Cases; Correction of Names of Voters
5.3 Period for filing
5.4 Procedure
x Mercado vs Judge Dysangco 385 SCRA
327
6. Annulment of List of Voters
x Sarangani vs COMELEC, 334 SCRA 379
x Ututalum vs COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335
7. Election Precincts
8. Polling Places
9. Official Ballots; Form, Contents and Publication; Signature of
the Chairman
IV POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY LIST SYSTEM
1. Political Party, Defied – Sec. 60, BP 881
x LDP vs COMELEC; GR No. 161265; February 24,
2004
2. Groups which cannot be registered
x Aklat vs COMELEC; 427 SCRA 712
x ANG LADLAD vs COMELEC GR No. 190582, April
8, 2010
3. Grounds for cancellation of registration
4. Party System – Sec 6, Art IX-C
5. Party list System; Policy and Definition – RA 7941
6. Nomination of Party List Representatives
x BA-RA 7941 vs COMELEC GR Nos. 177271; 177314;
May 4, 2007
7. Qualifications of Party List Nominees
8. Manner of Voting
9. Number of Party list Representative
10. Procedure in allocating seats
11. How Party List representatives are chosen
12. Term of Office
13. Effect of Change of Affiliation
14. Vacancy
15. Rights of Party List Representatives
x Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC, 342
SCRA 244
x Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW vs COMELEC GR #
147589, June 26, 2001
V. CANDIDATES: CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY
 1. Qualifications of Candidates (Constitutional Provisions for
President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen; Sec 39, Local Govt
Code , RA 7160)
ƒ Frivaldo vs COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245 ƒ Labo vs
COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
ƒ Perez vs COMELEC, 317 SCRA 641
ƒ Torayno vs COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574
ƒ Bengson III vs HRET GR#142840, May 7, 2001
ƒ Domino vs COMELEC, 310 SCRA 546
ƒ Coquilla vs COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607
ƒ Marcos vs COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300
ƒ Aquino vs COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400
ƒ Altarejos vs COMELEC, 441 SCRA 655
ƒ Fornier vs COMELEC, GR No. 1618244; March 3,
2004 ƒ Dumpit-Michelena vs Boado, 475 SCRA 290
2. Disqualifications
2.1 Under the Omnibus Election Code (Sec 12, 68 BP 881)
x Caasi vs COMELEC, 191 SCRA229
2.2 Under the Local Govt Code
x Magno vs COMELEC, 390 SCRA 495
x Moreno vs COMELEC, August 10, 2006
x Latasa vs COMELEC, 417 SCRA 574
x Borja vs COMELEC, 298 SCRA 157
x Ong vs Alegre, 479 SCRA 473
x Manzano vs Mercado, 307 SCRA 630
2.3 Additional Grounds – Secs. 68, 69, 78, 89, 95, 96, 97,
104, 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261 of BP 881
x Jurilla vs COMELEC 232 SCRA 758
x Pamil vs Teleron 84 SCRA 413
x Jurilla vs COMELEC 232 SCRA 758
x Pamatong vs COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96
x Go vs COMELEC, GR#147741, May 10,
2001
3. Certificate of Candidacy
x Sinaca vs Mula 315 SCRA 266
3.1 Deadline for Filing
x Gador vs COMELEC, 95 SCRA 431
x Recabo vs COMELEC, 308 SCRA 793 3.2
Prohibition against multiple candidacies
3.3 Forms – Oaths and Names
3.4 Place and Period of Filing
3.5 Duty of COMELEC to accept COC
3.6 Mandatory Drug Testing (RA 9165)
x Pimentel vs COMELEC GR# 161658,
Nov 3, 2008 3.7 Effects of filing Certificate of Candidacy
(Appointive vs Elective)
x Quinto and Tolentino vs COMELEC GR#
189698, Feb. 22, 2010
3.8 Withdrawal of COC
x Viverio vs COMELEC, L-81059; Jan 12,
1989
x Ramirez vs COMELEC L-81150, Jan 12,
1988
3.9 Substitution of candidates in case of death,
disqualification or withdrawal – Sec 77 BP 881 Sec. 12, RA 9006
x Domingo vs CBOC GR #105365; June 2,
1992
x Sinaca vs Mula, 315 SCRA 266
x Villanueva vs COMELEC, 140 SCRA 352
x Miranda vs Abaya, 311 SCRA 617
3.10 Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy
x Bautista vs COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299
x Luna vs COMELEC, 522 SCRA 107
x Pamatong vs COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96
4. Disqualification of Candidates
x Loong vs COMELEC; 216 SCRA 760
x Abella sv Larrazabal; 180 SCRA 509
x Nolasco vs COMELEC; 275 SCRA 762
x Bagatsing vs COMELEC; 320 SCRA 817
x Lanot vs Comelec; 507 SCRA 114
4.3 Effects of Disqualification – Sec 6, RA 6646
x Labo vs COMELEC; 211 SCRA 297
x Grego vs COMELEC; 274 SCRA 481
x Sunga vs COMELEC; 288 SCRA 76
x Bautista vs COMELEC; 298 SCRA 480
x Mercado vs Manzano; 307 SCRA 630
5. Lone Candidate Law – RA 8295
VI. CAMPAIGN; ELECTION PROPAGANDA; CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EXPENDITURES
1. Election campaign or partisan political activity – Sec 88, BP
881
2. Nominations of candidates – Sec. 6 , BP 881
3. Campaign Period – Sec. 5, RA 7166
4. Lawful Election propaganda; Forms and Requirements – Sec.
82, 84 BP 881 ; Sec. 3, RA 9006
5. Prohibited election propaganda; Prohibited Acts and Scope
  PPI vs COMELEC; 244 SCRA 272 1. Procedure – Secs. 206-210 BP 881
 NPC vs COMELEC; 207 SCRA 1 2. Excess, Spoiled and Marked Ballots
 TELEBAP vs COMELEC; 289 SCRA 337 3. Stray Votes – Sec 221 BP 881
 CHAVES vs COMELEC; 437 SCRA 415 4. Rules on Appreciation of Ballots
 SWS vs COMELEC; GR No. 147571 ; May 5,  Alfonso vs COMELEC 232SCRA777
2001  Villarosa vs HRET 340 SCRA 396
6. Prohibited Contribution – Sec. 95-97 BP 881  Lerias vs HRET 202SCRA 808
 Halili vs CA; 83 SCRA 633  Punzalan vs COMELEC 289 SCRA 702
7. Equal access to media Time and space, Sec. 6 . RA 9006  Ong vs COMELEC 347 SCRA 681
8. Limitation of expenses – candidates and political parties; 5. Election Returns; Correction
Lawful expenditures – Sec 13, RA 7166 6. What constitute an election
9. Statement of contributions and expenses: Filing, Effects of 7. Proclamation of the result of the election
Withdrawal; Effects of Failure to File- Sec3 14, RA 7166 8. BEI to issue certificates of votes to watchers – sec. 16, RA 6646
 Pilar vs COMELEC, 244 SCRA 759
X. CANVASS AND PROCLAMATION
VII. ELECTION PROPER; BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (BEIs); 1. Canvassing Bodies; Canvassing by Provincial, City, District and
WATCHERS Municipal Board of Canvassers – Secs 28-29, RA 7166
1. Kind of Election – General, Special, Recall 1.1 Composition of Board of Canvassers Provincial Board
2. Date of Election under the law of Canvassers (PBOC) City Board of Canvassers
3. Election of Sangguniang Members (CBOC) Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC)
4. Postponement of Election 1.2 Prohibited Relationsip
x Basher vs COMELEC, 330SCRA736 1.3 Prohibition against leaving station
x Pangandaman vs COMELEC, 319 SCRA283 2. Congress as National Board of Canvassers
5. Failure of Elections 3. Supervisory Power over the Board
 Banaga vs COMELEC, 336SCRA736 4. Nature of Duty of Board of Canvassers: Ministerial and Quasi-
 Benito vs COMELEC, GR#134913, Jan 19, 2001 Judicial
 Sanchez vs COMELEC, 114SCRA454  Guiao vs COMELEC 137 SCRA 366
6. Special Election  Castromayor vs COMELEC GR#120426; Nov
x Tolentino vs COMELEC, 420SCRA438 23, 1995
7. Composition of BEIs; Disqualification 5. Nature of Canvass Proceedings: Procedure
8. Power; Proceedings  Libardos vs Casar; 234 SCRA 13
9. Watchers; Qualifications; Rights and Duties 5. Rights of Candidates during Canvassing
6. Problem Areas
VIII CASTING OF VOTES  Samad vs COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631
1. Procedure – Secs 190-198 BP 881  Pagarugan vs COMELEC, 216 SCRA 522
1.1 Signature of the Chairman in the Ballot  Ong vs COMELEC, 221 SCRA 475
 Libarios vs HRET, 282SCRA520 7.2 Omission in the return
 Punzalan vs COMELEC, 289SCRA702 x Patoray vs COMELEC, 249 SCTA 440
 Malabaguio vs COMELEC, 346SCRA699 7.3 Tampered or falsified return
1.2 Preparation of ballots of illiterate and disabled voters x Lucero vs COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280
1.3 Challenge of illegal voter 7.4 Discrepancies in the return
x Angelia vs Comelec, 332 SCRA 757
IX. COUNTING OF VOTES x Patoray vs COMELEC, supra
 8. Proclamation
o Samad vs COMELEC, supra
o Benito vs COMELEC, 235SCRA376
o Baterina vs COMELEC, 205SCRA1
o Loreto vs Brion; 311 SCRA 694
o Sema vs COMELEC 347 SCRA 633
o Caruncho III vs Comelec
315SCRA693
o Bagatsing vs COMELEC, 320 SCRA
817
o Dagle vs COMELEC, 321 SCRA 273
9. Tie; Failure to assume office
XI. PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
1. Definition, coverage – Secs. 15 & 19, RA 7166
2. COMELEC Jurisdiction
3. Scope of Pre-proclamation Controversy
3.1 Issues enumerated in Section 243
3.2 Election Returns containing discrepancies as
mentioned in Secs 233, 234, 235 and 236
3.3 Issue regarding errors in the Statement of Votes
(SOV)
3.4 Errors in the certificate of canvass
3.5 Doctrine of Statistical Improbabilities
4. Issues NOT resolvable in a pre-proclamation controversy 4.1
Reopening of ballots
4.2 Recounting of ballots
4.3 Misappreciation of Ballots
4.4 Padding of Voter’s List
4.5 Massive Fraud or Terrorism\
4.6 Election irregularities
4.7 Administrative lapses
4.8 Failure of Election
5. Procedure
5.1 Commencement of pre-proclamation controversy – Sec
17, Ra 7166
5.2 Summary disposition of pre-proclamation controversies –
Sec 18, RA 7166
5.3 Disposition of contested election return – Sec. 20, RA
7166
5.4 Effect of filing an election protes or quo warranto
5.5 Continuance of the case
5.6 Partial Proclamation
5.7 Annulment of Proclamation
XII. ELECTION CONTESTS
1. Jurisdiction over Election Contest 1.1 Original and Exclusive
x Marquez vs COMELEC; 313 SCRA 103 1.2
Appellate jurisdiction
x Papandayan vs COMELEC; 230 SCRA 469
2. Action which may be filed
x Sampayan vs Daza; 213 SCRA 807
x Frivaldo vs COMELEC; 174 SCRA 245
x Marquez vs COMELEC; supra
3. Distinction between Quo Warranto in elective and appointive
office
4. Procedure
4.1 Periods for filing Contest, exceptions
x Gatchalian vs CA; 245 SCRA 208
x Gallardo vs Rimando; 187 SCRA 463
x Manahan vs Bernardo; 283 SCRA 505
x Frivaldo vs COMELEC; supra
x Roquero vs COMELEC; 289 SCRA 150
x Trinidad vs COMELEC; 320 SCRA 836
4.2 Protestant or Petitioner
4.3 Payment of Docket Fee
x Pahilan vs Tabalba; 230 SCRA 205
x Gatchallian vs CA; supra
x Gracia vs HRET; 312 SCRA 353
x Melendres vs COMELEC; 319 SCRA 262
x Banaga vs COMELEC; 336 SCRA 701
x Soller vs COMELEC; 339 SCRA 685
x Macias vs COMELEC; 182 SCRA 137\
x Miro vs COMELEC; 121 SCRA 466
x Pena vs HRET; 270 SCRA 340
4.5 Verification/Certification of Absence of Forum Shopping
x Soller vs COMELEC; supra
x Loyola vs CA; 245 SCRA 477
x Barroso vs Ampig; 328 SCRA 530
x Domingo vs COMELEC; 313 SCRA 311
4.6 Joinder of Election Protest and Quo Warranto Case
4.7 Composition of Board of Canvassers
x Samad vs COMELEC; supra 4.8 Change
of Theory
x Arroyo vs HRET; supra
x Aruelo vs CA; 227 SCRA 311 4.10
Answer
x Kho vs COMELEC; 279 SCRA 463\
 x Lim vs COMELEC; 282 SCRA 53
x Loyola vs HRET; 229 SCRA 90
x Roa vs Inting; 231 SCRA 57 4.12
Injunction
x Cereno vs Dictado, 160SCRA759 4.13
Abandonement of Protest
x Santiago vs Ramos 253 SCRA 559 4.14
Substitution
x Dela Victoria vs COMELEC;
199SCRA561
x Unda vs COMELEC; 190 SCRA 827
x Dayo vs Comelec; 199 SCRA 449 4.16
Opening of Ballot Boxes
x Manahan vs Bernardo 283SCRA229
4.17 Deferment of Counter Protest
x Abeja vs Tanada, 236SCRA60
4.18 Evidence / Demurrer to evidence
x Erni vs COMELEC; 243 SCRA 706
x Arroyo vs HRET, supra
x Enojas vs COMELEC, 283 SCRA 229
4.19 Decision
x Labo vs COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297 4.20
Execution Pending Appeal
x Relampagos vs Cumba 243 SCRA 690
x Malaluan vs COMELEC, 254SCRA397
4.21 Motion for Reconsideration
x Veloria vs COMELEC; 211 SCRA 907
x Angelia vs COMELEC; 332 SCRA 757
x Pangilinan vs De Ocampo 232 SCRA
x Reyes vs RTC; 244 SCRA 41
x Velayo vs COMELEC; 327 SCRA 713
4.22 Review
a. Appelate Jurisdiction
x Lazatin vs COMELEC; 168 SCRA 391
x Lindo vs COMELEC; 194 SCRA 25
x Rivera vs COMELEC; 199 SCRA 178
x Guieb vs Fontanilla; 247 SCRA 348
x Flores vs COMELEC; 184 SCRA 484
x Mercado vs BEI of Ibaan; 243 SCRA 421
b. Form
x Pahilan vs Tabalba; 230 SCRA 205
c. Failure to Pay Appellate Docket Fee
x Reyes vs RTC; supra
x Rodillas vs COMELEC; 254 SCRA 702
d. Scope of Authority
x Arao vs COMELEC; 210 SCRA 290
5. Award of Damage
x Atienza vs COMELEC; 239 SCRA 298
x Regalado vs CA; 325 SCRA 636
6. Interpretation of certain words and phrases
x Javier vs COMELEC; 144 SCRA 194
XIII. ELECTION OFFENSES
1. Criminal and electoral aspects of an election offense
x Sunga vs COMELEC; 288 SCRA 76
x Albana vs COMELEC; 435 SCRA98
x Gustilo vs Judge Real; 353 SCRA 1
D. Enumeration of Election offenses, prohibited acts- Sec. 261 BP 811 , as
amended by RA 6646 and RA 8189
2.1 Prohibited acts which constitutes election offenses
under BP 881
x People vs Reyes; 247 SCRA 328
x Mappala vs Nunez; 240 SCRA 600
x Regalado vs CA; 325 SCRA 636
x COMELEC vs Romillo; 158 SCRA 716
x Ong vs Martinez; 188 SCRA 830
x Lozano vs Martinez; 203 SCRA 256
2.2 Prohibitions relating to registration of voters
2.3 Prohibitions relating to voting
2.4 Prohibitions relating to canvassing
x Pimentel vs COMELEC; 289 SCRA 586
x Agujetas vs CA; 261 SCRA 17
2.5 Prohibition common to all BEI and BOC
2.6 Prohibition relating to candidacy and campaign
2.7 Other election offenses under the Electoral Reform
Law
2.8 Other election offenses under Voters Registration Act
3. Persons criminally liable
4. Penalties
5. Investigation and Prosecution: COMELEC Jurisdiction
x Naldoza vs Lavilles; 254 SCRA 286
x Corpuz vs Tanodbayan; 149 SCRA 281
x People vs Inting; 187 SCRA 788
x People vs Basilla; 179 SCRA 87
x People vs Regalado; 189 SCRA 715
x COMELEC vs Silva; 286 SCRA 177
x COMELEC vs Espanol; 417 SCRA 554
 x Laurel vs Presiding Judge, RTC Manila
Br. 10; 323 SCRA 778
6. Jurisdiction of Courts
x Juan vs People; 322 SCRA 125
x COMELEC vs Noynay; 292 SCRA 354
7. Preferential disposition of election offenses – Sec. 269 , BP
881
8. Prescriptive period for election offenses
9. Conviction and Pardon

XIV. AUTOMATION LAW

1. RA 8436
2 RA 9369 - Automation Law
x Banat Party List vs Comelec; GR #
179271, 179295; July 9, 2009
x Harry Roque Jr. vs Comelec ;GR #
188456, September 10, 2009

Prepared by:

ATTY. JOHN PAUL A. MARTIN

 ELECTION LAWS
LAWS GOVERNING AND AFFECTING ELECTIONS
ELECTIONS LAWS
The major laws governing/affecting elections in the Philippines are:
1. Constitutional Provisions
1. Article V on Suffrage, 1987 Philippine Constitution
2. Article IX – C, Provisions on Commission on Elections
B. Statutory Laws
01. BP 881 – Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines – (December 3,
1985)
This law, as amended, repealed PD 1296- Election Code of 1978. PD 1296
repealed RA 6388 – Election Code of 1971. RA 6388 repealed RA 180- The
Revised Election Code.
02. RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
03 RA 9189 – The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
04 RA 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
05. RA 9006 – Fair Election Act, Amending RA 6646 – (February 13, 2001)
06. RA 8295 – Lone Candidate Law – (June 6, 1997)
07. RA 8436 – Election Modernization Law – December 22 1997
08. RA 8189 – The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 – (June 11, 1996)
09. RA 8173 – Act Granting All Citizens’ Arm Equal Opportunity To Be
Accredited by the COMELEC, Amending RA 7166 – (December 20, 1995)
10. RA 8045 – Synchronized Election Act, Amending RA 7166 – (June 7,
1995)
11. RA 7941 – Party-List System Act – (March 3, 1995)
12. RA 7887 –Act Instituting Electoral Reforms, Amending RA 7166 – (Feb
20, 1995)
13. RA 7166 – Synchronized Elections Act – (November 26, 1991)
14. RA 6646 – Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, – January 5, 1988
15. RA 9369 – Automated Election System Law, January, 2007
C. Rules of Procedure
01. COMELEC Rules of Procedure
02. Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
03. Rules of the Senate/House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
04. SC Rules of Procedure for Election Contest Involving Municipal Officials;
SC AO 54-2007 and Rules of Court (suppletory to the specific rules adopted
by electoral tribunals)
4. Jurisprudence on election laws
General Coverage of the Law on Elections
1. Conduct of election, including conduct of plebiscite initiative referendum
and recall as provided in Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution
1. Organization and Management c. Election Day Activities of the
COMELEC d. Post-Election Day Activities
2. Pre-election Activities
2. Electoral Adjudications, including jurisdiction and procedural matters
1. Accreditation: Political parties/citizens’ d. Annulment of Registry List
arms/sectoral parties and organization e. Pre-Proclamation Controversies
2. Disqualification cases f. Annulment of Proclamation
3. Petition for postponement g. Election Contests
/failure of elections h. Quo warranto cases
1
II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
SUFFRAGE – the right and obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the
election of certain national and local of the government and in the
decisions of public questions submitted to the people. It includes within its
scope: election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.
ELECTION – the means by which the people choose their officials for a
definite and fixed period and to whom they entrust for the time being as
their representatives the exercise of the powers of government. It involves
the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote. (Sambrani vs. COMELEC, 438 SCRA 319)
PLEBISCITE – a vote of the people expressing their choice for or against a
proposed law or enactment submitted to them. An election at which any
proposed amendment to or revision of the Constitution is submitted to the
people for their ratification. A constitutional requirement to secure the
approval of the people directly affected, before certain proposed changes
affecting local government units may be implemented.
INITIATIVE – it is the process by which the registered voters directly
propose amendments to the constitution or to propose, enact, amend
laws, national or local, through an election called for the purpose. Local
initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local
government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance.
Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves without
participation of their elected representatives. (Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority vs. COMELEC, 262 SCRA 492)
The constitutional provisions on initiative as a mode of amending the
Constitution is not a self-executing provision. While there is an existing law
on initiative, RA 6735 – An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum, the same is inadequate and incomplete to cover the system
of initiative to amend the Constitution. Such inadequacy cannot be cured
by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules and
regulations.(Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997)
Likewise, this mode can be used only to propose mere amendments and
not revisions to the Constitution, such as shifting the system of
government from presidential to parliamentary. (Lambino vs. COMELEC
505 SCRA 160) An amendment is directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition only if the people sign on a petition that contains
the full text of the proposed amendments which may either be written on
the face of the petition or attached to it. (Ibid.)
REFERENDUM – it is the submission of a law passed by the national or local
legislative body to the registered voters at an election called for the
purpose for their ratification or rejection.
RECALL – it is a method by which a local elective official may be removed
from office during his tenure or before the expiration of his term by a vote
of the people after registration of a petition signed by a required
percentage of the qualified voters. RA 9244 effectively amended Section
70 of the Local Government Code and thus, eliminated the preparatory
recall assembly as one of the modes of initiating recall and provided for a
new procedure in the conduct of recall initiated through written petition of
registered voters.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Theory of suffrage prevailing in the Philippines. Suffrage is both a privilege
and an obligation.
System of suffrage adopted in the Philippines. Strict secrecy in balloting,
otherwise known as the Australian ballot system.
Nature of Suffrage
1. It is not a natural right of the citizen but merely a privilege to be given or
withheld by the lawmaking power subject to constitutional limitations. It is
not a necessary accompaniment of citizenship. It is granted to individuals
only upon the fulfillment of certain minimum conditions deemed essential
for the welfare of society.
2. In a sense of a right conferred by the Constitution, suffrage is classified
as a political right, as well as bounden duty of every citizen, enabling him
to participate in the process of government to assure that it truly derives
its powers solely from the consent of the governed. The principle is that of
one man, one vote.
Power of Congress to regulate suffrage; constitutional mandate
Since the right of suffrage is a political and not a natural right, it is within
the power of the State to prescribe the manner in which such right shall be
exercised. Congress is mandated by the Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. V):
1. To provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot, and
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad, and
2. To design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterate to vote without
the assistance of other persons.
–o0o–
III. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Nature, Purpose of the COMELEC
It is an independent administrative tribunal, co-equal with the other
departments in respect to the powers vested in it. It is outside the
influence of political parties and the control of executive, legislative and
judicial organs of the government. Since purity of elections is one of the
fundamental requisites of popular government, it is obvious that the
sanctity of the ballot and the free and honest expression of the popular
will can be protected by an independent office such as the COMELEC
whose sole work is to enforce laws on elections.
Composition, Qualifications, Appointment, Term of Office
The COMELEC is composed of a Chairman and six (6) Commissioners. The
Chairman and the Members of the Commission shall be:
1. natural-born citizens of the Philippines
2. at least thirty-five years of age
3. holders of a college degree
4. must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding election
5. majority thereof, including the Chairman shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years.(Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210) Reason: COMELEC exercises
quasi-judicial powers. “Engaged in the practice of law” means to engage in
“any activity, or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.” (Ibid.)
The Chairman and Members are appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointment for a term of seven (7) years
 without reappointment on a staggered basis to make the COMELEC a
continuing and self-perpetuating body. Consequently, its members would
have the benefit of the experience and expertise of the older members in
the performance of its functions, and makes for greater responsibility for
its policies and decisions and serves as a guarantee against arbitrary action
which is likely to occur in a body handling partisans questions.
Duration of Appointment
In reckoning the seven-year term, the starting point is always February 2,
1987, even if the appointee actually took office after February 2. In case of
a belated appointment or qualification, the interval between the start of
the term and the actual qualification of the appointee must be counted
against the latter. There is no need to expressly state the beginning of the
term of office as this is understood to coincide with the effectivity of the
Constitution upon its ratification on February 2, 1987. (Gaminde vs. COA,
347 SCRA 655) This is in keeping with the rotational system in order to
preserve the staggering of terms.
A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired
term also to preserve the staggered terms of office.
Prohibited, Valid Appointment
Appointment and designations in temporary or acting capacity are not
allowed to preserve its independence. (Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA
358) A temporary appointment can still be revoked or withdrawn by the
appointing authority.
THE COMMISSSION ON ELECTIONS
However, an ad interim appointment issued to the Chairman of the
COMELEC is a permanent appointment, and therefore valid, as the same
can no longer be revoked by the President. (Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380
SCRA49)
Disabilities, inhibitions/disqualifications
1. Shall not, during tenure, hold any other office or employment
2. Shall not engage in the practice of any profession
3. Shall not engage in the active management or control of any business
which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office
4. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their
subsidiaries.
Safeguards to insure the independence of the COMELEC
1. It is constitutionally created; may not be abolished by statute.
2. It is expressly described as “independent”.
3. It is conferred with certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced
by statute.
4. The Chairman and Members cannot be removed except by
impeachment.
5. The Chairmen and Members are given fairly long term of office of seven
years.
6. The Chairman and Members may not be reappointed or appointed in an
acting capacity, the same being a mere temporary appointment which can
still be revoked by the appointing authority. (Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA
358)
7. The salaries of the Chairman and members are relatively high and may
not be decreased during continuance in office.
8. The COMELEC enjoy fiscal autonomy; funds appropriated by Congress to
the COMELEC shall be automatically released.
9. The COMELEC may promulgate its own procedural rules, provided they do
not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (though not subject to
approval by the Supreme Court, the same may be subject to disapproval by
the Supreme Court)
10. The Implementing Rules and Regulations that the COMELEC may
promulgate to enforce and administer election laws cannot be revised,
reviewed amended or approved by Congress.
In Macalintal vs. COMELEC, 405 SCRA 614, the Supreme Court ruled that
Section 25 of RA 9189 empowering Congress through the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee to exercise the power to review,
revise, amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations that
the COMELEC shall promulgate, is unconstitutional This portion of the law
violates the independence of the COMELEC as it restricts the COMELEC’s
constitutional domain to enforce and administer all election laws.
11. The Chairman and Members are subject to certain disqualifications
calculated to strengthen their integrity. (See disqualifications, inhibitions
and disqualifications)
12. The COMELEC may appoint their own officials and employees in
accordance with Civil Service Laws.
En Banc & Division Cases
The COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions. All election cases shall
be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration shall be decided en banc. (Sec. 3, Art. IX-C)
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Under Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC
exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC
administrative powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8)
and (9). Of Article IX-C. The 1987 Constitution does not prescribe how the
COMELEC should exercise its administrative powers, whether en banc or in
division. The Constitution merely vests the COMELEC’s administrative
powers in the “Commission on Elections,” while providing that the
COMELEC “may sit en banc or in two divisions.” Clearly, the COMELEC en
banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers.
Indeed, this has been the practice of the COMELEC both under the 1973
and 1987 Constitution. (Baytan vs. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703)
The COMELEC exercise of its quasi judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of
Article IX-C which expressly require that all election cases, including pre-
proclamation cases shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the
motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. It
follows that the COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in the division
and then upon motion for reconsideration en banc only when the
COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers. (Ibid.)
Quasi-judicial Functions
The following cases, where the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial functions,
must be decided in Division before they may be heard en banc on motion
for reconsideration:
1. Petition to deny or cancel a certificate of candidacy (Garvida vs. Sales, 271
SCRA 764; Bautista vs. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299)
Nowhere it is provided in the law that the COMELEC en banc has the
power to assume jurisdiction motu propio over a petition to deny due
course pending before a division of the Commission. (Roces vs. HRET, 469
SCRA 671)
2. Cases appealed from the RTC or MTC (Zarate vs. COMELEC, 318 SCRA 608)
3. Petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest. (Soller
vs. COMELEC, 339 SCAR 685)
4. Election protests and quo warranto cases.
5. Pre-proclamation controversies. (Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa, 408 SCRA 679)
Exceptions. 1) The COMELEC en banc, however, may directly assume
jurisdiction over petitions for correction of manifest errors in the
tabulation or tallying of results (Statement of Votes) by the Board of
Canvassers, notwithstanding that the same is a pre-proclamation
controversy. Sec. 5, Rule 27 of the 1993 Rules of the COMELEC expressly
provides that pre-proclamation controversies involving correction of
manifest errors in the tabulation of results may be filed directly with the
COMELEC en banc, provided that such error could not have been
discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and
proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made. (Torres vs.
COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583; Ramirez vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 590; Sandoval
vs. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 403) 2) Likewise, the COMELEC, although
performing quasi-judicial function, shall meet en banc when deciding a
motion for reconsideration of a decision of a division.
Hence, the Supreme Court can set aside the resolutions/ decisions of the
COMELEC because the COMELEC en banc took original cognizance of the
cases without referring them first to the appropriate Division. (Sarmiento
vs. COMELEC 212 SCRA 307; Zarate vs. COMELEC, 318 SCRA 608)
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Administrative Functions
The following are among the administrative functions of the COMELEC and
therefore, the Commission must meet en banc:
1. When promulgating its rules of procedure;
2. When exercising the exclusive power to postpone, to declare a failure of
election, or to call a special election. (Benito vs. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705)
A petition to declare a failure of election is neither a pre-proclamation
controversy nor an election case. (Borja vs. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
3. When it determines the existence of probable cause. (Faelnar vs.
COMELEC, 331 SCRA 429) This includes the approval of the findings in a
preliminary investigation by the COMELEC Law Department.
4. When deciding a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a division.
NOTE: This is, however, a quasi-judicial power judicial power of the
COMELEC, but the Commission has to meet en banc for this purpose.
The COMELEC en banc shall decide motion for reconsideration only of a of
“decision” of a division, meaning those acts of final character. (Gementiza
vs. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 724) Also, under, Rule 13 Section 1 (d) of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an en
banc ruling, order or decision of the COMELEC is not allowed.
Only final orders of the COMELEC in Division may be raised before the
COMELEC en banc. Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates
that motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the
COMELEC en banc. (Repol vs. COMELEC, 428 SCRA 321) Thus, interlocutory
orders issued by a division of the COMELEC cannot be elevated to the
COMELEC en banc. (Kho vs. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 463)
Exception: In Rosal vs. COMELEC, GR Nos. 168253 and 172741, March 16,
2007, it was held that interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division should be
challenged at the first instance through a proper motion, such as motion
for reconsideration, filed with the division that rendered the order. If that
fails and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (such as
recourse to COMELEC En Banc, because it is not permissible by its rules)
the party aggrieved by the interlocutory order may elevate the matter to
the Supreme Court by means of petition for certiorari on the ground that
the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion.
Automatic Elevation. While automatic elevation of a case erroneously filed
with the Division to En Banc is not provided in the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, such action is not prohibited. If the procedure to be followed in
the exercise of such power or jurisdiction is not specifically provided for by
law or COMELEC Rules of Procedure, any suitable process or proceedings
may be adopted. Thus. there is nothing in the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure to prevent the COMELEC Second Division from referring the
petition to annul the elections to the COMELEC EN Banc. (Mutilan vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 1712248, April 2, 2007)
Quorom and Decisions
When sitting en banc , four (4) Members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. The
concurrence of the majority of the Members of the Commission shall be
necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution and order or
ruling. The Commission en bancshall decide within thirty (30) days from
the date a case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution,
except a motion for reconsideration
of a decision or resolution of a Division in Special Actions and Special
Cases, which shall be decided in fifteen (15) days from the case or matter is
deemed submitted for decision.
The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions reached by the
COMELEC en banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not
only those who participated and took part in the deliberations and voted
thereon. The doctrine laid down in Cua is therefore abandoned. (Estrella
vs. COMELEC, 428 SCRA 789)
When sitting in Divisions, two Members of a Division shall be necessary to
reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling. The concurrence of at least
two Members of a Division shall be necessary to reach a decision. If this
required number is not obtained, the case shall be automatically elevated
to the Commissionen banc for decision. A COMELEC Division shall decide a
case or matter within ten (10) days from the date it is deemed submitted
for decision or resolution, except in Special Actions and Special Cases
which shall be decided or resolved within five (5) days from the date they
are deemed submitted for decision.
Under Section 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a decision or
resolution of a Division in a special action becomes final and executory
after the lapse of 15 days following its promulgation while a decision or
resolution of the COMELEC En Banc becomes final and executory after 5
days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
A decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is
promulgated, a judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier
signed or registered his vote has vacated office, his vote on the decision
must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. The effect of the
withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the resolution
at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be
properly considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.
Therefore, after two Commissioners retired, the remaining four
Commissioners constituted the total membership and constituted a
quorom The vote of three is a majority vote of all. (Dumayas Jr. vs.
COMELEC, 357 SCRA 358)
A Commissioner before his retirement from the COMELEC who signed a
draft ponencia in a case is deemed to have vacated his office without the
final decision or resolution having been promulgated. A final decision or
resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before.
Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of the COMELEC at the time
the final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in
that resolution or decision, much more could he be the ponente of the
resolution or decision. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358)
Rules of Procedure
Power to Promulgate Rules.The 1987 Constitution, under Article IX-A,
Section 6
and Article IX-C, Section 3, grants and authorizes the COMELEC en
banc to promulgate its own rules of procedure as long as such rules
concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices do
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights; on the other
hand, the Supreme Court has a rule-making power provided in Article VIII,
Section 5, paragraph (5) – the constitutional prerogative and authority to
strike down and disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies. (Tan vs. COMELEC, 507 SACRA 352) The Rules of Court
applies suppletorily to proceedings before the COMELEC. (Pangarungan vs.
COMELEC, 216 SCRA
522)
In case of conflict between a rule promulgated by the COMELEC and the
Rules of Court, the rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding
is before the COMELEC. But if the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of
Court prevails. The COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of
certain pleadings in the regular court. The power to promulgate rules
concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the
Supreme Court. (Aruelo Jr. vs. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 311)
Liberal Construction of Rules. It has long been enunciated that the
COMELEC has discretion to liberally construe its rules. The COMELEC is a
quasi-judicial body and hence it is not bound by the technical rules of
evidence – it can accept evidence which cannot be admitted in a judicial
proceedings where the rules of court on evidence are strictly
observed. (Tecson vs. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 277)
Power to Suspend Rules. It may suspend its Rules or any portion thereof in
the interest of justice. Disputes in the outcome of election involve public
interest; as such, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be
allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the
true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. (Saliguin
vs. COMELEC, 485 SCRA 219) Thus, it can take cognizance of an unverified
petition for correction.(Baddiri vs. COMELEC, 459 SCRA 808) It can also
suspend its rules because it has the mandate to determine the true victor
in an electoral contest. Thus, the COMELEC committed no grave abuse of
discretion when it allowed a party to file its petition 15 days after
petitioner’s proclamation. (Octava vs. COMELEC, GR No. 166105, March
22, 2007)
Judicial Review of Decisions
Any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days
from receipt of the copy thereof. (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A) When the Supreme
Court reviews a decision of the COMELEC, the Court exercises
extraordinary jurisdiction, thus the proceeding is limited to issues involving
grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction and does
not ordinarily empower the Court to review the factual findings of the
COMELEC. (Aratuc vs. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251)
A special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to question any
final order, ruling and decision of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. (Guerrero vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA
458)
The mode by which a decision, order or ruling en banc may be elevated to
the Supreme Court is by the civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in Rule 64, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358)
What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings and decisions” of
the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided
by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC
and taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory
(or quasi-judicial) powers. (Salva vs. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506)
Not quasi-judicial. COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides for the
rules and regulations governing the conduct of plebiscite, is not issued
pursuant to the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial functions but merely as an
incident of its inherent administrative functionns over the conduct of
plebiscites, and any question pertaining to the validity of said resolution
may be well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. (Salva
vs. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506)
A resolution of the COMELEC awarding a contract for the supply of voting
booths to a private party, as a result of its choice among various proposals
submitted in response to its invitation to bid, is not reviewable by
certiorari as it is not an order rendered in the legal controversy before it
but merely as incident to its inherent administrative functions over the
conduct of elections. Any question arising from said order may be taken in
an ordinary civil action. (Filipinas Engineering vs. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25)
The alleged failure of the COMELEC to implement its resolution ordering
the deletion of a candidate’s name in the list of qualified candidates does
not call for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s function of judicial review
as it is undoubtedly administrative in nature, beyond judicial
interference. (Chavez vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315)
Exception. As a general rule, administrative orders of the COMELEC is not a
proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari. But when the
COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing such order, the
aggrieved party may seek redress from the Supremes Court via special civil
 action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (Macabago vs.
COMELEC, 392 SCRA 178)
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court applies only to judgments or final orders of
the COMELEC, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The rule does
not apply to interlocutory orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions or to its administrative orders. In a case where the
assailed order of the COMELEC declaring private respondent’s petition to
be one for annulment of the elections or a declaration of a failure of
election in the municipality and ordering the production of the original
copies of the VRR’s for technical examination is administrative in nature.
Rule 64, a procedural device for the review of final orders, resolutions or
decisions of the COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to the Supreme
Court under Rule 65 from administrative orders of the COMELEC issued in
the exercise of its administrative function. (Ibid.)
A decision, order or resolution of a division of the COMELEC must first be
reviewed by the COMELEC en banc via a motion for reconsideration before
the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358)
Constitutional Powers, Functions (Art. IX-C, Sec.2)
1. Enforce and administer laws relative to conduct of elections.
Controversies concerning the conduct of a plebiscite is a matter that
involves the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a
plebiscite. It falls under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC under Section
2(1), Article IX-C of the Constitution… The conduct of plebiscite and
determination of its results have always been the business of the COMELEC
and not the regular courts. (Cayetano vs. COMELEC, 479 SCRA 513)
Another reason why the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to resolve disputes
involving plebiscite results should be upheld is that such a case involves
the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC because of
their indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws.(Buac
vs. COMELEC, 421 SCRA 92)
The regular courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition to enjoin the
construction of public works projects within 45 days before an
election. (Gallardo vs. Tabamo, 218 SCRA 253)
2. Decide elections contests involving regional, provincial and city officials
ELECTION CONTEST refers to the adversary proceedings before which
matters involving the title or claim to an elective office made before or
after proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the contestant
is claiming the office in dispute. It is neither a civil action nor criminal
proceeding; it is a summary proceeding of a political character. Its purpose
is to ascertain the candidate lawfully elected to office. (Javier vs. COMELEC,
144 SCRA 194)
Original Jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction of the COMELEC involves
election contest for regional, provincial and city officials.
Appellate Jurisdiction. The COMELEC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over, inter alia, contests involving elective barangay officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction. (Beso vs. Aballe, 327 SCRA 100)
The COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases
involving elective municipal officials decided by courts of general
jurisdiction. (Carlos vs. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571)
The provision of RA 6679 granting appellate jurisdiction to the RTC over
decisions of MTCs in electoral cases involving elective barangay officials is
unconstitutional. (Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484)
The COMELEC is the proper appellate court clothed with jurisdiction to
hear the appeal, which must be first filed within five days after the
promulgation of the MTC’s decision. (Antonio vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 62)
The elections of SK are governed by the Omnibus Election Code… Any
contest relating to the election of the SK (including the Chairman)-
whether pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their election – is
cognizable by MTCs MTCCs
and MeTCs. It is the proclamation which marks off the jurisdiction of the
courts from the jurisdiction of election officials… The doctrine of Mercado
vs. Board of Election Supervisors, 243 S 423 (1995), is no longer
controlling. (Marquez vs. COMELEC. 313 SCRA 103)
3. Decide all questions affecting elections
The COMELEC has no jurisdiction over questions involving the right to vote
which includes qualifications and disqualifications of voters, the right of a
person to be registered as voter, the right to cast his vote, and other allied
questions. Such questions shall be decided by the courts.(Nacionalista
Party vs. COMELEC, 84 Phil 49) Hence, inclusion and exclusion proceedings,
having been expressly withheld by the Constitution from the COMELEC, are
cognizable by the MTC’s.
Decisions/determinations made by the COMELEC in the exercise of this
power, being merely administrative (not quasi judicial) in character, may
be questioned in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. (Filipinas
Engineering vs. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25)
4. Deputize law enforcement agencies with the concurrence of the
President
5. Register political parties and accredit its citizens arms
6. File petitions for inclusion and exclusions; investigate and prosecute
violation of election laws
7. Recommend to Congress measures to improve election laws
8. Recommend the imposition of disciplinary action upon an employee it
has deputized for violation of its order.
Since the COMELEC can recommend that disciplinary action be taken
against an officer it had deputized, it can investigate an administrative
charge against such an officer to determine whether or not it should
recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. (Tan vs.
COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353)
9. Regulation of public entities and media – Sec. 4, Art. IX-C
The COMELEC is expressly authorized to supervise or regulate the
enjoyment or utilization of all media communications and information to
ensure equal
opportunity, time and space. The authority given to the COMELEC is to be
exercised for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections and only during the election period. Note that GOCCs are
among those that may be supervised and regulated by the COMELEC.
10. Make minor adjustments of the apportionment of legislative districts.
(Sec 2, Ordinance appended to the Constitution)
This refers mainly to the power to correct an error because of the omission
of a municipality or an error in the name of a municipality and does not
include the power to make a reapportionment of legislative
districts. (Montejo vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415)
11. Adjust the apportionment in case of creation of new provinces or
cities. (Sec. 3, Ordinance appended to the Constitution)
The COMELEC is merely authorized to adjust the number of Congressmen
apportioned to an old province if a new province is created out of it and
does not authorize the COMELEC to transfer municipalities from one
legislative district to another. (Montejo, supra)
12.Pardon, etc., of violators of election laws.
13. Promulgate rules of procedure concerning pleadings and practice
before it or any of its offices. (Sec. 6, Art IX-C)
14. Submit report on how a previous elections was conducted.
Statutory Powers
1. Power to declare failure of election and call for special election
The plea for a special election must be addressed to the COMELEC and not
to the Supreme Court since the grounds for failure of election clearly
involve questions of fact. (Loong vs. COMELEC, 305 SCRA 832)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies –
Sec. 242, BP 881
3. Issue writs of certiorari, prohibition
The COMELEC has the authority to issue extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus in aid of its (exclusive) appellate
jurisdiction.(Beso vs. Aballe, 326 SCRA 100) The last part of Sec. 50, BP 697
remains in full force and effect and had not been repealed by BP 881. The
ruling in Veloria vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 907, is now
abandoned. (Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690 & Edding vs. COMELEC,
246 SCRA 502)
Both the Supreme Court and the COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over decisions of trial
courts of general jurisdiction in election cases involving elective municipal
officials. The court that takes jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. (Carlos vs. Angeles 346 SCRA 571)
4. Summons parties to a controversy pending before it
5. Enforce and execute its decisions and orders
6. Punish contempts provided for in the Rules of Courts.
The COMELEC has the power to cite for contempt, but this power may be
exercised only while the COMELEC is engaged in the performance of quasi-
judicial functions and not administrative functions (Guevarra vs. COMELEC,
104 Phil 269 and Masangcay vs. COMELEC, 6 SCRA 270)
7. Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Election Code.
8. Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over officials
required to perform duties relative to the conduct of election.
9. Prescribe forms to be used in the election.
10. Procure any supplies, equipment, materials or services needed for the
holding of election
11. Carry out continuing and systematic campaign to educate the public
about elections
12. Prescribe the use or adoption of the latest technological and electronic
devices –Section 52 (i) BP 881 and Section. 6, RA 8436
The COMELEC three-pronged modernization program for the election
process includes:
1. Phase I – Voter’s Validation System (VVS) which aims to clean and update
the voters’ lists nationwide through electronic fingerprinting and digital
 imaging of registrants and registered voters with the use of limited date
capture machines (DCMs).
2. Phase II – Automated Counting and Canvassing of votes (ACC), specifically
referred to by RA 8436 as the automated election system using
appropriate technology for voting and electronic (optical scanning mark-
sense reading) device to count votes, and canvass results.
3. Phase III – Electronic Transmission Consolidation and Dissemination
(ETCD) of election results which involves the transmission of counted votes
from the counting centers to the municipal, district, city and national
canvassing centers, and thereafter, of canvassed results to the higher
canvassing levels to enable the COMELEC to proclaim winning candidates
early and ease post-election tension. This will involve the use of leased
Very Small Aperture Technology (VSAT) satellite to transmit encrypted vote
counts for canvassing at the municipal, city, district/provincial and level
national levels.
13. Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-election requirements such
as registration of voters (see: Akbayan vs. COMELEC) and participation in
the party-list system (see: Aklat vs. COMELEC)
14. Enlist non-partisan groups to assist.
IV. VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION
Qualifications for Suffrage
1. Filipino citizenship – it may be by birth or naturalization.
2. Age– a person may be registered as a voter although he is less than 18
years at the time of registration if he will be at least 18 on the day of
election.
3. Residence– at least 1 year in the Philippines, and at least 6 months where
he proposes to vote immediately preceding the election. Any person who,
on the days of registration may not have reached the required period of
residence but who, on the day of election shall possess such qualification,
may register as voter.
No literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on
the exercise of suffrage.
No Loss of Residency. Any person who temporarily resides in another city,
municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession,
employment in public or private service, educational activities, work in the
military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the AFP,
PNP or confinement or detention in government institutions, shall not be
deemed to have lost his original residence. (Sec. 9, RA 8189)
Requisites for New Domicile by Choice. In election cases, the Supreme
Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms. In order to
acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or
bodily presence in the new locality; (2) an intention to remain there; and
(3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. The residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual. (Romualdez vs. RTC, 226 SCRA
406)
The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which
the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of
election law…The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is
not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. Thus, the registration
of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin is not sufficient to
consider him to have abandoned or lost his residence. (Perez vs. COMELEC,
317 SCRA 641)
The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
In compliance with the constitutional mandate enunciated in Section 2,
Article V of the Constitution, Congress enacted RA 9189 – Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003 – providing for a system of absentee voting
for qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad. The law entitles any citizen
of the Philippines, at least 18 years old on the day of the election and
registered as an absentee voter, or who is certified as registered voter
under the provisions of the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, to vote as
absentee voter. Also, under the same law, the following are disqualified as
absentee voters:
1. those who have lost their Philippine citizenship by naturalization in
another country;
2. those who have renounced their Philippine citizenship;
3. those who have been convicted of offenses punishable by no less than one
year of imprisonment;
4. those who have been found guilty of disloyalty under the Revised Penal
Code;
5. those declared insane or incompetent by competent authority; and
6. immigrants or permanent residents, unless they execute upon registration
an affidavit prepared by the COMELEC declaring that they shall resume
actual physical residence in the Philippines not later than three years from
the approval of their registration as absentee voters.
VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION
Exception to residence requirement. In Macalintal vs. COMELEC, GR No.
157013, July 11, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(d) of RA
9189 does not violate the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V of
the Constitution. Stating that it is an exception to the residency
requirement. The Constitution’s framers intended to enfranchise as much
as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their
domicile of origin. Congress enacted the law prescribing a system of
overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional mandate.
Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a system of
absentee voting that necessarily presupposes that the “qualified citizen of
the Philippines abroad” is not physically present in the country. Under RA
9189, an immigrant may still be considered a “qualified citizen of the
Philippines abroad” upon fulfillment of the requirement of registration
under the new law for the purpose of exercising their right of suffrage. The
qualified Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to have
retained his domicile in the Philippines. He is presumed not to have lost his
domicile by his physical absence from this country. His having become an
immigrant does not necessarily imply an abandonment of his intention to
return to his domicile of origin, the Philippines. He must be given the
opportunity to express that he has not actually abandoned his domicile in
the Philippines by executing the affidavit. The execution of the affidavit is
not the enabling or enfranchising act.
The affidavit is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or
permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines,
but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in
fact abandoned his domicile of origin. Section 5(d) does not only require an
affidavit or a promise to “ resume actual physical permanent residence in
the Philippines not later than three years from approval of his
registration,” the Filipino abroad must also declare that they have not
applied for citizenship in another country.
RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
Another exception to residence requirement. In Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC,
GR No. 162759, August 4, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that those who
retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, may exercise the
right to vote under the system of absentee voting in RA 8189. In effect,
they are likewise exempt from the residency requirements prescribed
under Article V. Section 1 of the Constitution.
Disqualifications
1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not
less than one year.
2. Any person adjudged by final judgment of having committed (a) any crime
involving disloyalty to the government or (b) any crime against national
security (c) firearms laws.
3. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.
4. Under RA 9225, or Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003,
the right to vote in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to
those who are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the
country of which they are naturalized citizens; and /or are in active service
as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the
country in which they are naturalized citizens.
Removal of disqualification for conviction
1. Plenary pardon
2. Amnesty
3. Lapse of 5 years after service of sentence (Sec. 111, RA 8189)
VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION
System of Continuing Registration
Under Sec. 8 of RA 8189 – Voters Registration Act of 1996, the personal
filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the
office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration
shall, however, be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a
regular election and 90 days before a special election. The same law also
prohibits registration more than once and if registrant has transferred
residence, only an application for transfer of registration is needed.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the COMELEC resolution denying
the petition of certain youth sectors to conduct a special registration:
“Petitioners were not denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing
registration under RA 8189..the law aids the vigilant and not those who
slumber on their rights. In a representative democracy the right of
suffrage, although afforded a prime niche in the hierarchy of rights
embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be exercised within the proper
bounds and framework of the Constitution and must properly yield to
pertinent laws skillfully enacted by the Legislature. (AKBAYAN –Youth et al.
vs. COMELEC GR No. 147066, March 26, 2001)
The right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein petitioners, is not at all
absolute…the exercise of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights is
subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in
our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law. (Ibid.)
 The determination of whether or not the conduct of special registration
of voter is feasible, possible or practical within the remaining period 1. Parties to be notified
before the actual date of election, involves the exercise of discretion and 1. Inclusion – Election Registration Board
thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus. (Ibid.) 2. Exclusion –
1. Election Registration Board
Illiterate and Disabled Voters 2. Challenged voters [Sec. 32(b), RA 8189]
The Election Officer shall place an illiterate person under oath, ask him the
questions, and record his answers. The form shall then be subscribed by 2. Manner
the illiterate person. Notice stating the place day and hour of hearing shall be served through
any of the following means:
An application of a physically disabled voter may be prepared by a relative 1. Registered mail
within the fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity, the Election Officer, 2. Personal delivery
or any member of the accredited citizens arm. (Sec. 14, RA 8189) 3. Leaving copy in possession of person of sufficient discretion in residence.
4. Posting in city hall or municipal hall and two other conspicuous places in
Inclusion and Exclusion Cases the city or municipality at least 10 days before the hearing. (Sec. 32(b), RA
1. Jurisdiction 8189)
1. Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court – original and exclusive jurisdiction
2. Regional Trial Court – appellate jurisdiction (5 days) (Sec. 33, RA 8189) d. Any voter, candidate or political party affected may intervene. (Sec.
3. Supreme Court – appellate jurisdiction over RTC on question of law (15 32©, RA 8189)
days) [Sec. 5(2)(e), Art. VIII, PC; Sec. 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court] e. Non-appearance is prima facie evidence the registered voter is fictitious
2. Petitioner (Sec. 32 (f), RA 8189)
1. Inclusion f. Decision cannot be rendered on stipulation of facts. (Sec. 32(f), RA 8189)
1. Private person whose application was disapproved by the Election 7. No motion for reconsideration is allowed. (Sec. 33, RA 8189)
Registration Board or whose name was stricken out from the list of voters. Respondent judge’s issuance of the controversial order directing inclusion
(Sec. 34, RA 8189) in the voters’ list of petitioners without hearing and beyond the ten-day
period constitute gross ignorance of the law. His failure to observe the
2. COMELEC [Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C, PC] requirements of the Omnibus Election Code is inexcusable. (Mercado vs.
Judge Dysangco, 385 SCRA 327)
VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION
Exclusion VOTERS: QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION
1. Any registered voter in city or municipality Annulment of List of Voters
2. Representative of political party 1. Upon verified complaint of any voter, election officer or registered political
3. Election Officer (Sec. 39, RA 8189) party or motu propio, the COMELEC my annul a list of voters which was not
4. COMELEC [Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C, PC] prepared in accordance with RA 8189 or whose preparation was affected
with fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or other
3. Period for Filing similar irregularity or is statistically improbable.
1. Inclusion – Any day except 105 days before regular election or 75 days
before a special election. (Sec. 24, RA 8189) 2. No list of voters shall be annulled within 60 days before an election.
2. Exclusion – Any time except 100 days before a regular election or 65 days (Sec. 33, RA 8189)
before a special election. (Sec. 35 RA 8189) The annulment of the list of voters shall not constitute a ground for a pre-
4. Procedure proclamation controversy. (Ututalum vs. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335)
1. Petition for exclusion shall be sworn. (Sec. 35, RA 8189)
2. Each petition shall refer only to only one precinct. (Sec. 32©, RA 8189) When an assailed order had been issued pursuant to COMELEC’s
3. Notice administrative powers and in the absence of any finding of grave abuse of
 discretion in declaring a precinct as non-existent, said order shall stand,
judicial interference being unnecessary and uncalled for…The sacred right
of suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution is not tampered when a list of
fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral exercise. (Sarangani vs.
COMELEC , 334 SCRA 379)
Election precinct is the basic unit of territory established by the COMELEC
for the purpose of voting.
A polling place refers to the building or place where the board of election
inspectors conducts its proceedings and where the voters cast their votes.
Voting center refers to the building or place where the polling place is
located.
List of voters refers to an enumeration of names of registered voters in a
precinct duly certified by the Election Registration Board for the use in the
election.
Book of voters refers to the compilation of all registration records in a
precinct.
V. POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
Political party or party when used in the OEC, means an organized group of
persons pursuing the same ideology, political ideas or platforms of
government and includes its branches or divisions. A political party may
refer to a local regional or national party existing and duly registered and
accredited by the COMELEC. To acquire juridical personality, qualify for
accreditation, and to be entitled to the rights of political parties, a political
party must be registered with the COMELEC. The following political parties
cannot be registered:
1. Religious sects
2. Those which seeks to achieve their goals through unlawful means
3. Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
4. Those that are supported by any foreign government
Grounds for cancellation of registration
1. Accepting financial contributions from foreign governments or their
agencies (for partisan election purposes.) (Sec. 2(5), Art IX-C, PC)
2. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized
for religious purposes
3. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal
4. It is a foreign party or organization
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules and regulations relating to
elections
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one year, and
8. Fails to participate in the last two preceding elections, or fails to obtain
at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two
preceding elections for the constituency in which it was registered.
A party which fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast in the
constituency in which it nominated candidates in the election next
following its registration shall forfeit its registration.
Party System. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve
according to the free choice of the people. [Sec 2(5) Art. IX-C, PC] This kind
of party system is classified as multi-party system.
COMELEC and Court Jurisdiction Over Political Parties
A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the
association and to select a standard bearer who represents the party’s
ideologies and preference. Political parties are generally free to conduct
their internal affairs free from judicial supervision; this common common-
law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the constitutionally protected
right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing the political
processes to operate without undue interference. (LDP vs. COMELEC, GR
No. 161265, February 24, 2004, citing Sinaca vs. Mula, 373 SCRA
896) However, the COMELEC’s constitutional power to register and
regulate political parties includes the ascertainment of the identity of the
political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts and the
resolution of such controversies where one party appears to be divided
into two wings under separate leaders each claiming to be the president of
the entire party. (LDP vs. COMELEC, GR No. 161265, February 24, 2004,
citing Kalaw vs. COMELEC, GR Nos. 86177-78, August 31, 1989)
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
Where there is no controlling statute or clear legal right involved, the court
will not assume jurisdiction to determine factional controversies within a
political party, but will leave the matter for determination by proper
tribunals of the party itself or by the electors at polls. Similarly, in the
absence of specific constitutional or legislative regulations defining how
nominations are to be made, or prohibiting nominations from being made
in certain ways, political parties may handle such affairs, including
nominations, in such manner as party rules may establish. Conversely, the
Court will have to assume jurisdiction to determine factional controversies
within a political party where a controlling statute or clear legal right is
involved. Election laws accords special treatment to political parties, to wit:

1. the dominant majority party and the dominant minority party are entitled
to a copy of the election returns;
2. the six accredited major political parties may nominate the principal
watchers to be designated by the COMELEC – the two principal watchers
representing the ruling coalition and the dominant opposition coalition in a
precinct shall affix their signatures and thumbmarks on the election
returns for that precinct;
3. three of the six accredited major political parties are entitled to receive
copies of the certificate of canvass;
4. registered political parties whose candidates obtained at least ten percent
of the total votes cast in the next preceding election shall each have a
watcher in the procurement and watermarking of papers to be used in the
printing of election returns and ballots, and
5. a candidate and his political party are authorized to spend more per voter
than candidate without political party. (LDP vs. COMELEC, GR No. 161265,
February 24, 2004)
As an incident to its enforcement powers, the Supreme Court ruled that
COMELEC has the power to inquire into which party officer has the
authority to sign and endorse certificates of candidacy of the party’s
nominees. And to resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC, need only to
turn to the Party Constitution. By granting the petition under the guise of
legal equity, the COMELEC, acted whimsically and capriciously,
thus Certiorari lies against it. By according both wings representatives in
the election committees, the COMELEC has eroded the significance of
political parties and effectively divided the opposition. By splitting copies
of the election returns between the two factions, the COMELEC, has
fractured both wings. The electoral process envisions one candidate from a
political party for each position, and disunity and discord amongst
members of a political party should not be allowed to create a mockery
thereof. The admonition against mocking the electoral process not only
applies to political parties but with greater force to the COMELEC. (LDP vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 161265, February 24, 2004, citing Recabo vs. COMELEC,
308 SCRA 793) The policy towards a free and open party system envisions a
system that shall “evolve according to the free choice of the people” not
one molded and whittled by the COMELEC. (Ibid.)
Party-List System
The Party-List System is a mechanism of proportional representation in the
election of representatives to the House of Representatives, from national,
regional and sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions thereof
registered with the COMELEC. (RA 7941 – The Party-List System Act) The
party-list system was devised to replace the reserve seat system – the very
essence of the party-list system is representation by election. (Veterans
Federation Party vs. COMELEC, 342 SCRA 244)
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
Party-list system is designed to insure representation in the House of
Representatives of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors as
exemplified by the enumeration in Sec. 5 of the law, namely: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers and
professionals.
Registration; Participation in the Party-List System
Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or
coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC
not later than 90 days before the election a petition verified by its
president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list
system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations. Any party, organization or
coalition already registered with the COMELEC need not register anew,
but shall file with the COMELEC not later than 90 days before the election
a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system.
The 90-day period stated in Section 5 of RA 7941 refers to the prohibitive
period beyond which petitions for registration by parties, organizations or
coalitions under the party-list system should no longer be filed nor
entertained – it is simply the minimum count back period which is not
subject to reduction since it is prescribed by law, but it is susceptible to
protraction on account of administrative necessities and other exigencies
perceived by the poll body. (Aklat Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran ng Lipunan
at Adhikain Para sa Tao, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 712)
Nomination of party-list representatives
Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the
COMELEC not later than 45 days before the election a list of names, not
less than five, from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case
it obtains the required number of votes A person may be nominated in one
list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective
office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election. No change shall be allowed after the list
shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the
nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes
incapacitated, in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be
placed last in the list.
 Duty to Disclose Names of Nominees. In BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, GR Nos.
177271 and 177314, May 4, 2007, it was held that the COMELEC had the
constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of
the party-list groups. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution – the right of
the people to information on matters of public concern and Section 28 of
Article II – the State adopts and implement a policy of full disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interests – served as basis of the Court in
ordering the poll body to divulge the said names. The Court also ruled that
no security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of
the nominees of the party-list groups in question. The prohibition imposed
on the COMELEC not to disclose the names under Section 7 of RA 9471 is
limited in scope and duration as it extends only to the certified list which
the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election
day and that to further stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the
absolute is to read into the law something that it is not intended.
Guidelines for screening party list participants
1. The political party, sector, organization must factually and truly represent
the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Sec. 5 of RA
7941. Majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. It must show through its constitution, articles of
incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of government and track record
that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented
sectors identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. (Aklat vs. COMELEC, supra)
2. While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and
the Constitution, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of
“Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
to be elected to the House of Representatives.” Thus, they must show that
they represent the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented
Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-list
elections, except for purposes of the May 11, 1998 elections The requisite
character of these organizations must be consistent with the purpose of
the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941.
Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be
disqualified from the party list elections, merely on the ground that they
are political parties. Sec. 5 Art. VI of the Constitution provides that
members of the House of Representatives may be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations. Furthermore, under Secs. 7 and 8, Art IX-C of the
Constitution, political parties may be registered under the party-list
system. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al.
GR No.147589, June 26, 2001)
3. That religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system;
except that priest, imam or pastors may be elected should they represent
not their religious sect but the indigenous community sector;
4. A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Sec. 6, RA
7941;
5. The party organized must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or
an entity funded or assisted by, the government;
6. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must its nominees;
under Section 9 of RA 7941,it is ot necessary that the party-list
organization’s nominee “wallow in poverty, desitution and infirmity” as
there is nofinancial status required by the law;
7. While lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must
likewise be able to contribute to the formation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees
1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2. A registered voter
3. A resident of the Philippines for at least one year immediately preceding
the day of election
4. Able to read and write
5. A bona fide member of the party organization which he seeks to represent
for at least 90 days preceding the day of election; and
6. At least 25 years of age on the day of election. For youth sector, he must at
least 25 years of age but not more than 30 years of age on the day of
election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of 30
during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of
his term.
Manner of Voting
Every voter shall be entitled to two votes: the first is a vote for the
candidate for members of the House of Representatives in his legislative
district, and the second, a vote for the party, organization or coalition he
wants represented in the House of Representatives; provided that a vote
cast for a party, sectoral organization or coalition not entitled to be voted
for shall not be counted.
Number of Party-List Representatives
 The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of
the House of Representatives including those of under the party-list. For
purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five major political parties on
the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the
start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to
representation in the party-list system. In BANAT vs. COMELEC, the Court
reiterated a previous ruling which disallowed major political parties from
participating in the party-list election so as not to suffocate the voice of the
marginalized, frustrate their sovereignty and betrya the democratic spirit
of the Constitution.
Choosing Party-List Representatives
Party-lists representatives are proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the
list of names submitted by the respective parties, organization or coalitions
to the COMELEC according to their ranking in the list.
Effect of Change of Affiliation
Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or
sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat; provided
that if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months
before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list
representative under his new party or organization.
Vacancy
In case f vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives, the
vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the
list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party,
organization or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list
is exhausted, the party’ organization or coalition concerned shall submit
additional nominees.
Term of Office; Rights
Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three years, and
shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members
of the House of Representatives.
The Four Parameters of the Filipino Party-List System
1. the twenty percent allocation – the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the total
membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected
under party list;
The Constitution makes the number of district representatives the
determinant in arriving at the number of seats allocated for party-list
lawmakers, a formulation which means that any increase in the number of
district representatives, as may be provided by law, will necessarily result
in a corresponding increase in the number of party-list seats.
In Veterans, the Court considered the 20 percent share merely as a ceiling
and not a mandatory prescription. In the BANAT decision, however,
considered the 20-percent share as mandatory.
2. the two percent threshold – only political parties who obtained a minimum
of 2% of the total valid votes cast for party-list shall be “qualified” to have
a seat in the House of Representatives and entitled to party-list
representation.
In Veterans, only those who obtained at least 2-percent of the total votes
cast could participate in the proportional distribution under the fourth
element below. In the BANAT decision, the Court upheld the 2-percent
threshold ushered by the “first clause” of Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941 insofar as it
allowed the grant of an initial one seat to a party-list that garnered, to
quote the law, “at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list
system.” However, it struck down as unconstitutional the “second clause”
of the same section that states, “those garnering more than two percent of
the votes shall be entitled be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
theor total number of votes” because this clause “makes it mathematically
impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list seats
when the number of available party-list seats exceeds 50.” With that
decision, the 20-percent could all be filled. To fill up the additional seats,
the Court awarded slots to those that secured less than two percent of the
total votes cast.
(3) the three seat limit – obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the three-seat-per party limit so that each qualified party,
regardless of number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats, one “qualifying” and two additional slots; and
(4) proportional representation – the additional seats which a qualified
party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number
of votes.”
Procedure in Allocating Seats
Old Procedure. In determining the allocation of seats , the following
procedure shall be observed:
1. the parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. the parties, organizations and coalition receiving at least 2% of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each;
provided that those garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled
to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; provided,
finally that each party, organization or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than three (3) seats.
Panganiban Formula: The First-Party Rule. In Veterans Federation Party vs.
COMELEC, GR No.136781, October 6, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that
the formula for computing the number of seats to which the first party
(one garnering the highest number of votes) is entitled is as follows:
Number of votes
of the first party Proportion of votes of
______________ = first party relative to
total votes for the party-list system
Total vote for
party-list system
If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off
is equal at least to six percent of the total valid votes cast fort all party-list
groups, then the first party shall then be entitled to two additional seats or
a total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without the
rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six
percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two
seats. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party
shall not be entitled to any additional seat.
For the other qualified parties (those who reached the required two
percent mark) which are entitled to additional seats, the formula, based on
proportional representation, is written as follows:
Number of votes of
Additional seats concerned party additional
for concerned = _______________ X seats allocated
party to first party
Number of votes of
first party
Under the formula adopted by the COMELEC from the Supreme Court
ruling in Veterans case, a winning party-list group would be entitled to
additional seats based on the number of votes received by the party-list
group with the most votes (known as first party). Proportional
representation is the touchstone to the ascertainment of extra seats.
The number of additional seats that a winning party-list group could get
will be determined by dividing the number of its votes with the number of
votes of the No. 1 party-list group and then multiplying this with the
number of seats the No. 1 party-list group was entitled to.
The votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates are not to be
counted in determining the total votes cast for the party list system. The
votes obtained should be deducted from the canvass of the total number
of votes cast during the May 14, 2001 election. Consequently, following
Section 12 of RA 7941, a new tally and ranking of qualified party-list
candidates is now in order, according to the percentage of votes they
obtained as compared with the total valid votes cast nationwide. (Ang
Bagong Bayani –OFW Party vs. COMELEC, 404 SCRA 719) Section 10 of RA
7941 expressly provides that the votes cast for a party, a sectoral
organization or a coalition “not entitled to be voted shall not be counted.”
Thus, the ruling in Labo, that the votes cast for an ineligible or disqualified
candidates cannot be considered “stray,” cannot be applied to the party-
list system. (Partido ng Magagawa vs. COMELEC, 484 SCRA 67),
In Partido ng Magagawa vs. COMELEC, supra, it was also held that the
COMELEC has a ministerial duty to apply the formula as decided by the
Supreme Court in the Veteran’s case after interpreting the existing law on
party-list representation. Again, in CIBAC vs. COMELEC, GR No.172103,
April 13, 2007, the Court ordered the COMELEC to strictly apply
the Veterans formula in determining the entitlement of qualified party-list
groups to additional seats in the party-list system. Likewise, the Court
made a comparison between its ruling in Veterans and Ang Bagong
Bayani cases. Thus, in Veterans, the multiplier was the number of
additional seats allocated to the First Party, while in Ang Bagong
Bayani, the multiplier “allotted seats for the First Party” was applied.
Moreover, in Veterans, the “additional seats allocated to the First Party”
prescribed in the formula pertains to a multiplier of two (2) seats, while
in Ang Bagong Bayani, the formula can mean a multiplier of maximum of
three (3) seats since the First Party can garner a maximum of three (3)
seats. The Court further explained that the Ang Bagong Bayani formula has
not modified the Veterans formula. Thus, Supreme Court Resolution dated
November 20, 2003, the Court in granting BUHAY an additional seat,
meant to apply it on that specific case alone, not being a precedent – pro
hac vice (for this one particular occasion) and that such Resolution cannot
be applied as precedent to future cases. The Court further clarified that the
simplified 2-4-6 formula (one seat for each group that has reached 2
percent, 2 seats for 4 percent, and 3 seats for 6 percent) has been
abandoned and that the COMELEC should use and adhere to
the Veterans formula. The Court also reiterated its ruling in
the Veterans case that in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an
exact whole number is necessary, without rounding off the figure.
The New Modified Procedure. In the BANAT case, the Court discarded the
formula formulated by retired Justice Panganiban and replaced it with a
new one for the allocation of party-list seats. The new equation provided President & 40 yrs. old natural-born 10 yrs. in the
by the Court follows the following prescription: Vice Filipino Phil.
1. The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from the President
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during
the election;
2. Such parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least 2 percent of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed (qualifying) seat each; Senator 35 yrs. old natural-born 2 yrs. in the
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in Filipino Phil.
the number 1 rule, shallbe entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes until the additional seats are allocated;

4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than

three seats. District Rep 25 yrs. old natural-born 1 yr. in the
Filipino Phil. &
In computing the additional seats, the Court required the COMELEC to first district
compute the percentage of the votes garnered by each party-list
candidate. This is achieved by dividing the number of votes cast for each
party by 15,950,900 (the total number of votes cast in the 2007 party-list
elections).
Party-List 25 yrs. old natural-born 1 yr. in the
The Court then required the COMELEC to undergo a second round of seat Rep; 25 to 30 yrs. Filipino Phil.
allocations. The guaranteed (qualifying) seats shall no longer be included If youth old
because thay have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every 2- sector
percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional
seats” are the maximum seats reserved under the party-list system. First,
the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats (38), which Prov. Gov &
represents the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved uner VG, Mayor & either 1 yr. in the
the party-list system and the 17 guaranteed seats of two-percenters (the VM of HUCCs 23 yrs. old natural-born Phil. &
winning party-list who received 2 percent of the total votes cast). & Member or political
SPn & SPd naturalized unit/district
VI.CANDIDATES:QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
Filipino
Summary of Qualifications for National & Local Elective Officials
Mayor & VM
Residence of ICCs, CCs 21 yrs. old either 1 yr. in the
Elective Minimum Citizenship Immediately & Ms natural-born Phil. &
Official Age on Preceding or political
the Day of the Day of naturalized unit/district
Election Election Filipino
 2. Senators
3. Congressmen- District and Party-List Representatives
B. Local – Sec. 39, Local Government Code
Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements and must be
possessed for the duration of the officer’s active tenure. Once any of the
required qualifications is lost, his title to the office may be seasonably
challenged. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245 and Labo vs. COMELEC,
176 SCRA 1) It then becomes a ground for disqualification and eventual
removal from office.
Member of 18 yrs. old either 1 yr. in the
SPs & SBs natural-born Phil. & Age Qualification
or political The required age qualification must be possessed by any candidate,
naturalized unit/district national or local, on the day of election.
Filipino
Citizenship Requirement
For national elective officials, natural-born Filipino citizenship is required.
For local elective officials the Local Government Code requires that they
must be citizens of the Philippines – either natural born or naturalized.
Punong 18 yrs. old either 1 yr. in the
Barangay & natural-born Phil. & Repatriation. The lost citizenship may be reacquired under Sec. 1 of RA
Member or political unit. 2630, which provides that any person who had lost his Philippine
SBrgy naturalized citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Armed
Filipino Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States, acquired United States citizenship by taking an oath to
the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil
Registry in the place where he resides or last reside in the Philippines. The
15 to 17 yrs. said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other
Sanggunian old either 1 yr. in the citizenship. ( Bengson III VS. HRET, et al. GR No. 142840, May 7, 2001)
Kabataan natural-born Phil. & Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means
or political unit that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his
naturalized prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was
Filipino originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he
will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson,
supra)

Qualifications of Candidates In Altarejos vs. COMELEC, 441 SCRA 655, the Supreme Court’s reiterated its
The common qualifications required of all elective officials are age, ruling in Frivaldo, 257 SCRA 727, that repatriation retroacts to the date of
citizenship, residence, mere ability to read and write (Filipino or any other filing of one’s application for repatriation. Accordingly, petitioner’s
local language and dialect, for local elective officials) and registration as a repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997 and was,
voter. therefore, qualified to run for mayoralty position in the government in
May 2004 elections.
A. National – Arts. VI and VII, PC
1. President and Vice President – Procedural requirement. Section 5, Par. 2 of RA 9225 – Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 provides that those seeking
elective public office shall meet the qualifications required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of filing of certificate of
candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer oath.
In upholding the ruling of the COMELEC that FPJ is a natural-born Filipino
citizen, the Supreme Court, in the case of Fornier vs. COMELEC, GR No.
1618244, March 3, 2004, ruled that the resolution of the issue depended
on whether or not his father, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a
Filipino citizen and whether or not his alleged illegitimacy prevents him
form taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. The
Supreme Court, thus ruled:
“xxx. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Poe could only
be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old,
Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the
Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his
place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other
evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such
that Lorenzo Poe would have benefited from the “en
masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That
citizenship (of Lorenzo Poe), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son,
Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during
which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate.”
Residence Qualification; Definition; Rationale
When the Constitution speaks of residence, the word should be
understood, consistent with Webster, to mean actual, physical and
personal presence in the district that a candidate seeks to
represent. (Domino vs. COMELEC 310 SCRA 546)
In election cases, the Supreme Court treats domicile and residence as
synonymous terms. In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there
must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (2) an
intention to remain there; and (3) an intention to abandon the old
domicile. The residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual. (Romualdez vs. RTC, 226 SCRA 406)
The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which
the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of
election law. (Perez vs. COMELEC, 317 SCRA 641)
The term “residence” as used in the election law, imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. “Domicile” denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure,
or for like reasons, one intends to return. (Papandayan, Jr. vs. COMELEC,
382 SCRA 133)
The term ‘residence” is to be understood not in its common acceptation as
referring to “dwelling” or “habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal
residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his
permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at a given
time, eventually intends to return and remains (animus manendi) A
domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place
where the child’s parents reside until the same is abandoned by acquisition
of new domicile (domicile of origin). (Coquilla vs. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607)
Rationale. The rationale of requiring candidates to have a minimum period
of residence in the area in which they seek to be elected is to prevent the
possibility of a stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions
and needs of a community and not identified with the latter from seeking
an elective office to serve that community. (Torayno vs. COMELEC, 337
SCRA 574)
The residence requirement is rooted in the desire that officials of districts
or localities be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their
constituencies but, more important, with the constituents themselves, and
a very legalistic, academic and technical approach to the resident
requirement does not satisfy this simple, practical and common sense
rationale for the residence requirement. (Ibid.)
Hence, in Torayno, the Supreme Court upheld the residency qualification
of Governor Emano, inasmuch as he has proven that he, together with his
family had actually resided in a
house he bought in 1973 in Cagayan de Oro City; had actually held office
there during his three terms as provincial governor of Misamis Oriental,
the provincial capitol being located therein; and had registered as voter in
the city during the period required by law – he could not be deemed “a
stranger or newcomer” when he ran and was voted as city mayor.
Petitioners put much emphasis on the fact that Cagayan de Oro City is a
highly urbanized city whose voters cannot participate in the provincial
elections. Such political subdivisions and voting restrictions, however, are
simply for the purpose of parity representation. The classification of an
area as a highly urbanized or independent component city, for that matter,
 does not completely isolate its residents, politics, commerce and other
businesses from the entire province, and vice versa; especially when the
city is located at the very heart of the province itself. (Ibid.)
Domicile of Origin. In Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300, the Supreme
Court upheld the qualification of IRMarcos despite her own declarations in
her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for only
seven months because of the following:
1. A minor follows the domicile of his parents; Tacloban became IRMs
domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought the family
to Leyte;
2. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or
change of domicile, a bonafide intention of abandoning the
former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive
proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should
continue;
3. The wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile
because the term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the
same thing in Political Law; when IRM married Marcos in 1954,
she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home,
not a domicilium necessariun;
4. Even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and
acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her
acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.
Domicile of Choice. In Aquino vs COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400, the Supreme
Court held that Agapito Aquino failed to prove that he had established not
just residence but domicile of choice if Makati. In his certificate of
candidacy, he indicated that he was a resiDent of San Jose, Concepcion,
Tarlac for 52 years, he was a registered voter of the same district, his birth
of certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as birthplace. Thus, his domicile of
origin was Concepcion, Tarlac, and his bare assertion of transfer of
domicile from Tarlac to Makati is hardly supported by the facts of the case.
Repatriation and Residency. In Coquilla vs. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607, it was
held that once a Filipino loses his citizenship or becomes a citizen of
another country, he also loses his domicile of origin or residence in the
Philippines. Should he reacquire his citizenship, it would carry with it the
reacquisition of his residency in the Philippines. However, the period of his
reacquired residency shall be counted from the date he reacquired his
Philippine citizenship or actually took his oath of allegiance as a repatriated
Filipino citizen.
Property Ownership and Residency. In Dumpit-Michelena vs. Boado, 475
SCRA 290, the Supreme Court ruled that property ownership in not indicia
of the right to vote or be voted for an office. A beach house is at most a
place of temporary relaxation. It can hardly be considered a place of
residence. Further, domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a
change of domicile, there must be concurrence of the following
requirements: (1) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; (2) a
bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and (3) acts which corresponds with the purpose.
Without clear and positive proofs of the concurrence of those 3
requirements, the domicile of origin continues. To effect change, there
must be animus manendi coupled with animus revertendi. The intent to
remain in the new domicile of choice must be for indefinite period of
time, the change of residence must be voluntary, and the residence at
the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. The Supreme
Court agreed with the Second Division of the COMELEC that Dumpit-
Michelena failed to establish that she has abandoned her former
domicile.
Grounds for Disqualifications
1. Under the Omnibus Election Code
1. Grounds
i. Any person declared by competent authority insane or incompetent
ii. Any person sentenced by final judgment for any of the following
offenses:
1. Insurrection or rebellion
2. Offense for which he was sentenced to penalty of more than 18 months
3. Crime involving morale turpitude (Sec. 12, BP 881)
The Supreme Court made no pronouncement in Lim vs. People, 340 SCRA
497 which reiterated the ruling in Vaca vs. CA, 298 SCRA 565, that with the
deletion of the prison sentence for violation of BP 22, the offense no
longer involves moral turpitude.
In People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692, the Supreme Court did not make a
distinction whether the offender is a lawyer or a non-lawyer, nor did it
declare that such offense constitutes moral turpitude when committed by
a member of the Bar but not so when committed by a non-
member. (Villaber vs. COMELEC, 369 SCRA 126)
3. A permanent resident to or immigrant to foreign country unless he waives
such status. (Sec. 68, BP 881)
2. Removal
i. Insanity or incompetence – declaration of removal by competent
authority
ii. Conviction
1. Plenary pardon
2. Amnesty
3. Lapse of 5 years after service of sentence (Sec. 12, BP 881)
2. Under the Local Government Code – Sec. 40
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or an offense punishable by imprisonment for at least one year,
within two years after service of sentence.
Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. The Local Government
Code is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government
units. Section 40 thereof specifically and definitely provides for
disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions. It is applicable to
them only. On the other hand, Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code
speaks
of disqualifications of candidates for any public office. It deals with the
election of all public officers. Thus, Section 40 of the Local Government
Code insofar as it governs the disqualifications of candidates for local
positions, assumes the nature of a special law which ought to
prevail.(Magno vs. COMELEC 390 SCRA 495)
In Moreno vs. COMELEC, GR No.168550, August 10, 2006, the Supreme
Court ruled that those who have not served their sentence by reason of
the grant of probation are not disqualified from running for local elective
office because the two-year period of ineligibility does not even begin to
run. The grant of probation merely suspends the execution of the
sentence.
b. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.
An elective local official who was removed from office prior to January 1,
1992 is not disqualified from running for elective local office.(Grego vs.
COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481)
c. Those convicted by final judgment for violating his oath of allegiance to
the Republic.
d. Those with dual citizenship.
The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Sec. 40(d) and RA 7854, Sec. 20
must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance.” Consequently,
persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
For candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of
their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that
their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of
different states. (Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630)However, if dual
citizenship is voluntarily acquired pursuant to RA 9225, The Dual
Citizenship Law, the same can be a ground for disqualification to the right
of suffrage.
e. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases.
The term includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid
punishment, but likewise who, after being charged, flee to avoid
prosecution. (Marquez vs. COMELEC, 243 SCRA 538)
f. Permanent residents in foreign country or those who have the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of it.
A Filipino citizens’ immigration to a foreign country constitutes an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. In other
words, the acquisition of a permanent residency status is a foreign country
constitutes a renunciation of the status as a resident of the
Philippines. (Caasi vs. CA, 191 SCRA 229)
The act of a person surrendering her greencard to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service of the US Embassy is clear indication of her intention
to abandon her US residency. (Gayo vs. Verceles, 452 SCRA 504)
When the evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification is weak or
inconclusive and it clearly appears that the purpose of the law would not
be thwarted by upholding the right to the office, the will of the electorate
should be respected. In this case, considering the purpose of the residency
requirement, i.e., to ensure that the person elected is familiar with the
needs and problems of his constituency, there can be no doubt that
private respondent is qualified. (Gayo vs. Verceles, citing Perez)
g. The insane or feeble-minded.
h. Three consecutive terms limit
Assumption by Succession. The term limit for elective local officials must be
taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the
same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual
has served three consecutive in an elective local office, he must also have
been elected to the same position for the same number of times before
the disqualification can apply. (Borja vs. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157
reiterated in Adormeo vs. COMELEC GR No.147927, February 4, 2002)
Conditions for the application of the disqualification: (1) the official
concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local
government post and (2) that he has fully served three consecutive
terms. (Ibid. Latasa vs. COMELEC, 417 SCRA 574 and Ong vs. Alegre, 479
SCRA 473)
Involuntary Severance from Office. Voluntary renunciation of a term of
office does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three
term limit; conversely, involuntary severance from the office for any length
of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption
of continuity of service. (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SACRA 602)
Exception. But in Ong vs. Alegre, 479 SCRA 473, the Supreme Court held
that Ong’s assumption as mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Sur from July 1,
1998 to June 30, 2001, constitutes “service of full term” and should be
counted as full term served in contemplation of the three-term limit
prescribed by the Constitution. While Ong’s opponent “won” in an election
protest in the 1998 mayoralty race, and therefore was the legally elected
mayor, that disposition was without practical and legal use and values,
having been promulgated after the term of the contested office has
expired. Ong’s contention that he was only a presumptive winner in the
1998 mayoralty derby as his proclamation was under protest did not make
him less than a duly elected mayor. His proclamation by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers as duly elected mayor in 1998 mayoralty election
coupled by his assumption of office and his continuous exercise of the
functions thereof from the start to finish of the term, should be legally be
taken as service for a full term in contemplation of the three-term rule.
Conversion of a Municipality to a New Component City. While a new
component city which was converted from a municipality acquires a new
corporate existence separate and distinct from that of the municipality,
this does not mean however, that for the purpose of applying the
constitutional provision on term limits, the office of the municipal mayor
would now be construed as a different local government post as that of
the office of the city mayor. Accordingly, the municipal mayor is barred
from running for city mayor under the three-term limit rule.(Latasa vs.
COMELEC, 417 SCRA 574)
Eligibility in a Recall Election. Section 43 of RA 7160 provides that no local
elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the
same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for
the full term for which the elective official was elected. After three
consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate
reelection for a fourth
term. The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the
same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any
subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the
prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election is no longer an
immediate reelection after three consecutive terms. Second, the
intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity
of service. (Socrates vs. COMELEC, 2002, 391 SCRA 457)
A necessary consequence of the interruption of service is the start of a
new term following the interruption.. An official elected in recall election
serves the unexpired term of the recalled official. This unexpired term is in
itself one term for purposes of counting the three-term limit. A local
official who serves a recall term should know that the recall term is in itself
one term although less than three years. This is the inherent limitation he
takes by running and winning in the recall election. (Ibid.)
3. Under the Revised Administrative Code – Municipal Office
a. Ecclesiastics (Pamil vs. Teleron, 56 SCRA 413)
b. Persons receiving compensation from provincial or municipal funds
c. Contractors for public works of the municipality
4. Under the Lone candidate Law – RA 8295
1. Any elective official who has resigned from his office by accepting an
appointive office or for whatever reason which he previously occupied but
has caused to become vacant due to his resignation; and
2. Any person who, directly or indirectly, coerces, bribes, threatens, harasses,
intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury,
punishment, torture, damage, loss or disadvantage to any person or
persons aspiring to become a candidate or that of the immediate member
of his family, his honor or property that is meant to eliminate all other
potential candidates.
5. Under RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
 Section 5, Paragraph 5 of RA 9225, provides that the right to be elected
and appointed to any public office cannot be exercised by, or extended
to those who:
1. are candidates or are occupying any public office in the country in which
they are naturalized citizens, and/or
2. are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.
Remedy. The remedy available to remove the above-cited disqualification
is for the dual citizen to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer oath under Sec. 5 Par. 2 of RA 9225.
Under Section 36 of RA 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002,all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in
the national or local government shall be subjected to undergo mandatory
drug testing. This is not an additional qualification for public office but
merely a requirement that must be complied with before one can assume
a public office. —o0o—
VII. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Certificate of Candidacy
No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a
sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by the Omnibus
Election Code.
1. Purpose of Filing
A certificate of candidacy is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the
whole world of the candidate’s political creed or lack of political
creed.(Sinaca vs. Mula, 315 SCRA 266)
The evident purpose of the law in requiring the filing of certificate of
candidacy and in fixing the time limit therefor are; (1) to enable the voters
to know, at least sixty days before the regular election, the candidates
among whom they are to make the choice, and (2) to avoid confusion and
inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. For is the law did not
confine the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered
candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there are voters,
and votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as mark to
identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same
election. (Miranda vs. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617)
2. Place and Period of Filing
1. For President, Vice President and Senators – main office of the COMELEC in
Manila, 5 copies, not later than 90 days before date of election.
2. For Members of the House of Representatives:
1. Provincial legislative districts– Provincial Election Supervisor of the
province concerned
2. NCR legislative districts – Regional COMELEC Director
c. Legislative districts in cities outside NCR – City Election registrar
concerned
3. For provincial offices – Provincial Election Supervisor of the province
concerned.
4. City and Municipal offices – City or Municipal Election Registrar concerned.
The certificates of candidacy of Members of the House of Representatives,
provincial, city or municipal officials shall be filed in 5 copies not later than
45 days before the election.
The certificate of candidacy shall be filed by the candidate personally or his
duly authorized representative. No certificate of candidacy shall be filed or
accepted by mail, telegram or facsimile.
Deadline
1. Certificate of candidacy must be filed not later than the day before the
date for the beginning of the campaign period. (Sec. 7, RA 7166)
2. A certificate filed beyond the deadline is not valid. (Gador vs. COMELEC, 95
SCRA 431; Recabo vs. COMELEC, 308 SCRA 793)
Forms
1. Oath
1. The certificate must be sworn. (Sec. 73, BP 881)
2. The election of a candidate cannot be annulled because of formal defects
in his certificate, such as lack of oath. (De Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers,
48 Phil 211)
2. Name
1. A candidate shall use his baptismal name or, if none, the name registered
with the civil registrar, or any other name allowed by law.
2. He may include one nickname or stage name by which he is generally
known.
3. When two or more candidates for the same office have the same name or
surname, each shall state his paternal and maternal surnames, except the
incumbent. (Sec. 74, BP 881)
E. Prohibition against multiple candidacies
1 A person who files a certificate of candidacy for more than one office
should not be eligible for any of them. (Sec 73, BP 881)
2. Before the deadline for filing certificates, he may withdraw all
except one, declaring under oath the office for which he desires
 to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other
office or offices. (Go vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147741, May 10, 2001)
3. Duty of COMELEC
Subject to its authority over nuisance candidates and its power to deny
due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy, the rule is that the
COMELEC shall have only the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge
receipt of the certificates of candidacy. (Sec. 78, BP 881) The COMELEC has
no discretion to give or not to give due course to a certificate of
candidacy. (Cipriano vs. COMELEC, 436 SCRA 45)
Exception: Nuisance Candidacy. In denying due course to the certificate of
candidacy of a presidential candidate, the Supreme Court held that there is
no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to
seek the Presidency – what is recognized is merely a privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law. The rationale behind the prohibition against
nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not
evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is to divine – the State has a
compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational,
objective and orderly. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates,
the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion not to mention the
increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for election- a
disorderly election is not merely a textbook example of inefficiency but a
rot that evades faith in our democratic institution. (Pamatong vs.
COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96)
Effects of Filing
1. An appointive public official is considered resigned upon filing of his
certificate. (Sec. 66, BP 881; Sanciangco vs. Rono, 137 SCRA 671) This
includes an employee of a GOCC organized under the Corporation Code
(without original charter), since the law makes no distinction. (PNOC-EDC
vs. NLRC, 222 SCRA 831)
2. Any elective official, whether national or local who has filed a certificate
of candidacy for the same or any other office shall not be considered
resigned from office. (Section 14, RA 9006, The Fair Election Act, amending
Section 67 of BP 881)
In Farinas vs. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503 the Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of Section 14 of RA 9006 which in effect repealed
Section 67 of BP 881.
3. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer-reporter,
on-air correspondent or personality are deemed resigned if so
required by their employer. (Sec. 6, subpar. 60, RA 9006)
4. Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy
1. Form – written declaration under oath. There was no withdrawal of
candidacy for the position of mayor where the candidate, before the
deadline for filing certificates of candidacy, personally appeared in the
COMELEC office, asked for his certificate of candidacy and intercalated the
word “vice” before the word mayor and the following day wrote the
election registrar saying that his name be included in the list of official
candidates for mayor. (Vivero vs. COMELEC, L-81059, Jan 12, 1989)
2. Since his certificate of candidacy for the office of board member was filed
by his party, and the said party had withdrawn the nomination which
withdrawal was confirmed by the candidate under oath, there was
substantial compliance with Sec. 73. His filing under oath within the
statutory period of his individual certificate of candidacy for the separate
office of mayor was, in effect, a rejection of the party nomination on his
behalf for the office of board member. (Ramirez vs. COMELEC, L-81150, Jan
12, 1988)
5. Substitution of Candidacy – Sec. 77 BP 881; Sec. 12, RA 9006
1. If after the last day for filing certificates, a candidate dies, withdraws or
is disqualified, he may be substituted by a person belonging to his party
not later than the mid-day of election. Said certificate may be filed with
any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a
candidate, or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate
of the country, with the COMELEC. (Domingo vs. City Board of Canvassers,
GR No. 105365, June 2, 1992)
2. Even if the withdrawal was not under oath, the certificate of the
substitute cannot be annulled after the election. Such technicality
of the original candidate’s withdrawal of his certificate of
candidacy cannot be used to override the people’s will in favor of
the substitute candidate. The legal requirement that the
withdrawal be under oath will be held to be merely directory and
the candidate’s failure to observe the requirement is considered a
harmless error. Hence the bona fide certificate of the substitute
candidate cannot be assailed. The votes in his favor should be
counted. (Villanueva vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 352)
3. In case of valid substitutions after the official ballot have been
printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be
considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide spaces where
the voters may write the name of substitute candidates if they are
voting for the latter. (Sec. 12, RA 9006)

4. There is nothing in the Constitution or statute which requires as a
condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a
member of the party concerned for a certain period of time
before he can be nominated as such. (Sinaca vs. Mula, 315 SCRA
266)
5. A valid certificate of candidacy is likewise an indispensable
requisite in the case of a substitution of a disqualified candidate
under the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Election Code… the concept
of a substitute presupposes the existence of the person to be
substituted, for how can a person take the place of somebody
who does not exist or who never was. (Miranda vs. Abaya, 311
SCRA 617)
6. A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid
certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if the disqualified
candidate did not have a valid and seasonably filed certificate of candidacy,
he is and was not a candidate at all. If a person was not a candidate, he
cannot be substituted under Sec. 77 of the Code. (Ibid.)
7. While Sec. 78 of the Election Code enumerated the occasions where a
candidate may validly substituted, there is no mention of the case where a
candidate is excluded not only by disqualification but also by denial and
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. (Ibid.)
7. Where a certificate of candidacy was never cancelled or denied
due course by the COMELEC and the same was withdrawn and
that COMELEC found that the substitute complied with all the
procedural requirements for valid substitution, the latter can
validly substitute the former. (Luna vs. COMELEC, 522 SCRA 107)
9. The argument that inasmuch as the barangay election is non-partisan
and that there can be no substitution because there is no political party
from which to designate the substitute, ignores the purpose of election
laws which is to give effect to, rather than frustrate the will of the people.
The absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in
barangay elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against said
substitution. Such restrictive construction cannot be read into the law
where the same is not written. There is more reason to allow the
substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved than
when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must
have been assumed by law. Election contests involve public interests and
technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an
obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the
choice of their elective officials. (Rulloda vs COMELEC, 395 SCRA 365)
I. Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy
1.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 function
which must first be decided by the COMELEC in division. Hence, the
COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the
cancellation of a candidate’s certificate of candidacy without first referring
the case to a division for summary hearing. A summary proceeding does
not mean that the COMELEC should throw away the requirements of
notice and hearing. The COMELEC should have at least given notice to the
candidate to give him the chance to adduce evidence to explain his side in
the cancellation proceedings. The COMELEC has deprived the candidate of
procedural due process of law when it approved the report of the Law
Department without notice and hearing. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 414
SCRA299)
2. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a
ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. The COMELEC may
not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. A petition to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy shall be heard summarily
after due notice. The law mandates that the candidates must be notified of
the petition against them and should be given the opportunity to present
evidence on their behalf. This is the essence of due process.(Luna vs.
COMELEC, 522 SCRA 107)
Disqualification of Candidates
1. Nature: Two Aspects Under Section 68, OEC
Election offenses under Section 68 have two aspects – the criminal aspect
and the electoral aspect. Other election offenses have only the criminal
aspect. Because of the electoral aspect of election under Section 68, it can
lead to the disqualification of the candidate and if elected, deny him the
right to hold office. Once the COMELEC finds that the candidate committed
any of the acts under Section 68, he shall be disqualified from continuing
as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding office. A
COMELEC en banc resolution to file the case in court against the candidate
is already a finding. (Bagatsing vs. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 817)
In Lanot vs. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 114, The Supreme Court further
distinguished the nature of the two aspects of disqualification: The
 electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender
should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office.
Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear
preponderance of evidence. An erring candidate may be disqualified even
without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary
investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the
criminal aspect, and vice versa.
The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is
probable cause to charge a candidate for election offense. The prosecutor
is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether
probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its
Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court.
Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and
require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction
shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include
disqualification from holding a future public office.
The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and
resolution cases filed or after before the election. When the
disqualification case is filed before the elections, the question of
disqualification is raised before the voting public. If the candidate is
disqualified after the election, those who voted for him assume the risk
that their votes may be declared stray or invalid. There is no such risk if the
petition is filed after the election. (Bagatsing, supra and Lanot,
supra) Thus, the COMELEC En Banc erred when it ignored the electoral
aspect of disqualification case be setting aside the COMELEC’s First
Division’s resolution and referring the entire case to the COMELEC Law
Department for the criminal aspect.(Lanot, supra )
2. Purpose
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 election laws. The fact that a candidate has been proclaimed and had
assumed the position to which he was elected does not divest the
COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and
eventually decide the disqualification. The COMELEC should not dismiss
the case simply because the respondent has been proclaimed. (Sunga vs.
COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76 and Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 617)
3. Grounds
1. Violation of Omnibus Election Code – Sec. 68
Candidates found by the COMELEC of having:
1. given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing election
functions. (COMELEC vs. Judge Tagle, 397 SCRA 618)
2. Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
3. Spent his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by law;
4. Solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89,
95, 96, 97 and 194; and
5. Violated any of Sections 80, 83, 86, and 261 pars. d, e, k, v, and cc, subpar.
6.
2. Nuisance candidate – Sec. 69
A petition to disqualify a candidate for councilor for failure to indicate in
his certificate of candidacy the precinct number and the barangay as a
registered voter cannot be considered a petition to disqualify him for being
a nuisance candidate, since his certificate was not filed to make mockery of
the election or to confuse the voters. (Jurilla vs. COMELEC, 232 SCRA 758)
3. Falsity of material representation in certificate of candidacy. – Sec. 78
In order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under
Section 78 of BP 881, it is essential that the false representation
mentioned therein pertain to a material matter. Aside from the
requirement of materiality, a false representation under Sec. 78 must
consist of a “deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.” In other words, it must be
made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualifications
for public office. The use of surname, when not intended to mislead or
deceive the public as to one’s identity, is not within the scope of the
provision. (Salcedo II vs. COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447)
To prove whether or not there has been material representation, the same
must not only be material, but also deliberate and willful.(Romualdez vs.
COMELEC, 248 SCRA 30 and Fornier vs. COMELEC GR No. 161824, March 3,
2004)
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. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299)
4. Jurisdiction
A complaint for election offense may be filed with the COMELEC Law
Department, not with the prosecutor’s Office. The findings in the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Law Department is always
submitted to the COMELEC en banc for approval or disapproval. Once the
finding to file Information in court for any of the acts enumerated under
Section 68 is approved by the COMELEC en banc, that finding becomes the
finding of the COMELEC. It shall, therefore, contain the ruling to disqualify
him as candidate or if he has been elected, from holding office.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those
enumerated in Section 68 of the OEC. All other election offenses are
beyond the ambit of the COMELEC jurisdiction. They are criminal and not
administrative in nature, and the power of the COMELEC over such cases is
confined to the conduct of preliminary investigation on the alleged
election offense for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged offenders
before the court of justice. (Codilla vs. COMELEC, 393 SCRA 639)
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to deny due course or to cancel certificate
of candidacy continues even after the elections, if for any reason no final
judgment of disqualification is rendered before the election, and the
candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest
number of votes, and provided further that the winning candidate has not
been proclaimed or taken his oath of office. Further, the decision of the
COMELEC to disqualify a candidate shall be come final only after a period
of five days. (Saya-ang vs. COMELEC, 416 SCRA 650)
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court defined by Section 4, paragraph 7 of
the Constitution does not include cases directly brought before it
questioning the qualifications of a candidate for president or vice president
before the elections are held. It is the COMELEC which exercises
jurisdiction over such disqualification cases, but may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court per Rule 64 in an action for certiorari under Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court.(Tecson vs. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 277)
Jurisdiction Before and After Proclamation. COMELEC has jurisdiction over
a petition to disqualify a candidate for congressman for ineligibility before
he has been proclaimed and has assumed office. (Marcos vs. COMELEC,
248 SCRA 300; Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400) Conversely, once a
winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns and
qualifications ends, the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. (Aggabao vs.COMELEC,
449 SCRA 400)In other words, the proclamation of a congressional
candidate divests COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the HRET.(Planas vs.
COMELEC, 484 SCRA 529)
4. Procedure for disqualification of candidates
1. The petition (Petition to File Petition to Disqualify) shall be filed by any
candidate for the same office within 5 days from the last day of filing of
certificates of candidacy. (Secs.5a and 7, RA 6646) but not later than the
date of proclamation. (Rule 25, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
i. A petition filed after the election is filed out of time. (Loong vs.
COMELEC, 216 SCRA 769)
ii. The fact that no docket fee was initially paid is not fatal. The procedural
defect was cured by the subsequent payment of the docket fee.(Sunga vs.
COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76)
iii Since the filing by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned and a
facsimile copy is not an original pleading, a petition for disqualification
should be deemed filed upon the filing of the original petition. (Garvida vs.
Sales, 271 SCRA 764)
4. The COMELEC may motu propio refuse to give due course or cancel a
certificate of candidacy filed by a nuisance candidate. (Sec.69, BP 881)
4. Where a qualified candidate was replaced on the day before the election, a
petition to disqualify the replacement filed on election day should be
entertained, as it was impossible to file the petition earlier. (Abella vs.
Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509)
vi. If a candidate defies the three term ban, the remedy is to file a petition
to deny due course to certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC.
b. It is not sufficient that the candidate be notified of the COMELEC inquiry
into the veracity of the content of his certificate of candidacy, he must also
be allowed to present his own evidence to prove that he possesses the
qualifications for the office he seeks. (Cipriano vs. COMELEC, 436 SCRA
45) The proceedings shall be summary. (Nolasco vs. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 7
c. The COMELEC can decide a disqualification case directly without
referring it to its legal officers for investigation. (Nolasco, supra)
4. The decision shall be final and executory after 5 days from receipt unless
stayed by the Supreme Court [Secs. 5(e) and 7, RA 6646]
The COMELEC is mandated to dismiss a complaint for disqualification of a
candidate who has been charged with an election offense under Section
261 of the OEC but who has already been proclaimed as winner by the
Board of Canvassers. If the COMELEC finds that there is probable cause, it
shall order its Law Department to file appropriate Information with the
RTC which has territorial jurisdiction over the offense, but shall
 nonetheless, order the dismissal of the complaint for disqualification,
without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal case. If the trial court
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it shall order his
disqualification pursuant to Section 264 of the OEC as amended by RA
8189. (Albana vs. COMELEC, 435 SCRA 98)
Intervention. Section 6 of RA 6646 allows intervention in proceedings for
disqualification even after elections if no final judgment has been
rendered. (Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 and Lanot, supra) The
case for disqualification exists and survives the election and proclamation
of the winning candidate because an outright dismissal will unduly reward
the challenged candidate and may even encourage to employ delaying
tactics to impede the resolution of the disqualification case until after he
has been proclaimed. The exception to the rule of retention of jurisdiction
after proclamation applies when the challenged candidate becomes a
member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate, where the
appropriate electoral tribunal would have jurisdiction. This is no law or
jurisprudence which says that intervention or substitution may only be
done prior to the proclamation of the winning candidate. A substitution is
not barred by prescription if the action was filed on time by the person
who died and who is being substituted.
Effect of Death of Petitioner. In Lanot, supra, it was held that the law and
the COMELEC rules have clear pronouncements that the electoral aspect is
not rendered inutile by the death of petitioner, provided that there is
proper substitution or intervention of parties while there is a pending case.
Any citizen of voting age is competent to continue the action of the
deceased petitioner.
Effects of Disqualification Case
1.After final judgment – 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. In Cayat vs. COMELEC, GR 163776, April 24,
2007, due to his failure to pay the prescribed filing fee for his motion for
reconsideration, the disqualification of Cayat and the subsequent
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy became final 23 days before the
2004 elections. Therefore, all the 8,164 votes cast in his favor are stray. He
was never a candidate in the 2004 elections.
2. Before final judgment – If for any reason a candidate is not declared final
judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the
provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and
assumption of office.
Where a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during
the election day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be
declared stray. (Codilla vs. de Venecia, 393 SCRA 639)
Where the votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose disqualification had
not yet become final on election day were tallied separately, they should
be counted in favor of the petitioner. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 298, SCRA
480)
Section 6 of RA 6646 and Section 72 of the OEC require a final judgment
before the election for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be
considered stray. To do so would amount to disenfranchising the
electorate in whom sovereignty resides. For in voting a candidate who has
not been disqualified by final judgment during the election day, the people
voted for him bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise,
and in the honest belief that the candidate was then qualified to be the
person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of the
government. (Codilla Sr. vs. De Venecia,GR. No. 150605, December 10,
2002)
Sec. 6 of RA 6646 authorizes the continuation of proceedings for
disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has not been
proclaimed. (Perez vs. COMELEC, 317 SCRA 641) But the COMELEC is
mandated to dismiss a complaint for disqualification of a candidate who
has been charged with an election offense under Sec. 261 but who has
already been proclaimed as winner by the Board of Canvassers. (Albana vs.
COMELEC,435 SCRA 98)
Effect of Disqualification of Elected Candidate. The disqualification of the
elected candidate does not entitle the candidate who obtained the second
highest number of votes to occupy the office vacated because of the
disqualification. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes, against whom a petition for disqualification was
filed before the election, are presumed to have been cast in the belief that
he is qualified. For this reason, the second placer cannot be declared
elected. (Lanot, supra.)
VIII. CAMPAIGN; ELECTION PROPAGANDA; CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EXPENDITURES
Election campaign or partisan political activity refers to an act designed to
promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates for
public office. (Sec. 79, BP 881)
1. If done for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for
nomination for candidacy to a public office by a political party, etc., it shall
not be considered as election campaign or partisan political activity.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person or any party to engage in election
campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period.
3. Members of the Civil Service to engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
Nomination of candidates
1. President, Vice President and Senators – not earlier than 165 before
election date
2. Congressmen, provincial, city or municipal officials – not earlier than 75
days before election day
1. Campaign period
1. President, Vice President, Senators and party-list representatives – 90 days
before election day
2. District representatives, provincial, city and municipal officials – 45 days
before election day
C. Regulation of public entities and media – Sec. 4, Art. IX-C
The authority given to the COMELEC is to be exercised for the purpose of
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and only
during the election period. Note that GOCCs are among those that may be
supervised and regulated by the COMELEC.
The COMELEC cannot, through a resolution, require newspapers and
magazines to give free print space to the COMELEC. To compel them to
donate “Comelec Space” to the dimension specified in Sec. 2 of Resolution
No. 2772 amounts to “taking” of private personal property for public use
or purposes. The taking of private property is authorized by the
Constitution but not without payment of “just compensation.” The
COMELEC resolution does not constitute valid exercise of the power of
eminent domain because it compels publisher against their will to provide
free space for COMELEC purposes. Neither does it constitute a valid
exercise of police power of the state as there was no attempt to
demonstrate that a real and palpable or urgent necessity for the taking of
print space, such as an existence of a national emergency public
necessity. (Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272)
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec 11(b), RA 6646, prohibiting
the sale or donation of print space or airtime for political advertisements
(now lifted by RA 9006 The Fair Election Act of 2001), and the authority of
the COMELEC to procure print space (upon payment of just compensation)
and free airtime for allocation to candidates. (Telecommunication and
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337)
CAMPAIGN; ELECTION PROPAGANDA; CONTRIBUTIONS & EXPENDITURES
Section 11(b) of RA 6646 is a valid exercise of the power of the State to
regulate media communication or information for the purpose of ensuring
equal opportunity, time and space for political campaigns. (Osmena vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 132231, March 31, 1998)
An exit poll is a species of electoral survey conducted by qualified
individuals or groups of individuals for the purpose of determining the
probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected
voters whom they have voted for, immediately after they have officially
cast their ballot. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. COMELEC, 323
SCRA 811)
An absolute prohibition would be unreasonably restrictive, because it
effectively prevents the use of exit poll data not only for election-day
projections, but also for long term research…The COMELEC concern with
the possible non-communicative effect of exit polls-disorder and confusion
in the voting centers- does not justify a total ban on them…The holding of
exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media
constitute an essential part of freedom of speech and of the press…The
reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying
through voter identification. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting corporation vs.
COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811)
The Supreme Court held that Sec. 5.4 of the Fair Election Act prohibiting
publication of survey results 15 days immediately preceding a national
election and 7 days before a local election violates the constitutional rights
of speech, expression, and the press because:
1. it requires prior restraint on the freedom of expression;
2. it is s direct and total suppression of the category of expression even
though such suppression is only for a limited period; and
3. the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by
means other than the suppression of freedom of expressions. (Social
Weather Station vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001)
In Chavez vs. COMELEC 437 SCRA 415, it was held that all propaganda
materials, including advertisement on print, radio or television showing the
image or mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the
placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office, be
immediately removed, otherwise, this shall be presumed a premature
campaigning in violation of Section 80 of the OEC. If the subject billboards
 were to be allowed, candidates for public office whose name and image
are used to advertise commercial products would have more opportunity
to make themselves known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of other
candidates who do not have the same chance of lending their faces and
names to endorse popular commercial products as image models. By
regulating the use of propaganda materials, the COMELEC is merely doing
its duty under the law. Under Section3 and 13 of the Fair Election Act, all
election propaganda are subject to the supervision and regulation of the
COMELEC.
D. Lawful propaganda
1. Forms
1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers and written or printed materials
not more than 8 1/2 inches by 14 inches
b. Handwritten/printed letters
c. cloth, paper or cardboard, posters measuring not more than 2 feet by 3
feet by 8 feet allowed in announcing at the site on occasion of a public
meeting or rally, may be displayed 5 days before the date of rally but shall
be removed within 24 hours after said rally.
d. Paid print advertisements: ¼ page in broadsheets and ½ page in tabloids
thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other publication during the
campaign period. (Sec. 4, RA 9006)
e. Broadcast Media (i.e., TV and Radio)
National Positions: 120 minutes for TV, 180 minutes for Radio
Local Positions: 60 minutes for TV; 90 minutes for Radio
f. Other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus
Election Code and RA 9006, and authorized by the COMELEC.
2. Requirement
Any published or printed political matter or broadcast of election
propaganda by television or radio for or against a candidate or group of
candidates to any public office shall bear and be reasonably legible or
audible words “political advertisements paid for,” followed by the true and
correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the
election propaganda was printed or aired.
If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or television station, it
shall be identified by the word “airtime for this broadcast was provided
free of charge by” followed by the true and correct name and address of
the broadcast entity.
Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the candidate or
political party shall not be printed, published, broadcast or exhibited
without the written acceptance by the said candidate or political party.
Such written acceptance shall be attached to the advertising contract and
shall be submitted to the COMELEC. (Sec. 4, RA 9006)
E. Prohibited Campaign
1. Public exhibition of a movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying
the life or biography of a candidate during campaign period;
2. Public exhibition of a movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by
an actor or media personality who is himself a candidate;
3. Use of airtime for campaign of a media practitioner who is an
official of a party or a member of the campaign staff of a
candidate or political party.
Scope
1. Prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers except in the common
posting area authorized by the COMELEC is not valid. (Adiong vs.
COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272)
2. Mass media may report news relating to candidates, and mass media
practitioners may give their opinion regarding candidates. (National Press
Club vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1)
F. Rallies
1. An application for permit for a rally shall not be denied except on the
ground that a prior written application for the same purpose has been
approved. A denial is appealable to the provincial election supervisor or
COMELEC. (Sec. 87, BP 881)
2. It is unlawful to give or accept transportation, food, drinks ore things of
value within 5 hours before and after a public rally, before election day and
on election day. (Sec. 89 BP 881)
G. Prohibited donations
It is prohibited for any candidate, his spouse, relative within second degree
of consanguinity or affinity, or representative to make any contribution for
any structure for public use or for use of any religious or civic organization,
except the normal religious dues and payment for scholarships established
and school contributions habitually made before the campaign period.
(Sec. 104, BP 881)
 H. Prohibited contributions
No political contribution shall be made by the following:
1. Public or private financial institutions
2. Public utilities and those who exploit natural resources
Thus, where an operator of a public utility disguised a contribution to a
candidate for governor as loan, the promissory not is void.(Halili vs. Court
of Appeals, 83 SCRA 633)
3. Persons who hold contracts or sub-contracts to supply the government
with goods and services
4. Persons granted franchises, incentives, exemptions or similar privileges by
the government
5. Persons granted loans in excess of P25,000 by the government or any of
its
subdivisions or instrumentalities
6. Schools which received grants of public funds of at least P100,000
7. Employees in the Civil Service or members of the Armed Forces
8. Foreigners (Sec. 95, BP 881)
9. Corporations (Sec. 36(9), Corp. Code)
I. Equal Access to Media Time and Space
All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal access to
media time and space. The following guidelines may be amplified on by the
COMELEC:
1. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or television shall be granted
or issued, suspended or cancelled during the election period.
2. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air
correspondent or personality who is a candidate for any elective public
office or is a campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in any
capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so
required by their employers, or shall take a leave of absence from his work
as such during the campaign period. And that any media practitioner who
is an official candidate of a political party or member of the campaign staff
of a candidate or political party shall not use his media time and space to
favor any candidate or political party.
J. Limitation on expenses – Sec. 13, RA 7166
1. Candidates
1. President and vice president – P10 per voter
2. Other candidates – P3 per voter in his constituency
3. Candidate without political party – P5 per voter
4. Party/organization and coalition participating in the party- list system – P5
per voter
2. Political party and coalition – P5 per voter in the constituency where it has
candidates. (Sec. 13, RA 7166)
Statement of contributions and expenditures
1. Who are required to file; Filing Period
1. Every candidate and treasurer of political party shall file within 30 days
after election day a statement of contributions and expenditures.
b. All candidates are required to file whether winning, losing or withdrawn.
2. Effect of failure to file
No persons elected shall assume office until he and his political party have
filed the required statements.
3. Penalties
1. First Offense – administrative fine from P1,000 to P30,000
2. Subsequent offense
1. Administrative fine from P2,000 to P60,000
2. Perpetual disqualification to hold public office (Sec. 14, RA 7166)
Exception to the penalty of fine: Candidates for elective barangay office
4. Effect of withdrawal
A candidate who withdrew his certificate of candidacy must still file a
statement of contributions and expenditures, for the law makes no
distinction. (Pilar vs. COMELEC, 245 SCRA 759)
IX. ELECTION; BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (BEI); WATCHERS
Kinds of Election
1. General election is one provided for by law for the election to offices
throughout the State, or certain subdivisions thereof, after the expiration
of the full term of former officers.
2. Special election is one provided for by law to fill vacancy in office before
the expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was elected; or one
fixed by the COMELEC due to postponement or suspension of the election
or failure to elect.
3. Recall election is an election by means of which voters decide whether
they should retain their local official or elect his replacement. (Claudio vs.
COMELEC, 331 SCRA 388)
Election Period
Unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC in special cases, the election
period shall commence 90 days before the day of the election and shall
end 30 days thereafter. [Sec. 9, Art. IX-C, PC]
Date of Election
The regular election of the President, Vice President, Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives and local officials, except
barangay officials, shall be on the second Monday of May once every three
 years. In accordance with the constitutional policy to synchronize
elections, the regular election for national and local officials is now held
simultaneously. (RA 7166) Under RA 6679, regular elections for barangay
officials shall be held once every five years.
Election of Sanggunian Members
1. For provinces with two or more legislative district – the elective members
of Sanggunian Panlalawigan (SPn) shall be elected by legislative districts.
2. For provinces with only one legislative district – the COMELEC shall divide
them into two districts for purposes of electing the members of the SPn.
3. For cities in Metro Manila Area, Cebu City, Davao City or any other city
with two or more legislative district – governed by Secs. 2 and 3 of RA 6636
4. For municipalities in Metro Manila – the COMELEC shall divide them into
two districts by barangay for purposes of electing members of the SB.
It is essential to the validity of the election that the voters have notice in
some form, either actual or constructive, of the time, place and purpose
thereof.(Basher vs. COMELEC, supra) A special election is not valid if notice
of its date and of the transfer of the precincts was given less than a day
before, since the voters were deprived of the opportunity to vote. (Hassan
vs. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 125)
In fixing the date of special elections the COMELEC should see to it that:
1. it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the secession of the cause
of the postponement of suspension of the election or a failure to elect; and
2. it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. (Pangandaman vs.
COMELEC, 319 SCRA 283)

Postponement of election
COMELEC’s Power. Functions of the COMELEC under the Constitution are
essentially executive and administrative in nature. The authority given to
the COMELEC to declare a failure of elections and to call for special
elections falls under its administrative functions. (Sambrani vs. COMELEC,
438 SCRA 319) Hence, a petition to postpone elections should be
addressed to the COMELEC and not to the courts, subject to the remedy of
review provided for in Art IX-A, Section 7
An election officer alone, or even with the agreement of the candidates,
cannot validly postpone or suspend the election. (Basher vs. COMELEC, 330
SCRA 736)
1.
ELECTION; BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (BEI); WATCHERS
The prohibition in conducting special elections after thirty days from the
cessation of the cause of the failure of elections is not absolute. It is
directory, not mandatory and the COMELEC possesses residual power to
conduct special elections even beyond the deadline prescribed by law. the
deadline in Section 6 cannot defeat the right of suffrage of the people as
guaranteed by the Constitution. The COMELEC has broad power or
authority to fix other dates for special elections to enable the people to
exercise their rights of suffrage. The COMELEC may fix other dates for the
conduct of special elections when the same cannot be reasonably held
within the period prescribed by law. (Sambrani vs. COMELEC, 438 SCRA
319)
Failure of Election; Petition to Annul Election Results
Nature. A prayer to declare failure of election and a prayer to annul the
election results xxx are actually of the same nature. Whether an action is
for declaration of failure of elections or for annulment of election results,
based on allegation of fraud, terrorism, violence or analogous causes, the
OEC denominates them similarly. (Banaga vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 701)

Grounds. When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other
analogous cases of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly and
honest election should become impossible in any political subdivision, the
COMELEC,motu propio or upon a verified petition by any interested party,
and after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested parties are
afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election
therein. (Sec. 5, BP 881)
2. Three Instances. Sec. 6 the OEC contemplates three instances when the
COMELEC may declare a failure of election and call for the holding of a
special election: (1) when the election in any polling place has not been
held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud and other analogous cases; (2) when the election in any polling place
has been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closure of the
voting; and (3) after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof,
such election results in a failure to elect. (Soliva et al vs. COMELEC, GR.
No.141723, April 20, 2001) In all three instances, there must have been
 failure to elect, meaning, nobody emerged as winner. (Galo vs. COMELEC,
487 SCRA 548)
3. Two Conditions. Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to
declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must concur: first, no
voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law
because of force majeure, violence, terrorism or analogous causes, or,
even if there was voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to
elect; and, second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the
elections. The concurrence of these two circumstances justifies the calling
of special elections. (Banaga, supra and Cawasa vs. COMELEC, GR No.
150469, May 30, 2002)
4. Meaning. The power to throw out or annul an election should be exercised
with the utmost care and only under circumstances which demonstrate
beyond doubt either that the disregard of the law had been so
fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to
distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or to arrive at any
certain result whatsoever, or that the great body of voters have been
prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from exercising their
franchise…There is failure of elections only when the will of the electorate
has been muted and cannot be ascertained. (Benito vs. COMELEC, GR
No134913, January 19, 2001)
5. A special election should be held if the ballot box in the precinct was
burned. (Hassan vs. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 125)
6. Where during the counting of the ballots, armed men replaced the
ballots and coerced the election inspectors to prepare spurious returns,
there is a failure of election. (Sanchez vs. COMELEC, 114 SCRA 454)
7. There is no reglementary period for filing a petition for annulment of an
election if there has as yet been no proclamation. (Loong vs. COMELEC,
257 SCRA 1)
8. The COMELEC may decide a petition to declare a failure of election en
banc at the first instance, since it is not a pre-proclamation case or an
election protest. (Borja vs. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
9. In petitions to declare a failure of election on the ground of fraud, the
COMELEC may conduct a technical examination of election documents and
compare and analyze the signatures and fingerprints of the voters. (Loong
vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1)
Not Grounds for Declaration of Failure of Elections
1. The destruction of the copies of the election returns intended for the
board of canvassers is not a ground for the declaration of a failure of
election as other copies of the returns can be used. (Sardea vs. COMELEC,
225 SCRA 374)
2. The fact that less than 25% of the registered voters voted does not
constitute failure of election, since voting took place. (Mitmug vs.
COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54)
3. Lack of notice of the date and time of the canvass, fraud, violence,
terrorism, and analogous causes, such as disenfranchisement of voters,
presence of flying voters, and lack of qualifications of the members of the
board of inspectors are not grounds for declaration of failure of election
but for an election protest. (Borja vs. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
4. The fact that the names of some registered voters were omitted from
the list of voters, strangers voted for some of the registered voters, a
candidate was credited with less votes than he received, the control data
of some election returns were not filled up, the ballot boxes were brought
to the municipal hall without padlock and seals, and that there was a delay
in the delivery of election returns are not grounds for the declaration of
failure of election.(Canicosa vs. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512)
5. An election can not be annulled because of the illegal transfer of a
precinct less than 45 days before the election if the votes of those who
were not able to vote will not alter the result. (Balindong vs. COMELEC,
260 SCRA 494 and Cawasa vs. COMELEC, supra)
6. The use of fake ballot is not a ground to declare failure of election. (Galo
vs. COMELEC, 487 SCRA 548)
Special Election to fill up vacancy
Vacancy in the House of Representatives. In case of permanent vacancy in
the House of Representatives at least one year before the expiration of the
term, the COMELEC shall hold a special election not earlier than 60 days
nor later than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy.
Vacancy in the Senate. In case of vacancy in the Senate, Section 2 of RA
6645 requires Congress to (1) call a special election which shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election; and (2) give
notice to the voters of the office or offices to be voted for.
In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that expressly
provides that an election to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next regular
election fixes the date at which the special election is to be held and
operates as a call for that election.. Consequently, an election held at the 1.
time thus prescribed is not invalidated by the fact that the body charged by 1.
law with the duty of calling the election failed to do so. This is because the
right and duty to hold the election emanates from the statute and not 2.
from any call for the election by some authority and the law thus charges
voters with knowledge of the time and place of election. (Tolentino vs. 3.
COMELEC, 420 SCRA 438)
2.
The test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to the 1.
failure to give notice to the special election is whether the want of notice 2.
has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters as would change
the result of the special election. If the lack of notice misled a substantial 1.
number of voters who wrongly believed that there was no special election 1.
to fill a vacancy, a choice by a small percentage of voters would be 1.
void. (Ibid.) 2.
3.
Vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice President.At 10 o’clock in
the morning of the 3rd day after the vacancy occurs, Congress shall 4.
convene without need of a call and within seven days enact a law calling
for special election to elect a President and a Vice President to be held not 2.
earlier than 45 nor later than 60 days from the time of such call. The bill
shall be deemed certified and shall become a law upon its approval on
third reading by Congress. The convening of Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election be postponed. No special election shall
be called if the vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the
next presidential election.
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
1. The Board of Election Inspectors shall be composed of a chairman and
two members, all of whom are public schools teachers.
2. If there are not enough public school teachers, teachers in private
schools, employees in the civil service, or other citizens of known probity
and competence may be appointed. (Sec. 13, RA 6646)
The appointment of military personnel as members of the BEI is a grave
electoral irregularity. There was absolutely no legal basis for their
appointments and were devoid of any justification other than the bare
assertion that “political parties and municipal candidates agreed on the
said agreement.” It is highly irregular to replace duly constituted members
of the BEI who were public school teachers. (Cawasa vs. COMELEC, 383
SCRA 787)
Watchers
Number
Official watchers
Every registered party or coalition of parties and every candidate is
entitled to one watcher per precinct and canvassing counter.
Candidates for the local legislature belonging to the same party are
entitled collectively to one watcher.
Six principal watchers from 6 accredited major political parties shall be
recognized. (Sec. 26, RA 7166)
Other watchers
The accredited citizen’s arm is entitled to a watcher in every precinct.
Other civic organizations may be authorized to appoint one watcher in
every precinct. (Sec. 180, BP 881)
Important rights of watchers
All watchers
To stay inside the precinct
To inform themselves of the proceedings
To file a protest against any irregularity
To obtain a certificate of the number of votes cast for each candidate. (Sec.
179, BP 881)
Citizen’s arm
To be given a copy of the election return to be used for the conduct of an
unofficial count. (Sec. 1, RA 8045)
X. CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES
Authentication of Ballots. In every case before delivering an official ballot
to the voter, the Chairman of the BEI shall, in the presence of the voter,
affix his signature at the back thereof. (Sec. 24, RA 7166) Failure to so
authenticate shall be noted in the minutes of the BEI and shall constitute
an election offense punishable under Sections 263 and 264 of the OEC. The
omission of such signature does not affect the validity of the
ballot. (Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520, Punzalan vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA
702) Under the rules prevailing during the 1997 Barangay Elections, the
failure to authenticate the ballots shall no longer be cause for the
invalidation thereof. (Malabaguio vs. COMELEC, 346 SCRA 699)
2. A voter who was challenged on the ground that he has been paid for the
vote or made a bet on the result of the election will be allowed to vote if
he takes an oath that he did not commit the act alleged in the challenge.
(Sec. 200, BP 881)
3. Illiterate and Disabled Voters. An illiterate or physically disabled voter
may be assisted by a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth
degree or any person of his confidence who belongs to the same
household or any member of the Board of Election Inspectors. (Sec. 196,
BP 881)
4. It is unlawful to use carbon paper, paraffin paper or other means for
making a copy of the contents of the ballot or to use any means to identify
the ballot. (Sec. 195, BP 881). A ballot prepared under such circumstances
should not be counted. (Gutierrez vs. Aquino, GR No. L-14252, February 26,
1959)
Local Absentee Voting
Definition; Who are Entitled. It refers to a system of voting whereby
government officials and employees, including members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP),
who are duly registered voters, are allowed to vote for the positions of
President, Vice President, Senators and Party-List Representatives in places
where they are not registered voters but where they are temporarily
assigned to perform election duties on election day. (Sec. 12, RA 7166)
Government officials and employees posted abroad to perform election
duties may also avail of local absentee voting, provided they are registered
voters and that they are not registered overseas absentee
voters. Members of the Board of Election Inspectors and their substitutes
may vote in the precinct where they are assigned. (Sec. 169, BP 881)
Manner of Counting Votes
1. The Board of Election Inspectors shall read the ballots publicly and shall
not postpone the count until it is completed. (Sec. 206, BP 881)
2. The Board of Election Inspectors shall assume such positions as to
provide the watchers and the public unimpeded view of the ballot being
read. (Sec. 25, RA 7166)
3. If on account of violence or similar causes it becomes necessary to
transfer the counting of the votes to a safer place, the board of election
inspectors may effect the transfer by unanimous approval of the board and
concurrence of a majority of the watchers present. (Sec. 18, RA 6646)
4. Where a commotion resulted in suspension of the counting, the board
of election inspectors may recount the ballots. (Dayag vs. Alonzo)
Excess, Spoiled, Marked Ballots
Excess, spoiled and marked ballots shall not be read during the counting of
votes. The envelopes containing them shall be signed and sealed by the BEI
and deposited in the compartment for valid ballots.
1. Excess Ballots
If there are excess ballots, the poll clerk shall draw out as many ballots
equal to the excess without seeing them, and the excess ballots shall not
be counted. (Sec. 207, BP 881)
2. Spoiled Ballots
a. Ballots deposited in the compartment for spoiled ballots are presumed
to be spoiled, whether or not they contain such notation
b. If during the voting, the board of election inspectors finds that a valid
ballot was erroneously deposited in the compartment for spoiled ballots,
the BEI shall open the said compartment after the voting and before the
counting only to get such erroneously deposited ballot. Said ballot shall
then be mixed with the other valid ballots. and shall be counted. (Sec. 209,
BP 881)
3. Marked Ballot
a. Marked ballots shall not be counted. (Sec. 208, BP 881)
b. A ballot is considered marked in any of the following cases:
i. The voter signed the ballot. (Ferrer vs. De Alban, 101 Phil 10180
ii. The voter wrote the names of well-known public figures who are not
candidates such as actors, actresses and national political figures.(Protacio
vs. De Leon, 9 SCRA 472; Pangontao vs. Alunan, 6 SCRA 853)
iii. The ballot contains irrelevant expression. (Bautista vs. Castro, 206 SCRA
305) However, the use of nicknames and appellations of affection and
friendship, if accompanied by the name of the candidate, does not annul
the ballot except when it is used to identify the voter. [Sec. 211(13), BP
881]
iv. The unexplained presence of prominent letters and words written with
remarkably good hand marked the ballots and must be considered invalid.
(Ong vs. COMELEC, 347 SCRA 681)
c. On the distinctive use of, and several impositions with blue ink on the
name of Dojillo with the rest of the votes written in blank ink, the Supreme
Court ruled that unless it should clearly appear that they have been
deliberately put by the voter as identification marks, the use of two or
more kinds of handwriting shall not invalidate the ballots. (Dojillo vs.
COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
d. Under Par. 21, Sec. 211 of the OEC, crosses put on the spaces on which
the voter has not voted shall be considered as signs to indicate his
desistance from voting and shall not invalidate the ballot. And so are
circles and lines signifying the voter is abstaining from voting for certain
positions.
e. Under Par. 22, Sec 211 of the OEC, unless it should clearly appear that
they have been deliberately put by the voter as identification marks,
hypens, commas, dots, lines between the first name and surname of a
candidate or in other parts of the ballot.
f. A ballot should be counted if it is marked afterwards by some person or
persons other than the voter himself – subsequent changes in the ballot
made by a person other than the voter should not be permitted to affect
the result of the election or destroy the will of the voters.
g. Evidence aliunde is not necessary to prove a ballot is marked. (Bacobo
vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 576)
Rules in the Appreciation of Ballots
Appreciation of ballots is a function of the Board of Election Inspectors, not
of the Board of Canvassers. (Sanchez vs. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67)
General Rule. A ballot indicates the voters’ will. There is no requirement
that the entries in the ballot be written nicely or that the name of the
candidate be spelled accurately. In the reading of the ballot, every ballot is
presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its rejection. The
object in the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the
intention of the voters, if it can be determined with reasonable
certainty. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
Laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of
ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the
electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical
infirmities. The appreciation of the contested ballots and election
documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the
COMELEC, thus, its findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded
great respect, if not finality. (De Guzman vs. COMELEC, 426 SCRA 698)
Idem Sonans
Literally, it means “of the same sound.” A name which is misspelled or
incorrectly written but which when read has a sound similar to that of a
candidate for that office is valid for such candidate. Thus, an incorrectly
written name which sounds like the correctly written name of a candidate
shall be counted in his favor. (Bautista vs. Castro, 206 SCRA 606) Also, a
name or surname or name of a party incorrectly written which, when read,
has a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly
written is a valid vote for such candidate.
Idem sonans rule does not require exactitude nor perfection in the spelling
of names. The question whether a name sounds the same as another is not
one of spelling but pronunciation. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
Predominance of Surnames
When surname alone is used, the vote is valid.
If the surname of a candidate is the first name of another candidate for the
same office and only that name is written on the ballot, the vote shall be
counted in favor of the candidate who has that name as his surname.
A ballot in which the first name or surname of a candidate is written
should be counted for him, if there is no other candidate with the same
name.(Lerias vs. HRET, 202 SCRA 808)
Equity of the incumbent
1. If two or more candidates have the same name or surname and one of
them is incumbent and on the ballot is written that name or surname only,
it shall be counted for the incumbent only.
2. When two candidates have the same full name, first name or surname
and one of them is incumbent, the vote shall be counted in favor of the
incumbent
3. When two surnames are written, only the surname of the incumbent,
who has served for at least one year, will be counted.
4. When a candidate is a woman who uses her maiden name or married
surname or both and the re is another candidate with same surname, a
ballot bearing only such surname will be counted in favor of the candidate
who is an incumbent.
Neighborhood or Proximity Rule
Generally, votes should be written on the space provided for. However, if it
not written on the space provided for, the vote shall be considered valid
for said candidate whose name is written proximate to the space provided
for. This is sometimes referred to as the “intent rule.”
Where a space for Punong Barangay is blank but the name of the
candidate for such position is written on the first line of the space for
Barangay Kagawad, the vote is valid for said candidate. (Abad vs. Co, 496
SCRA 505)
Even if the name of a candidate was written on the wrong space, it should
be counted if the intention to vote for him can be determined, as when
there is a complete list of names of other offices written below his name or
the voter wrote the office for which he was electing the
candidate. (Cordero vs. Moscardon, 132 SCRA 414; Lerias vs. HRET, 202
SCRA 808; Bautista vs. Castro, 206 SCRA 306)

In Velasco vs. COMELEC, GR No. 16693, February 22, 2007, the Supreme
Court ruled that the following misplaced votes are credited to the
candidates so indicated because the intention of the voters to such vote is
unmistakably from the face of the ballots.
1. a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be
voted for the successive offices appearing in the ballot;
2. a single or double misplacement of names where such names were
preceded or followed by the title of the contested office or where the
voter who wrote after the candidate’s name a directional symbol
indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name was intended;
and
3. a single misplacement
a) off-center from the designated place
b) slightly underneath the line for the contested office
c) immediately above the title for the contested office or
d) in the space for an office immediately following that for which the
candidate
presented himself.
Conversely, where a name written on the ballot was not found or near any
of the spaces corresponding to the correct position of Punong Barangay,
the same is considered a misplaced vote or vote for a candidate for the
wrong or inexistent office, and therefore, invalid.
Block Voting
If the word written is the identical name of two or more candidates for the
same office none of whom is incumbent, the vote shall be counted in favor
of the candidate who belongs to the same ticket as all the other candidates
voted for in the ballot for the same constituency.
Substituted Candidate
Where a candidate named Pedro Alfonso died on the eve of the election
and his daughter Irma Alfonso substituted him, ballots in which the name
Pedro Alfonso was written cannot be counted in her favor. (Alfonso vs.
COMELEC, 232 SCRA 777)
In case of valid substitutions after the official ballot have been printed, the
votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes
but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official
ballots shall provide spaces where the voters may write the name of
substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter. (Sec. 12, RA 9006)
Use of Nicknames
Sec. 211. (13) of the OEC establishes the rule that nickname alone is a valid
vote provided: (i) it is that by which the candidate is generally or popularly
known in the locality, and (ii) there is no other candidate with the same
nickname for the same office. (Villarosa vs. HRET, 340 SCRA 396)
Use of Initials
The initial of a nickname of a candidate may be used together with the
surname of the candidate for the purpose of identifying the candidate for
whom the voters vote. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
The erroneous initial of the first name accompanied by the correct
surname of a candidate, or the erroneous initial of the surname
accompanied by the correct first name of a candidate, wrong middle initial
of the candidate.shall not annul the vote in his favor.
Initials of a political party as long as they are the same initials appearing in
the Certified List of Parties, is still valid for counting
Erased Names
When in a space in the ballot there appears a name of a candidate that is
erased and another clearly written, the vote is valid for the latter. The
ballot indicated the voter’s intention to correct his vote for the
latter. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
Excess Voting
If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected, the
votes for the candidates whose names were firstly written equal to the
number of candidates to be elected shall be counted.
Multiple Positions
When two or more words are written on different lines which are the
surnames of two or more candidates with the same surname for an office
for which the law authorizes the election of more than one, the vote shall
be counted in favor of all candidates, with the same surname. Thus,
identical surnames repeatedly appearing on different lines or for multiple
positions can be counted when two or more positions are open. Examples
as in positions for Senator, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
Panlunsod and Sangguniang Bayan.
Votes are still VALID for counting in the following instances:
1. Candidate’s first name or surname, as long as there is no other
candidate with same name or surname.
2. Votes with prefixes such as “Sr.,” “Mr.,” “Datu,” “Don,” “Ginoo,” “Hon.,”
“Gob.,” or suffixes such as “Segundo”
3. First name or surname of a candidate which is the same with another
person who is not a candidate.
4. Traces or extensions of the letter “T,” “J,” and other similar letters.
5. The first letter or syllables of names which voter does not continue.
6. Two or more kinds of handwriting and unintentional or accidental
flourishes, strokes or stains
7. Accidental tearing or perforation of a ballot does not annul it.
8. Written with crayon, lead pencil or ink.
9. Incorrect spelling of a candidate’s name does not invalidate the ballot-
even the most literate person is bound to commit a mistake in spelling.
(Ong vs. COMELEC, 347 SCRA 681)
Votes are INVALID in the following cases:
1. Votes with correct name surname followed by the wrong first name or
votes with correct first name followed by the wrong surname are
considered stray votes.
2. Combining the first name and surname of two different candidates.
3. Initials or illegible writing or any vote which does not sufficiently identify
the candidate for whom it was intended shall be considered stray vote but
shall not invalidate the whole ballot. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
4. Vote for a candidate for a position he is not running for.
5. Vote for a party for a position they are not running for
6. Two or more names of candidates or parties in one single space because
any vote in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present
himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the
whole ballot. (Dojillo vs. COMELEC, 496 SCRA 484)
7. Name of person or party not running for office.
8. Pre-printed stickers or typed entries.
9. Any ballot which clearly appears to have been filled by two distinct
persons.
10. Vote for disqualified candidate or party.
11. If two or more candidates were voted for in an office for which the law
authorizes the election of only one, the vote shall not be counted in favor
of any of them.
It is not necessary to engage the services of a handwriting expert to
examine or compare handwriting on the ballots. (Punzalan vs, COMELEC,
289 SCRA 702)
The COMELEC has the power to reject 466 ballots on the ground of
identical handwriting although the protestant did not raise such issue or
impugn the validity of these ballots on said ground. Unlike ordinary suit, an
election protest is of utmost public concern. The choice of the people to
represent them may not be bargained away by the sheer negligence of a
party, nor defeated by technical rules of procedure. Thus, the COMELEC
cannot just close its eyes to the illegality of the ballots brought before it,
where the ground for the validation was omitted by the protestant. (Arao
vs. COMELEC, 210 SCRA 290)
Stray Votes
Rule 14 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code considers three kinds
of votes astray: (1) a vote containing initials only, (2) a vote which is
illegible, and (3) a vote which does not sufficiently identify the candidate
for whom it is intended. The first category of stray votes is not to be
qualified by the third category in the sense that votes in initials only may
be counted for as candidate provided that the initials sufficiently identify
the candidate voted for. (Villarosa vs. HRET, 340 SCRA 396)
The rule is in favor of the validity of the ballot, not otherwise… The
appearance of print and script writings in a single ballot does not
necessarily imply that two persons wrote the ballot. (Ong vs. COMELEC,
347 SCRA 681)
Paragraph 18, section 149 of the REC, provides that unless it should clearly
appear that is has been deliberately put by the voter to serve as
identification mark, or the use of two or more kinds of writing shall be
considered innocent and shall not invalidate the ballot. (Id.)
Under Par. 14, Sec 211(19) of the OEC, any vote in favor of a person who
has not filed a certificate of candidacy or in favor of a candidate for an
office for which he did not present himself shall be considered as a stray
vote, but it shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
Correction of Returns
1. Before the announcement of the results of the election in a precinct, any
correction or alteration in the election returns must be initialed by all
members of the board of election inspectors.
2. After the announcement of the results in a precinct, the authorization of
the COMELEC is needed to make any correction or alteration.
a. If the petition is by all members of the board of election inspectors, the
results of the election will not be affected, and none of the candidate
affected objects, the COMELEC, upon being satisfied of the veracity of the
petition, shall order the correction.
b. If a candidate affected by the petition objects and the correction will
affect the results of the election, the COMELEC shall order a recount of the
votes, if it finds the petition meritorious and the integrity of the ballot box
has not been violated. (Sec. 216, BP 881)
Certificate of Votes
 1. The BEI shall issue a Certificate of Votes containing the total number of
votes received by each candidate or party sectoral organization or coalition
participating under the party-list system of representation upon request of
a watcher. (Sec. 16, RA 6646)
2. The BEI’s refusal to furnish Certificates of Votes shall constitute an
election offense. (Sec. 27, RA 6646)
the votes for the election of President and Vice President. If the COMELEC
is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of votes for President and
Vice President, the COMELEC is, with more reason, prohibited from making
an “unofficial” canvass of said votes. (Brillantes vs. COMELEC, 432 SCRA
269)
2. Commission on Elections

2. The certificate of votes is admissible in evidence to prove anomaly in the 1. Senators (Sec. 2, EO 144)
election return when authenticated by testimony or documentary b. Regional officials (Sec. 7, Art. XIX, RA 6734)
evidence of at least two members of the BEI. c. Party-List Representatives (RA 7941)

Posting of a Copy of Election Returns 3. Provincial Board of Canvassers

The 8th copy of the election returns shall be posted on the wall within the
premises of the polling place or voting center. Any person may view or
capture an image of the ER by means of any date capturing device such as
but not limited to cameras at any time of the day for 48 hours following its
posting. (Sec. 21, RA 9369)
–o0o–
XI. CANVASSING AND PROCLAMATION
Canvassing Bodies
1. Congress
1. President
2. Vice President (Sec. 3 Art. VII, Phil. Constitution; Sec. 30 RA 7166)
In Lopez vs. Senate of the Philippines, it was held that Congress may validly
delegate the preliminary determination of the authority and due execution
of the certificate of canvass to a Joint Congressional Committee
constituted under the Rules adopted by the Joint Session of Congress.
Even after Congress had adjourned its regular session, it may continue to
perform the constitutional duty of canvassing the presidential and vice
presidential election results without need of any call for a special session
by the President. (Pimentel vs. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the
Votes Cast for President and Vice President)
1. Congressman
2. Provincial officials [Sec. 28 (d), RA 7166]
4. District Board of Canvassers in each legislative district in Metro Manila
1. Congressman
2. Municipal official [Sec. 28 (c), RA 7166]
5. City and Municipal Board of Canvassers
1. Congressmen
2. City and Municipal officials [Sec. 28 (a) and (b), RA 7166]
The law explicitly prescribed the minimum qualifications of who may sit as
the substitute Third Member of the Municipal Board of Canvassers in the
absence of the most senior school district supervisor – the substitute must
be a principal of the school district or the elementary school. The
designation of an ordinary public school teacher as a member of the MBC
is null and void. Hence, the acts and declarations of an illegally constituted
MBC are also null and void. (Salic vs. COMELEC, 425 SCRA 735)
6. Barangay Board of Canvassers
1. Barangay officials (Sec. 17, BP 222)
Supervisory Power Over the Board
The COMELEC exercises direct supervision and control over the
proceedings before the Board of Canvassers, except Congress which is a
co-equal constitutional body. . (Mastura vs. COMELEC, 285 SCRA 493)

COMELEC Res. No. 6712 usurps, under the guise of an “unofficial Nature of Duty of Board of Canvassers
tabulation” via electronic transmission of election results on a copy of the 1. Ministerial – it has only the ministerial task of tallying the votes as
election returns, the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to canvass reported in the election returns and declare the results, and cannot
 exercise the judicial power of deciding an election contest. The correction
of the manifest mistake in the mathematical addition calls for a mere
clerical task on the part of the board. The remedy is purely
administrative. (Tatlonghari vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 199)
2. Quasi-judicial – the COMELEC exercises judgment or discretion to
determine whether any given return before it is genuine in connection
with the canvass of votes.
Procedure
1. The COMELEC has direct control and supervision overt the board of
canvassers except Congress. It may motu propio relieve at any time and
substitute any member of the board of canvassers. (Sec. 227, BP881)
A municipal court has no jurisdiction to restrain the municipal board of
canvasser. (Librados vs. Casar, 234 SCRA 13)
2. Manner of delivery of election return
a. The BEI shall personally deliver to the city or municipal boards of
canvassers the copy of the election returns intended for them, sealed in an
envelop, signed and thumbmarked by the members of the BEI.
The mere fact that an election return was not locked in the ballot box
when it was delivered to the board of canvassers is not ground for
excluding it in the absence of proof that it was tampered with. (Pimentel
vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 126)
b. The BEI shall personally deliver to the provincial and district boards of
canvassers the copy of the election returns intended for them to the
election registrar.
c. Watchers have the right to accompany the members of the BEI and the
election registrar during the delivery of the election returns to the board of
canvassers. (Sec. 229, BP 881)
3. Under Section 39 of RA 9369, the Automated Election System Law of 2007,
returns for national positions shall be canvassed first.
Rights of candidates
1. Every registered political party and candidate is entitled to one watcher
in the canvassing center, but candidates for the local legislative bodies
belonging to the same party are entitled collectively to one watcher. Sec.
26 RA 7166) The fact that the watcher of a candidate was not present
when the canvassing was resumed because he was not notified is not a
ground to annul the canvass.(Quilala vs. COMELEC, 188 SCRA 902)
2. Any registered political party and candidate has the right to be present
and to counsel.
i. Only one counsel may argue for each party of candidate.
ii. No dilatory action shall be allowed. (Sec. 25, RA 6646)
3. Problem Areas
1. Lost return
i. If any election return has been lost, upon prior authority of the
COMELEC, the board of canvassers may use any authentic copy of it or a
certified copy of it issued by the COMELEC. (Sec. 233, BP 881; Samad vs.
COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631) It is not necessary that all the other copies be
considered. (Pangarungan vs. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 522)
ii. If an election return is missing a recount should not be ordered if there is
any authentic copy available. (Ong vs. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 866)
iii. If all copies of the election returns were lost, a recount of the ballots
should be made. (Ong vs. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 457)
iv. The certificates of votes signed by the board of inspectors and the tally
board cannot be used for the canvass, because only election return are
evidence of the results of the election. (Garay vs. COMELEC, 262 SCRA 222)
2. Omission in the return or incomplete return
1. In case of an omission in the election return of the names of a candidate or
his votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election
inspectors to complete it.
ii. If the votes omitted cannot be ascertained except by recounting the
ballots, after ascertaining the integrity of the ballot has not been violated,
the COMELEC shall order the board of election inspectors to count the
votes for the candidate whose votes were omitted and to complete the
return. (Sec. 234, BP 881). Since the omission of the election return on the
number of votes certain candidates received is not a discrepancy, a
recount of the vote should be ordered instead of excluding the election
return in the canvassing. (Patoray vs. COMELEC, 249 SCRA 490)
iii. Since the return was incomplete for it lacked the date as to provincial
and congressional candidates, the applicable provision would be Section
234 of the OEC which deals with material defects in election returns. Thus
the COMELEC should have first determined the integrity of the ballot box,
ordered the opening thereof, and recounted the ballots therein after
satisfying that the integrity of the ballot is intact. (Lee vs. COMELEC, 405
SCRA 363)
3. Tampered or falsified return
1. If the election return submitted to the board of canvassers was tampered
with or falsified or prepared under duress or by persons other than the
board of election inspectors, the board shall use the other copies of the
election return.
2. If the certificate of canvass was tampered with, the COMELEC may order
that any of the copies of the election returns be used in making a new
canvass.(Mastura vs. COMELEC, 265 SCRA 493)
3. If the other copies of the election returns were also tampered with or
falsified or prepared under duress or by persons other than the board of
election inspectors, the COMELEC after ascertaining that the integrity of
the ballot box has not been violated, shall order the board of election
inspectors to recount the votes and prepare a new return. (Sec. 235, BP
881)
iv. Since an election return prepared without counting the ballots is a
fabrication, it should not be counted and a count of the ballot should be
ordered. (Lucero vs. COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280)
v. Any election return with a separately printed serial number or which
bears a different serial number that assigned to the particular polling place
concerned shall not be canvassed. (Salic vs. COMELEC, 426 SCRA 698
4. Discrepancies in returns
If there are discrepancies in the other authentic copies of the return or in
the words or figures in the same return and it will affect the result of the
election, the COMELEC, after ascertaining that the integrity of the ballot
box has not been violated, shall order the recount of the ballots. (Sec 236,
BP 881)
If there is discrepancy between the tally and the written figures in the
election return, it should be excluded from the canvassing and a recount of
the ballots should be made or the certificate of votes cast in the precinct
should be used. (Patoray vs. COMELEC, 249 SCRA 440)
Posting of a Copy of COC
The copy of the certificate of canvass posted on the wall shall be open for
public viewing at any time of the day for 48 hours following its posting. Any
person may view or capture an image of the certificate of canvass. After
the prescribed period for posting the SBRCG shall collect the posted
certificate of canvass and keep the same in his custody to be produced for
image or data capturing as may be requested by any voter or for any lawful
purpose as may be ordered by competent authority. Except for those
copies that are required to be delivered, copies of the certificate of
canvass may be claimed at the canvassing center. Any unclaimed copy shall
remain with the SBRCG, which shall produce them when requested by the
recipient or when ordered by a competent authority. Any violation of
these shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in
accordance with BP 881. (RA 9369)
What constitute an election
1. Plurality of votes sufficient for choice
2. Not necessary that a majority of voters should vote
Tie Vote
1. A tie among two or more candidates for President or Vice President shall
be broken by majority vote of both houses of Congress voting separately.
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, PC)
2. In the case of other positions, the ties shall be broken by the drawing of
lots. (Sec. 240, BP 881)
The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of
valid votes cast in an election. Sound policy dictates that public elective
offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in
the election for that office. For in a republican form of government the
basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be
declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal
votes cast in the election. (Rulloda vs. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 365)
Proclamation
Power to Proclaim. Only authorized canvassing bodies can proclaim
winning candidates. Thus, in Macalintal vs. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July
11, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Section 18.5 of RA
9189 which granted sweeping authority to the COMELEC to proclaim all
winning candidates because it was repugnant to Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution which vests in Congress the authority to proclaim the winning
Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
Basis of Proclamation. The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the
proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of
the proclamation. If a candidate’s proclamation is based on a Statement of
Votes which contain erroneous entries, it is null and void – it is no
proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office
cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the
proclamation. (Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa, 408 SCRA 679)
An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal cannot be a basis of a valid
proclamation. (Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631; Loong vs. COMELEC,
257 SCRA 1; Jamil vs. COMELEC, 283 SCRA 349; Immam vs. COMELEC, 322
SCRA 866 and Utto vs. COMELEC, 375 SCRA 523) A canvass cannot be
reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are
considered and none is omitted. (Caruncho III vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 693
and Munoz vs. COMELEC, 495 SCRA 407)
EXCEPTION: If the questioned election returns will not affect the result of
the election, a proclamation may be made upon the order of the COMELEC
after notice and hearing. (Sec. 238, BP 881) Conversely, a proclamation
made where the contested returns set aside will affect the result of the
election and the board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim without the
authority from the COMELEC is null and void. (Sema vs. COMELEC, 347
SCRA 633)
The proclamation of all winning candidates in the municipal election is a
ministerial duty of the canvassing board. (Salic vs. COMELEC, 425 SCRA
735)
Suspension of Proclamation. The COMELEC can legally suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate although he received the winning
number of votes. (Labo vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297).
The use of the word “may”, indicates that the suspension of the
proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature and operates to
confer discretion. What is made mandatory is the continuation of the trial
and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. Since the suspension of the
proclamation is merely permissive, the proclamation of a candidate is
valid, if the COMELEC did not suspend his proclamation. (Grego vs.
COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481)
Grounds. Filing of pre-proclamation controversy under Sec. 248 of BP 881
is not the only grounds for the suspension of proclamation. Two other
instances are provided in RA 6646, namely, Sec.6, the COMELEC, upon
motion of the complainant in an action for disqualification, suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate if the evidence of his guilt is strong,
and Sec. 7, the COMELEC, may likewise suspend the proclamation of the
winning candidate is there is a ground for denying or canceling his
certificate of candidacy. These actions are in the nature of pre-
proclamation controversies and therefore, like pre-proclamation contests,
their filing is a ground for the suspension of proclamation and,
consequently, of the period for filing either an election protest or a
petition for quo warranto. (Dagloc vs. COMELEC, 321 SCRA 273)
The mere filing of a petition for disqualification is not a ground to suspend
the proclamation of the winning candidate – in the absence of an order
suspending proclamation, the winning candidate who is sought to be
disqualified is entitled to be proclaimed as a matter of law. (Bagatsing vs.
COMELEC, 320 SCRA 817)
Petition for Correction. Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
clearly states that the petition for correction may be filed at any time
before the proclamation of a winner. Respondent Loong filed the petition
for correction during the proceedings of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers, hence, it was filed before the proclamation of candidates. The
petition was, therefore, valid. (Baddiri vs. COMELEC, 459 SCRA 808)
Who can be Proclaimed; Effect of Death of a Winning Candidate. In Benito
vs. COMELEC, 325 SCRA 436, it was held that a mayoralty candidate who
obtained the highest number of vote and who was ambushed and killed
before his proclamation is still entitled to be proclaimed as winner but with
the information, in parenthesis, that he died, for the purpose of applying
the rule on legal succession. In the same case, the Supreme Court also
ruled that the death of a winning candidate: 1) cannot serve as basis for
the Municipal Board of Canvassers to exclude from tallying, counting and
canvassing all votes for and in the name of the deceased candidate; 2)
does not render his victory and proclamation moot and academic but it is
rather the duty of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim as winner
the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes; and 3) does not
necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number
of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The Court further
said: “In every election, the people’s choice is the paramount
consideration and their expressed will must, at all times, be given effect.
When the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate by giving him
the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, no one can
be declared elected in his place. xxx For to allow the defeated and
repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by
the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their
part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the
people’s right to elect officials of their choice.
Null and Void Proclamation. The COMELEC is with authority to annul any
canvass and proclamation which was illegally made. (Munoz vs. COMELEC,
495 SCRA 407) Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed
candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the
power to declare such proclamation a nullity. (Utto vs. COMELEC, 375 SCRA
523) Thus, the COMELEC was correct in annulling the proclamation of a
petitioner for being based on an erroneous computation of votes. (Saliguin
vs. COMELEC, 532 SCRA 219) Where at the time the proclamation was
made, a pre-proclamation controversy pending at the COMELEC First
Division has not yet been resolved, the Municipal Board of Canvassers
should not have not proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate absent
the authorization from the COMELEC. Any proclamation made under such
circumstances is void ab initio.
However, the proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if
he has not been notified of the motion to set aside his
proclamation. (Caruncho vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 693)
A proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and
while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the
proclamation of the Board of Canvassers he is only a presumptive winner
who assumes office subject to the final outcome of the election
protest. (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SACRA 602)
A Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation bearing only one valid signature
is void. (Salic vs. COMELEC, 425 SCRA 735)
Effect of Filing Petition to Annul or Suspend Proclamation. The filing of
petition to annul or suspend the proclamation shall suspend the running of
the period in which to file an election protest or quo warranto
proceedings. The party seeking annulment must file the petition before the
expiration of the 10-day period. (Tan vs. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 352)
1. The COMELEC can annul a proclamation because of an error in the
computation of the votes in the statement of votes since the proclamation
is void.(Torres vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583)
2. It is improper for the COMELEC to annul the proclamation of a winning
candidate on the basis of new and additional evidence which were not
presented before the Board of Canvassers and which were not furnished to
the said candidate… Reliance should no be placed on mere affidavits for
the purpose of annulling a winning candidate’s proclamation. (Velayo vs.
COMELEC, 327 SCRA 713)
3. Where a party alleges the existence of manifest errors in the
preparation of the election returns, clearly the proper remedy is not a
petition for quo warranto but a petition for annulment of
proclamation. (Angelia vs. COMELEC, 332 SCRA 757)
4. Where the COMELEC, without prior notice and hearing, annulled the
proclamation of a winning party and directed the Municipal Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and effect corrections in the total number of
votes received by the candidates and thereafter proclaim the winner, the
expedient action to take is to direct the Municipal Board of Canvassers to
reconvene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with Rule 27,
Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to effect the necessary
correction, if any, in the election returns and, on the basis thereof,
proclaim the winning candidate or candidates as member or members of
the Sangguniang Bayan. (Angelia vs. COMELEC, 332 SCRA 757)
5. If a candidate’s proclamation is based on a Statement of Votes which
contain erroneous entries, it is null and void – it is no proclamation at all
and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the
COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation. (Milla vs. Balmores-
Laxa, 408 SCRA 679)
Effect of Proclamation. Once proclaimed and duly sworn in office, a public
officer is entitled to assume office and to exercise the functions thereof.
The pendency of an election protest is not sufficient basis to enjoin him
from assuming office or from discharging his functions. Unless his election
is annulled by a final and executory decision, or a valid execution of an
order unseating him pending appeal is issued, has the lawful right to
assume and perform the duties of the office to which he has been
elected. (Mendoza vs. Laxina, 408 SCRA 156)
Effect of Disqualification/Vacancy. The fact that the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or
not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily
entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office… To allow the defeated and
repudiated to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the
electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their
part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the
people’s right to elect officials of their choice… Court a quo correctly held
that the second placer lost the elections and was repudiated by either a
majority or plurality of voters (Loreto vs. Brion, 311 SCRA 694)
Rejection of the Second Placer Doctrine. The fact that the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or
not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily
entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office. To allow the defeated and
repudiated to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the
electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their
part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the
people’s right to elect officials of their choice. Court a quo correctly held
that the second placer lost the elections and was repudiated by either a
majority or plurality of voters. (Loreto vs. Brion, 311 SCRA 694) For to allow
the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite
his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without
any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of
 democracy and the people’s right to elect officials of their choice. (Benito
vs. COMELEC, 325 SCRA 436)
The doctrine is equally applicable to multi-slot position such as Sanggunian
member. Thus, if the 10th spot in the city council has been declared
vacated, the 11th placer cannot be elevated to said higher position for the
simple reason that the electorate did not elect him as one of the ten city
councilors. (Idulza vs. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 7012)
The doctrine will apply if two conditions concur: (1) the decision on a
candidate’s disqualification case remained pending on election day
resulting in the presence of two mayoralty candidates; and (2) the decision
on such disqualification case became final only after elections. (Cayat vs.
COMELEC, GR 163776, April 24, 2007)
The doctrine was applied in Labo vs. COMELEC and a host of other cases
because the judgment declaring the candidate’s disqualification had not
become final before the elections but became final only three days after
the 1992 elections. On the other hand, the doctrine does not apply
to Cayat vs. COMELEC because the disqualification of Cayat and the
subsequent cancellation of his certificate of candidacy (for his failure to
pay the prescribed filing fee for his motion for reconsideration) became
final 23 days before the 2004 elections. Thus, Palileng was the only
candidate for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet. As the only candidate, Palileng
was not a second placer. On the contrary, Palileng was the sole and only
placer, second to none. The doctrine on the rejection of the second placer,
which triggers the rule on succession, does not apply in his case because
he is not a second placer but the only placer. Consequently, his
proclamation as mayor is beyond question. (Cayat vs. COMELEC, supra)
Failure to assume office
If a candidate fails to take his oath of office within 6 months from his
proclamation, unless for a cause beyond the control of the elected official,
his office will be considered vacant. (Sec. 12, BP 881)
XII. PRE-PROCLAMATION CASES
1. Definition; Coverage
Pre-proclamation controversy refers to 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, or any matter
raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns. (Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482 and Sinsuat vs. COMELEC, 492
SCRA 391)
In pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the
COMELEC are not to look beyond or behind election returns which are on
their face regular and authentic returns (Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482)
A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the
election returns on their face – the COMELEC as a general rule need not go
beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged election
irregularities. (Sebastian vs. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 406 and Belac vs.
COMELEC, 365 SCRA 394)
To require the COMELEC to examine the circumstances surrounding the
preparation of the returns would run counter to the rule that a pre-
proclamation controversy should be summarily decided…Where the
resolution of the issues raised would require the COMELEC to “pierce the
veil” of election returns that appear prima facie regular, the remedy is a
regular election protest
The office of a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to incomplete,
falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on the
face.(Sebastian vs. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 406)
2. Jurisdiction
1. Questions involving the legality of the composition or proceeding of the
board of canvassers, except Congress, may be raised initially in the board
of canvassers or the Commission on Elections. (Sec. 15 and 17, RA 7166)
2. Questions involving the election returns and certificate of canvass should
be brought in the first instance before the board of canvassers only. (Sec.
17, RA 7166)
3. When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the
tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing, the same may be
filed directly with the Commission en banc. [Sec. 5 (2), COMELEC Rules of
Procedure]
A manifest error is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding; that which is open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing no
evidence to make it more clear. (O’Hara vs. COMELEC, GR Nos. 148941-41,
March 12, 2002)
C. Scope of Pre-proclamation controversy
1. Provincial, city and municipal officials
1. The composition of the proceeding of the board of canvassers is illegal;
2. The returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be
tampered with or falsified or contain discrepancies in the same returns or
in other authentic copies;
3. The returns were prepared under duress or are obviously manufactured or
not authentic;
d. Substitute or fraudulent returns were canvassed, the result of which
materially affect the standing of the aggrieved candidate. (Sec. 243, BP
881; Sec. 16 RA 7166)
2. President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen
1. No pre-proclamation case is allowed regarding the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election return or
certificate of canvass for President, Vice President, Senators and Members
of the House of Representatives. (Chaves vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315; Ong
vs. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 826, Pangilinan vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA36)
b. While the first sentence of Sec. 15 of RA 7166 prohibits candidates in the
presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from
filing pre-proclamation case, the second sentence of Sec. 15 allows only
the filing of petitions for correction of manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or election returns even in elections for president, vice-president,
senators and members of the House of Representatives for the simple
reason that the correction of manifest error will not prolong the process of
canvassing nor delay the proclamation of the winner in the
election.(Sandoval vs. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 403) Under Section 38 of Ra
9369 (amending Section 15 of RA 7166) the prohibition does not preclude
the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon
written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the
certificate of canvass or election return before it.
D. Proper Issues in a Pre-Proclamation Controversy
The enumeration of issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation
controversies, as provided for in Section 243 of the OEC is restrictive and
exclusive. (Dagloc vs. COMELEC, 417 SCRA 574)
The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-
proclamation controversy:
1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers which
must be filed immediately when the board begins to act as such or at the
time of the appointment of the member whose capacity to seat as such is
objected to if it comes after the convening of the board, or immediately at
the point where the proceedings are or begin to be illegal. (Villamor vs.
COMELEC, 496 SCRA 334)
2) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects,
appear to be tampered with or falsified or contain discrepancies in the
same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections
233, 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC
3) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic. Where
the threats of the followers of a candidate did not affect the genuineness
of the election return, it should not be excluded. (Salvacion vs. COMELEC,
170 SCRA 513)and
4) When substitute and fraudulent returns in controverted polling places
were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of
the aggrieved candidate or candidates. Hence, the COMELEC finding on
election returns which it found to be a sham, anchored on the “manner of
their preparation,” is a pre-proclamation issue. (Dagloc vs. COMELEC, 417
SCRA 574)
Errors in the Certificate of Canvass
Correction of manifest errors has reference to errors in the election
returns, in the entries of the statement of votes by precinct/per
municipality, or in the certificate of canvass. A manifest clerical error is one
that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent
from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not
include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record to be shown to
have been committed. (Trinidad vs. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 836)
1. The canvassing body may motu propio or upon petition of an interested
party correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election
return. (Sec.15, RA 7166)
i. A copy of an election return or certificate of canvass was tabulated more
than once.
ii. Two or more copies of the same election return or certificate of canvass
were tabulated separately.
iii. There was a mistake is copying the figures into the statement of votes
or certificate of canvass. Errors in addition in the certificate of canvass may
be corrected. ( Lucero vs. COMELEC, 234 SCRA 280)
iv. Returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass. [sec.
5 (a) (2), Rule 27 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Ong vs. COMELEC, 221
SCRA 75)
2. The statement of votes cannot be corrected on the basis of a
certification given to a watcher, since election returns are what are
supposed to be the basis of the canvass. (Ramirez vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA
390)
3. Doubt arises as to the authenticity of the returns and the manner of
their preparation specially in this case where a party watcher was allowed
to take part in the preparation of the election return. And since the return
was incomplete for it lacked the data as to provincial and congressional
candidates, the applicable provision would be Section 234 of the Omnibus
Election Code which deals with material defects in election returns. (Lee vs.
COMELEC, 405 SCRA 363)
Statistical Improbabilities
An election return which is statistically improbable is obviously fabricated
and should not be counted.
i. Where the votes cast in 50 precincts for the candidates for senators of
one party equaled the number of registered voters, all the candidates for
senators of that party received the same number of votes, and all the
candidates for senators of the opposing party got no votes, the election
returns are statistically improbable and are obviously
fabricated. (Lagumbay vs. Climaco, 16 SCRA 175)
ii. Where only one candidate of a party got all the votes in some precincts
and his opponent got zero, the other candidates for the other party for
other positions received votes, the number of votes cast were less than the
number of registered voters, the election returns are not statistically
improbable. (Sangki vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 1391)
iii. The mere fact that a candidate receive overwhelming majorities over
another candidate in numerous precincts does not make the election
return statistically improbable. (Ilarde vs. COMELEC, 31 SCRA 71)
iv. The mere fact that the percentage of turnout of voters was high and
that a candidate received high percentage of the votes does not make the
election returns statistically improbable. (Doruelo vs. COMELEC, 133 SCRA
376)
v. The bare fact that candidates for public office had received zero votes is
not enough to make the returns statistically improbable. (Ocampo vs.
COMELEC, 325 SCRA 636)
vi. Standing alone and without more, the bare fact that a candidate for
public office received zero votes in one or two precincts cannot adequately
support a finding that the subject election returns are statistically
improbable – the doctrine of statistical improbability must be viewed
restrictively, the utmost care being taken lest in penalizing the fraudulent
and corrupt practices, innocent voters become disenfranchised. The
doctrine of statistical improbability involves a question of fact and more
prudential approach prohibits its determination ex parte. (Velayo vs.
COMELEC, 327 SCRA 713)
Issues NOT resolvable in Pre-proclamation controversy
1. Issues involving the casting or the counting of the ballots are not proper in
pre-proclamation cases.
1. The use of illegal election propaganda, vote-buying and terrorism of the
voters are not proper issues in a pre-proclamation case. (Villegas vs.
COMELEC, 99 SCRA 582)
2. Questions on the appreciation of the ballots cannot be raised in a pre-
proclamation case. (Alfonso vs. COMELEC, 232 SCRA777 and Sinsuat vs.
COMELEC, 492 SCRA 391) Thus, the claim that a candidate was not credited
with votes cast for him because his name was similar to that of another
disqualified candidate cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation
case. (Chavez vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315) Likewise, the claim that some
ballots were spurious, marked or invalid cannot be raised in a pre-
proclamation case. (Patoray vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 470)
iii. Terrorism of voters, voting by flying voters, deprivation of the right to
vote of registered voters and vote buying cannot be raised in a pre-
proclamation case. (Allarde vs. COMELEC, 159 SCRA 623)
iv. Vote buying and secrecy in the preparation of ballots are not proper
grounds for a pre-proclamation case. (Salazar vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 433)
v. The claim that the voters were allowed to vote without verifying their
identities, that there were discrepancies between the signatures in the
voter’s affidavits and the voting record, and third persons falsely voted for
voters who did not vote are not proper issues in a pre-proclamation
case.(Dipatuan vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86)
vi. Technical examination of the signatures and thumbprints of the voters
to prove substitute voting is not allowed in a pre-proclamation
case. (Balindong vs. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 294)
vii. The padding of the list of voters cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation
case, since it does not involve the election return. (Ututalum vs. COMELEC,
189 SCRA 335)
viii. To look beyond or behind election returns is not a proper issue in pre-
proclamation controversy. (Ocampo vs. COMELEC, 325 SCRA 636)
ix. The fact that the voting was sham or minimal is not a ground for filing a
pre-proclamation case, since this is properly cognizable in an election
protest.(Salih vs. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 19)
10. A pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment
of election results, or failure of elections. (Ampatuan vs. COMELEC, 375
SCRA 503)
xi. The fact that the counting of the votes was not completed because of
the explosion of a grenade and that no election was held cannot be raised
in a pre-proclamation case, as these are irregularities that do not appear
on the face of the election returns. (Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733)
 2. Administrative lapses which do not affect the authenticity of an election
return cannot serve as basis for annulling the election return.
i. The failure to close the entries in the election returns with the signature
of the board of election inspectors, lack of seals, absence of time and date
of receipt of election return by the board of canvassers, lack of signature of
the watchers of the petitioner, and the lack of authority of the person who
received the election returns do not affect the authenticity of the
returns. (Baterina vs. COMELEC, 205 SCRA 1)
ii. The absence of the signature of the chairman of the BEI on the voter’s
affidavits, list of voters and voting records; absence or excess of
detachable coupons, discrepancies between the number of detachable
coupons and the number of ballots, missing voter’s lists are mere
administrative omissions and cannot be used as basis to annul an election
return. (Arroyo vs. HRET, 246 SCRA 384)
Summary disposition of pre-proclamation controversy- Sec. 18, RA 7166
A All pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily after due
notice – first, by the board of canvassers, and then, by the COMELEC. (Chu
vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482) All pre and post proclamation proceedings
should be resolved summarily but not ex parte. Summary simply means
with dispatch, with the least possible delay, signifying that the power may
be exercised without a trial in the ordinary manner prescribed by law for
regular judicial proceedings. (Velayo vs. COMELEC, 327 SCRA 713)
The legislative intent behind the summary disposition of pre-proclamation
controversies is to give life to the policy that the canvass and proclamation
be delayed as little as possible for it is the public interest that the position
for which the election was held should be filled promptly, even though the
proclamation of the winning candidate would be provisional in nature, in
that the same may still be subject to the results of the election protests
that may be subsequently filed. (Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482)
B. Among others, pre-proclamation controversies on election returns or
certificates of canvass must be disposed of summarily by the COMELEC on
the basis of the records and evidence adduced in the Board of Canvassers.
However, in a separate concurring opinion, Justice Mendoza observed that
Section 246 of the OEC was amended by Section 18 of RA 7166, the effects
of which are:
1. In the disposition of pre-proclamation controversies involving election
returns and certificates of canvass, the previous requirement of notice and
hearing has been eliminated;
2. The COMELEC is directed to decide such pre-proclamation controversies
solely on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by boards of
canvassers;
3. The COMELEC is directed to decide the case within seven (7) days from
receipt thereof; and
4) The COMELEC decision becomes executory upon the lapse of seven (7)
days from receipt by the losing party of the decision. (Velayo vs. COMELEC,
327 SCRA 713)
A. Procedure in Contested Composition or Proceeding of the Board of
Canvassers
The illegality of the composition of the board of canvassers cannot be
questioned after the proclamation of the winner, since it must be raised
immediately. (Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705)
The ruling of the board of canvassers on question affecting its composition
or proceeding may be appealed to the COMELEC in 3 days. (Sec. 19 RA
7166)
B. Procedure in Case of Contested Returns
1. Objections to an election return shall be submitted orally to the chairman
of the board of canvassers at the time the return is presented for inclusion
in the canvass and shall be entered in the form for written objection. [Sec.
20 (a) and (c), RA 7166]
1. An objection made after the canvass is late. (Guiao vs. COMELEC, 137 SCRA
356; Navarro vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596)
2. A petition for correction of the statement of votes may be filed after the
proclamation of the winner, although no objection was made during the
canvass, as error was discovered only after the petitioner got a copy of the
statement of votes. (Duremdes vs. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746). It must be
filed not later than 5 days after the proclamation. [Sec. 5 (b), Rule 27 of
COMELEC Rules of Procedure]
However, the five-day deadline is not applicable to a petition for the
annulment of proclamation of a candidate when it was his opponent who
obtained the majority for what was corrected was not the entries but the
computation of the votes. (Mentang vs. COMELEC, 229 SCRA 666)
Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for correction of the
certificate of canvass may be filed even before the proclamation of the
winner. (Bince vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273)
A petition for correction of manifest errors in the statement of votes can
be decided of the COMELEC en banc at the first instance, since it does not
involve an election protest or a pre-proclamation case. (Ramirez vs.
COMELEC, 270 SCRA 590)
 The COMELEC has the power to order the correction of the statement of
votes to make it conform to the election returns. Corrections should be
made by inserting the correction in the Statement
of Votes or be preparing a new Statement of Votes incorporating the
corrections. (Castromayor vs. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298)
2. The canvass of any contested return shall be deferred and the board of
canvasser shall to proceed canvass the uncontested return. [Sec. 20(b), RA
7166]
3. Within 24 hours, the objecting party shall submit evidence in support of
the objections.
4. Within 24 hours after presentation of the objection, a party may file a
written opposition and attach the supporting evidence. [Sec. 20, c, RA
7166]
5. The board of canvassers shall summarily rule on the contested returns.
[Sec. 20(d), RA 7166]
6. A party who intends to appeal should immediately inform the board of
canvassers. [Sec. 20(e), RA 7166] Within 24 hours he must file a written
and verified notice of appeal with the board of canvassers and take his
appeal to the COMELEC within 5 days. [Sec. 20(f), RA 7166]
1. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the
municipal board of canvassers to correct a certificate of
canvass. (Cabanero vs. CA, 232 SCRA)
2. The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to compel the municipal board
of canvassers, which suspended the proclamation because of a possible
discrepancy in the election return, to make a proclamation. (In re
COMELEC Resolution No. 2521, 234 SCRA 1)
2. Period of Appeal
1. Since the proclamation of a candidate who finished second made after the
candidate who got the highest number of votes was killed is patently void,
a late appeal should be allowed. (Benito vs. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436)
2. The COMELEC cannot by regulation shorten the period to question its
decision before the Supreme Court for under the Constitution the period
of 30 days can be shortened by law only. (Sardea vs. COMELEC, 225 SCRA
374)
7. The COMELEC shall decide the appeal within 7 days from receipt of the
records, and the decision shall be executory after 7 days from receipt by
the losing party. (Sec. 18 and 20 (f), RA 7166)
Termination of Pre-Proclamation Case
1. All pre-proclamation cases pending before the COMELEC shall be
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office (noon of June 30)
involved, and the rulings of the board of canvassers shall be deemed
affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of an election protest by the
aggrieved party. (Penaflorida vs. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 241 and Barroso vs.
Ampig, 328 SCRA 530)
2. Once a proclamation has been made, the pre-proclamation case is no
longer viable and should be dismissed. (Sardea vs. COMELEC, 255 SCRA
374).However, this rule presupposes the proclamation is valid. It does not
apply if the proclamation is void, because it was based on incomplete
returns.(Matalam vs. COMELEC 271 SCRA 733)
The same holds true if the returns were manufactured. (Agbayani vs.
COMELEC, 186 SCRA 464). The same holds true where the computation of
votes was erroneous. (Mentang vs. COMELEC, 229 SCRA 669)
3. The pre-proclamation case should no longer be decided if exclusion of
the questioned election return will not change the result of the
election. (Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733)
Effect of Filing an election protest, quo warranto
1. As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning
candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular election
protest or a petition for quo warranto
2. As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo
warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation
controversy, or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier
filed. (Maruhom vs. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 473) It thus deprived of the
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the
validity of his proclamation. The reasons is that once the competent
tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for
quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the
case itself and not in another proceedings. This procedure will prevent the
confusion and conflict of authority. Moreover, not all actions seeking the
annulment of proclamation suspend the running of the period for filing an
 election protest or a petition for quo warranto. (Villamor vs. COMELEC, 496
SCRA 334)
3. The filing of an election protest results in abandonment of a pre-
proclamation case even if the protest alleged it was filed as a
precautionary measure, if he did not explain why. (Laodenio vs. COMELEC,
276 SCRA 405)
4. The rule that the filing of a protest implies abandonment of the pre-
proclamation case does not apply if:
i. the protest was filed as a precautionary measure. (Mitmug vs. COMELEC,
230 SCRA 54)
ii. the board of canvassers was improperly constituted, as when the
Municipal Treasurer took over the canvassing without having been
designated.(Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631)
5. As held in Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733, where it becomes
apparent that a pre-proclamation controversy is inadequate, they should
immediately choose another timely remedy like a petition to annul
election results or to declare a failure of election or even election protest,
so that the election irregularities may be fully ventilated and properly
adjudicated by the competent tribunal.
6. There is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or
adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies and elections protests.
Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the
fact that pre-proclamation controversies and election protest differ in
terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case, and
the objectives each seeks to achieve. Moreover, the Court, under
certain circumstances, even encourages the reinforcement of a pre-
proclamation suit with election protest. Since they have different causes of
action, they can proceed independently. (Tan vs. COMELEC, 507 SCRA 352)
Continuance of the Case
If the petition appears meritorious on the basis of the evidence presented
so far, the COMELEC or the Supreme Court may order the case to continue.
(Sec. 16, RA 7166)
Proclamation
1. During the pendency of a pre-proclamation contest the Board of
Canvassers shall not make any proclamation without any authorization
from the COMELEC.(Jamil vs. COMELEC, 283 SCRA 349 and Munoz vs.
COMELEC, 495 SCRA 407)
2. Proclamation may be made if the contested returns will not adversely
affect the results of the elections. [Sec. 20 (i), RA 7166]
3. The COMELEC may order the proclamation of other winning candidates
whose election will not be affected by the pre-proclamation case. (Sec. 21,
RA 7166)
4. A candidate for mayor who finished second cannot be proclaimed simply
because the candidate who received the highest number of votes died,
since he was not the choice of the people. (Benito vs. COMELEC, 235 SCRA
436)
5. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner
to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a
declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality
of votes to be declared elected. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76)
XIII. ELECTION CONTESTS
A. Jurisdiction
1. Supreme Court (Presidential Electoral Tribunal)
1. President
2. Vice-President (Sec. 4, Art. VII, Phil. Constitution)
2. Senate Electoral Tribunal – Senators (Sec. 17. Art VI, PC)
3. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal – Congressmen (Sec. 17, Art.
VI, PC; Sampayan vs. Daza, 213 SCRA 807)
4. Commission on Elections
1. Regional officials
2. Provincial officials
3. City officials (Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-C, PC; Sec. 249 BP 881)
5. Regional Trial Court– Municipal officials (Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-C, PC; Sec. 251,
BP 881; Papandayan vs. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 469)
Under SC AO 54-2007, the Supreme Court designated 111 regional trial
courts to serve as special courts to handle election contests involving
municipal officials. All single sala courts are considered special courts. In
multiple sala areas where no special courts had been designated, the
election cases would be raffled to the regular courts.
6. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and Municipal
Trial Court – Barangay officials [Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-C, PC; Sec. 252 BP
881;Regatcho vs. Cleto, 126 SCRA 342)
7. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court – Sangguniang Kabataan (Sec. 1, RA 7166)
 B. Action which may be filed 3. The running of the reglementary period to file an election protest is tolled
1. Election Protest by a party’s elevation to the Supreme Court of a COMELEC decision or
Requisites: resolution of a pre-proclamation case. (Roquero vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA
i. Must be filed by any candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy 150)
and has been voted upon for the same office. 4. The period to file an election protest is suspended by the filing of a petition
ii. On grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts committed to annul the proclamation of the winner. (Manahan vs. Bernardo, 283
before, during or after the casting and counting of votes. SCRA 505)
iii. Except for President, Vice President and Senators, within 10 days from 5. Since the filing of a pre-proclamation case merely suspends the running of
the proclamation of the results of the election. the period to file an election protest, only the balance of the period is left
2. Quo Warranto in case of dismissal. (Roquero vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 150)
Requisites: 6. Where the evidence of lack of Filipino citizenship of a provincial official was
i. Filed by any registered voter in the constituency. discovered only 8 months after his proclamation, the quo warranto case
ii. On grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. should be allowed even if it was filed more than 10 days after his
iii. Within 10 days from the proclamation of the results of the election. proclamation. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245)
3. Procedure 7. The filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading,
1. Period of filing contest does not toll the running of the period to file an appeal. (Villamor vs.
1. Periods COMELEC, 496 SCRA 334)
1. President and Vice President
2. Protestant or Petitioner
1. Protest – 30 days (Rule 14, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal) 1. President and Vice President
2. Quo Warranto – 10 days (Rule 15, Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal) 1. Protest – Candidate with second or third highest number of votes (Rule 14,
Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal and Poe vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 454
2. Senators SCRA 142)
1. Protest – 15 days (Rule 14, Revised Rules of Senate Electoral Tribunal) 2. Quo Warranto – any voter (Rule 15, Rules of Presidential Electoral
2. Quo Warranto – 10 days (Rule 15, Revised Rules of Senate Electoral Tribunal)
Tribunal)
3. Congressman – 10 days (Rule 16 and 17, 1998 Rules of House of 2. Senator
Represntatives Electoral Tribunal) 1. Protest – any candidate (Rule 14, Revised Rules of Senate Electoral
4. Regional, provincial and city officials – 10 days (Secs. 250 and 253, BB 881; Tribunal)
Republic vs. Dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 78) 2. Quo Warranto – any voter (Rule 15, 1998 Rules of Senate Electoral
5. Municipal officials – 10 days (Secs. 251 and 253, BP 881) Tribunal)
6. Barangay officials – 10 days (Secs. 252 and 253, BP 881)
7. Sangguniang Kabataan – 10 days (Sec. 1 RA 7808) 3. Congressman
1. Protest – Any candidate (Rule 16, 1998 Rules of House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal)
2. Exceptions 2. Quo Warranto – Any voter (Rule 17, 1998 Rules of House of
1. The period to file an election protest or quo warranto case is suspended Representatives Electoral Tribunal)
from the filing of a pre-proclamation case until receipt of the order
dismissing the case. (Sec. 248, BP 881; Gatchalian vs. CA, 245 SCRA 208) 4. Regional, Provincial, City officials
2. If the dismissal was elevated to the Supreme Court, the period does not 1. Protest – any candidate (Sec. 250, BP 881)
run until receipt of the dismissal by the Supreme Court, because review by 2. Quo Warranto – any voter (Sec. 253, BP 881)
the Supreme Court is part of the proceeding. (Gallardo vs. Rimando, 187
SCRA 463) 5. Municipal officials
1. Protest – any candidate for the same office with the second or third into the very substance of the protest. Under Section 21 of the Revised
highest number of votes For multi-slot positions, only four candidates Rules of Procedure of the HRET, insufficiency in form and substance of the
following the last-ranked winner. (New SC Rules of Procedure for Election petition constitutes a ground for the immediate dismissal of the
Contest Involving Municipal Officials) petition. (Pena vs. HRET, 270 SCRA 340)
2. Quo Warranto – any voter (Sec. 253, BP 881)
5. Verification
6. Barangay officials In the verification, private respondent (protestant) merely stated that he
1. Protest – any candidate (Sec. 252, BP 881) caused the preparation of his petition and he has read and understood all
2. Quo Warranto- any voter (Sec. 253, BP 881) the allegations therein. But when he failed to state in his verification that
the contents of the election protest are true and correct of his own
3. Allegations in Protest personal knowledge, said petition lacks proper verification and should be
1. An election protest should contain the following jurisdictional allegations: treated as an unsigned pleading and must be dismissed.(Soller vs.
1. The protestant is a candidate who duly filed a certificate of candidacy and COMELEC, 339 SCRA 685) But in Baddiri vs. COMELEC, 459 SCRA 808, it was
was voted for in the election. held the COMELEC has discretion to liberally construe its rules. Thus, it may
2. The protestee has been proclaimed elected. suspend its Rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
3. The date of proclamation. (Miro vs. COMELEC, 121 SCRA 466) and
4. The precincts where the alleged fraud or irregularity took place. 6. Certificate of Absence of Forum Shopping
a. Forum shopping exists when the petitioner files multiple petitions or
2. Substantial compliance is sufficient. Thus the following allegations complaints involving the same issues in two or more tribunal or
sufficiently comply with the first requirement. agencies.(Domingo vs. COMELEC, 313 SCRA 311)
1. The protestant received a certain number of votes. (Anis. Vs. Contreras, 55 b. The requirement that every initial pleading should contain a certification
Phil. 929) of absence of forum shopping applies to election cases for Circular No. 04-
2. The protestant finished second in the election. (Ali vs. CFI Of Lanao, 80 Phil 94 does not distinguish. (Loyola vs. CA, 245 SCRA 477; Tomarong vs.
506) Lubguban, 269 SCRA 624)
1. SC Adm. Circular No. 04-94 requiring a certification of non- forum shopping
3. The protestant was a candidate voted for in the election with a valid is applicable to election cases as it is mandatory. It is, however, not
certificate of candidacy for mayor. (Pamania vs Pilapil, 81 Phil 212 jurisdictional. The filing of a certification of absence of forum shopping
iv. The protestant was one of the registered candidates voted for and he after the filing of the protest but within the period for filing a protest is
received a certain number of votes. (Jalandoni vs. Sarcon, 94 Phil 266) substantial compliance. (Loyola, supra) The filing of the certification after
v. The protestant was the official candidate of a particular political party the period for filing a protest is not a substantial compliance. (Tumarong,
and received a certain number of votes. (Maquinay vs. Bleza, 100 SCRA supra)
702)
vi. The protestant was a candidate for governor and was voted for. (Macias 2. But in Jaramilla vs. COMELEC, 414SCRA337, it was held that the COMELEC
vs. COMELEC, 182 SCRA 137) has the authority suspend the reglementary period provided by the rules,
or the requirement of certification on non-forum shopping in the interest
c. Even if the protest did not allege the date of the proclamation, it can be of justice and speedy resolution of cases before it.
determined from the records of the case that it was filed on time, as when
the protest was filed on the tenth from the date the casting of votes was 3. The strict application of the non-forum shopping rule in election contest
held, the protest should not be dismissed. (Miro vs. COMELEC, 121 SCRA would not work to the best interest of the parties and the electorate. An
466) election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public
interest – it involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary
4. Form and Substance interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep
An election protest which does not specify the precinct where the alleged public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the
irregularities occurred is fatally defective. This is a fatal omission, as it goes real choice of the electorate. (Barroso vs. Ampig Jr., 328 SCRA 530)

4. The requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a certificate
of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The subsequent compliance with
said requirement does not excuse a party’s failure to comply therewith in
the first instance. In those cases where the Supreme Court excused the
non-compliance with the requirement of the non-submission of a
certificate of non-forum shopping, it found special circumstances or
compelling reasons which made the strict application of said Circular
clearly unjustified or inequitable. In this case however, the petitioner
offered no valid justification for her failure to comply with the Circular.
Hence, the submission by the petitioner of the requisite certificate after
the ten-day period for the filing of election protest did not operate as a
substantial compliance with the Circular. (Batoy vs. RTC Branch 50, Laoay,
Bohol, 397 SCRA 506)
7. Payment of Docket Fee
A court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. (Soller vs. COMELEC, 339 SCRA 685) Failure to pay
filing fees will warrant outright dismissal of the action and the election
tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case. (Banaga vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA
701) But in Jaramilla vs. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 337, it was held that the
COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case before it by reason of non-
payment of filing fees. The COMELEC has the discretion whether to
entertain the petition or not in case of non-payment of legal fees. And
even if it were not afforded such discretion, it is authorized to suspend its
rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
The date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of the
filing of the lection protest and must be viewed vis-à-vis Section 3, Rule 25
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that the petition shall
be filed within ten (10) days following the date of the proclamation of the
results of the election. Hence, the subsequent payment of the filing fee on
June 6, 1997, did not cure the jurisdictional defect because the said date
which is deemed the actual date of filing the election protest is twenty five
(25) days after the proclamation of the results of the lection on May 12,
1997 and way beyond the ten-day reglementary period to file the
same. (Melendres vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 262)
The rule prescribing the ten-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional and
the filing of an election protest beyond the period deprives the court of
jurisdiction over the protest. Violation of this rule should not be taken
lightly nor should it be brushed aside as a mere procedural lapse that can
be overlooked. The rule is not a mere technicality but an essential
requirement, the non-compliance of which would oust the court
jurisdiction over the case.
Relatedly, if the docket fees are not paid on time, even if the election
protest is timely filed, the court is deprived of jurisdiction over the
case.(Id.)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pahilan and Gatchalian bar any claim of
good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full
amount of filing fees in election cases. Clearly then, the Court would no
longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees
for election cases and any error in the payment of filing fees in election
cases is no longer excusable.
Where the protestant included a claim for attorney’s fees in his protest
and paid the docket fee for his claim for attorney’s fees but did not pay the
basic docket fee for the election protest, the election protest should be
dismissed. (Gatchalian vs. CA 245 SCRA 208)
8. Cash Deposit
A protestee who filed a counterclaim for attorney’s fees cannot be
required to file a cash deposit, since a cash deposit is required only for a
counter-protest. (Roa vs. Inting, 231 SCRA 57)
9. Abandonment
A defeated candidate for president who filed an election protest and ran
for senator should be deemed to have abandoned the protest. The protest
is rendered moot and academic by its abandonment by the protestant as a
consequence of her election and assumption of office as senator and her
discharge of duties and functions thereof. (Santiago vs. Ramos, 253
SCRA559)
10. Expiration of Term
Expiration of the term of office contested in the election protest has the
effect of rendering the same moot and academic and is, therefore,
dismissible on that ground unless the rendering of the decision on the
merits would be of practical value. (Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397)
NOTE:
*Instances when jurisdiction of the Court is not acquired
1. When election protest is filed beyond the ten-day period from
proclamation; and
2. When filing fee is not paid, or paid insufficiently, or paid in full but beyond
the ten-day period to file the protest.
*Other instances when election protest is dismissible
 (1) Defective verification
(2) Failure of protestant to comply with Adm. Cir. No. 04-94
3. Failure of protestant to deposit revisors fee within three (3) days after
being required by the Court.
4. When election protest is insufficient in form and substance
5. When protestant abandons/withdraws the protest
6. When the election protest has been deemed moot and academic by the
expiration of the term of office contested in the protest unless the
rendering of decision on the merits would be of practical value.
11. Substantial Amendments/Change of Theory
Substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only within the
ten-day period after proclamation for filing protest. (Pena vs. HRET, 270
SCRA 340)
A protestant’s radical shift in his cause of action from the original and
traditional ballot revision process to precinct-level document based
anomalies – which broadens the scope of the electoral protest or
introduce additional cause of action constitutes substantial amendment.
As such it should be subjected to the rule that substantial amendments
may be allowed only within the ten (10) day prescriptible period from
proclamation. (Arroyo vs. HRET, 224 SCRA 384)
12. Joinder of election protest and quo warranto case
1. An election protest and a quo warranto case cannot be filed jointly in the
same proceeding. However, they can be filed separately. (Luisaon vs.
Garcia, GR No. L-10916, May 20, 1957)
2. If they were joined in an action, they should be ordered separated. (Pacal
vs. Ramos, 81 Phil 30)
13. Preliminary Motions
A motion to dismiss and a motion for a bill of particulars may be filed in an
election protest pending before the regular courts, since the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure are not applicable to the regular courts because of the
exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court.(Aruelo vs. CA, 227
SCRA 311)
Section 1, Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that
a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading refers only to proceedings filed
before the COMELEC. No where in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is it
provided that motions to dismiss and bill of particulars are not allowed in
the election protest or quo warranto cases pending before regular courts.
Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting
the filing of a certain pleading in the regular courts. The power to
promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts is vested in the Supreme Court. (Maruhom vs. COMELEC, 331 SCRA
473)
14. Deferment of counter-protest
Where protestee refuses to allow his counter-protested precincts to be
revised except after a showing that the protestant leads by a margin of at
least one (1) vote after revision of the protestant’s protested precinct, such
refusal is deemed an abandonment or withdrawal of the counter-protest.
Protestee cannot insist later that the counter-protested precincts be
revised. (Abeja vs. Tanada, 236 SCRA 60)
15.Facsimile Transmission of Pleadings
Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court. A facsimile
is not a genuine and authentic pleading It is, at best, an exact copy
preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no
way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine
and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It
may, be a sham pleading. The uncertainty of the authenticity of a facsimile
pleading should have restrained the COMELEC from acting on the petition
and issuing the questioned order. The COMELEC should have waited until it
received the petition by registered mail. (Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 767)
16. Opening of Ballot Boxes
When an election protest is filed, the ballot boxes should be opened
without requiring proof of irregularities, and misappreciation of
ballots. (Crispino vs. Panganiban, 219 SCRA 621; Manahan vs. Bernardo,
283 SCRA 505)
Where there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the
perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial
duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballots and the
examination and counting of ballots deposited therein. (Arao vs. COMELEC,
210 SCRA 290 and Miguel vs. COMELEC, 335 SCRA 172)
The opening of ballot boxes and examination of ballots is the simplest and
most expeditious means to determine falsity/truth of allegations. To
require parol or other evidence on alleged irregularities before opening
the ballot box would have given the protestee ample opportunity to delay
the proceedings. Hence, there is grave abuse of discretion when a court,
instead of ordering the opening of ballot boxes to revise the ballots, orders
the conduct of preliminary hearing on election fraud, anomalies and
irregularities recited in the protestant’s pleading, requiring protestant to
 adduce documentary, competent and definite evidence that would
traverse the Narrative Report of the Election Officer that the election was
clean, honest and peaceful. (Miguel vs. COMELEC, supra)
The revision of the ballots in an election protest filed with the COMELEC
should be held in Manila. (Cabagnot vs. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 503)
17. Appreciation/Authentication of Ballots
Evidence aliunde is not necessary to enable the court to determine
authenticity of ballots and genuineness of the handwriting on the ballot. A
thorough examination of the ballots by the Court is already
sufficient. (Bacobo vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 576) Handwriting expert is not
necessary to examine and compare handwriting on ballots. (Punzalan vs.
COMELEC, 289 SCRA 702, citing Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
of Evidence)
There shall be a liberal construction in appreciation of ballots to the end
that the will of the electorate in the choice of public official may not be
defeated by technical infirmities. (Punzalan vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 702
and Bince vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273)
Failure to authenticate the ballot with signature of Chairman of the BEI as
required by RA 7166 and by COMELEC resolution is not a ground to
invalidate ballot. A ballot without BEI Chairman’s signature at the back is
valid, genuine and not spurious, provided that it bears any one of these
other authenticating marks, to wit (a) the COMELEC watermark, or (b) the
signature
or initials, or thumbprint of the Chairman of the BEI, and (c) in those cases
where the COMELEC watermarks are blurred or not readily apparent to the
naked eye, the presence of red and blue fibers in the ballots. (Libanan vs.
HRET, 283 SCRA 520 and Malabaguio vs. COMELEC, 346 SCRA 699)
18. Motion to Photocopy Ballots
Just as the court may allow, for good cause shown, the reproduction of
relevant evidence in the custody of any party, so it may allow the same
with respect to evidence in its custody. Although the grant of such motion
is admittedly discretionary on the part of the trial court judge,
nevertheless, it cannot be arbitrarily or unreasonably denied because to do
so would bar access to relevant evidence that may be used by a party-
litigant and hence, impair his fundamental right to due process. In this
case, photocopying the ballots is the only way by which the petitioner can
secure the evidence needed to support his claim that certain irregularities
in the voting took place. Since after the revision and recount, the ballots
are required to be returned to their respective ballot boxes, the
photocopies will serve as admissible secondary evidence which may be
used for future reference by the party-litigants, as well as the court itself,
in the appreciation of the ballots cast. Equally important is the fact that by
securing a certified true copy of the ballots subject of the controversy, all
parties concerned will be assured that, in case of loss or destruction of the
ballots reliable copies would still be available. (Alberto vs. COMELEC, 311
SCRA 215)
19. Composition of Board of Canvassers
The illegality of the composition of the board of canvassers cannot be
raised in a quo warranto case, as only the ineligibility or disloyalty of the
winner can be raised in such case. (Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631)
20. Answer/Counter Protest
An answer filed out of time cannot be admitted. (Kho vs. COMELEC, 279
SCRA 463)
Where the answer of the protestee was filed out of time and a general
denial was entered in favor of the protestee, the rule in civil cases that a
general denial operates as an admission is not applicable. (Loyola vs. HRET,
229 SCRA 90)
A counter protest cannot be allowed if the answer was filed out of
time. (Lim vs. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 53)
21. Substitution
1. Even if the protestee has resigned, the protest should continue, as a
favorable judgment will entitle the protestant to assume the office. (Delos
Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46 Phil 599) The same holds true if the protestee
accepted another position. (Calvo vs. Maramba, GR No. 13206, January 7,
1918)
3. If the protestee died, he should be substituted by his successor, such as
the vice mayor. (Dela Victoria vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 561) He
cannot be substituted by his heirs, since public office cannot be inherited.
Hence, the widow may no longer prosecute the deceased protestee’s
counterclaim for damages against protestant for that was extinguished
when death terminated his right to occupy the contested office. (Abeja vs.
Tanada, 236 SCRA 60)
4. The death of the protestant is not a ground to dismiss the election protest
nor oust the court of its jurisdiction to decide the election contest. The
Vice-Mayor elect has the status of a real party-in-interest in the
continuation of the proceeding and is entitled to intervene therein. For if
 the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor
succeeds to the office of the Mayor that becomes vacant if the duly
elected one cannot assume the post. Section 17 of Rule 3 of the Revised
Rules of Court which requires a 30-day period for substitution of parties by
reason of death may be applied by analogy or in suppletory character in
this case. (De Castro vs. COMELEC, 267 SCRA 806)
5. But in Poe vs. GMA, 454 SCRA 142, the Supreme Court held that, pursuant
to Rule 14 of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, only the registered
candidate for President and Vice President of the Philippines who received
the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of
the President or Vice President, as the case may be, by filing a verified
petition with the Clerk of the PET within 30 days after the proclamation of
the winner. Pursuant to this rule, only two persons, the 2nd and
3rd placers, may contest the election. By this express enumeration, the
rule makers, have in effect determined the real parties in interest
concerning the on-going election contest. It envisions a scenario where, if
the declared winner had not been truly voted upon y the electorate, the
candidate who received that 2nd or 3rd highest number of votes would be
the legitimate beneficiary in a successful election contest.
While the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public
officer, an election protest is not purely personal and
exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of
either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. The Court has allowed substitution and intervention but only
by the real party in interest. Where the widow is not a real party in
interest, Court has denied substitution by the wife or heirs. (Ibid.)
22. Summary Judgment
The rules on summary judgment have no application to election protests
for “beyond the narrow personal stakes of the opposing candidates, the
rights of the electorate, or the people, are involved. Expediency is not an
excuse for not pursuing to the maximum efforts necessary in the
ascertainment of the real and actual winner in the election, by examining
the best evidence available- the ballots. By rendering a summary
judgment, the trial court denied itself the chance to directly scrutinize and
appreciate the primary evidence of the true will of the voters – the ballots.
Hence, in an election protest, the trial court may not make a finding that
there is no genuine issue to be resolved until and unless it shall have given
the protestant a chance to substantiate his protest. The trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion when it summarily dismissed the
election protest based merely on interrogatories where both of them had
no participation. There is no showing in the records that private
respondent either agreed to the adoption of, or was given opportunity to
answer the interrogatories which clearly constitutes a violation of due
process. Likewise, an election protest cannot be decided by summary
judgment, as summary judgment may be used only as between parties to a
case. (Dayo vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 449)
23. Injunction
A protestee cannot be enjoined from assuming office because of the
pendency of an election protest. Until the case is decided against him, he
has the right to assume office. (Cereno vs. Dictado, 160 SCRA 759)
24. Certiorari
Under Sec. 50 of BP 697, the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases pending
before courts whose decision are appealable to it. (Relampagos vs. Cumba,
243 SCRA 690; Edding vs. COMELEC, 246 SCRA 502)
Where a petition for certiorari merely questioned the denial of the motion
of the protestee for extension of time to answer, the COMELEC cannot
affirm the decision of the merits in the election protest. (Acosta vs.
COMELEC, 293 SCRA 578)
25. Evidence
The genuineness of the handwriting in the ballots can be determined
without calling handwriting experts. (Erni vs. COMELEC, 243 SCRA 706)
Unless the original documents or certified true copies of them cannot be
produced or photo-copies cannot be used as evidence. (Arroyo vs. HRET,
246 SCRA 384)
Ballots cannot be excluded on the ground that they were written by one
person or were marked on the basis of mere photo-copies, as they are not
the best evidence. (Nazareno vs. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 89)
26. Demurrer
A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence of the protestant after the
protestant has rested is a demurrer to the evidence. If it was granted but
reversed on appeal, the protestee is deemed to have waive the right to
present evidence. (Enojas vs. COMELEC, 283 SCRA 229)The Supreme Court
ruled that the nature of election protest differ from an ordinary civil
action. The Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply
to election cases even by analogy or in a suppletory character, especially
because the application of said Rules would not be practical and
convenient. In this case, the COMELEC en banc shall decide motions for
 reconsideration only of “decisions” of a Division, meaning those acts of
final character. Clearly, the assailed order denying petitioner’s demurrer to
evidence, being interlocutory, may not be resolved by the COMELEC en
banc. (Gementiza vs. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 724)
27. Decision
1. A petition or protest contesting the election of barangay officials should be
decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial court within fifteen (15)
days from its filing. Courts are mandated to give preference to election
contests over all other cases, except petitions for habeas corpus and
judges are enjoined to hear and decide election contests without delay.
The period provided by law must be observed faithfully because an
election case involves public interests. Time is of the essence in its
disposition since uncertainty as to who is the real choice of the people for
the position must be soonest be dispelled.(Sanchez vs. Alaan, 501 SCRA 11
b. Judges of special courts involving municipal officials are directed to
resolve cases within six months after filing. Extensions beyond the six-
month period would be subject to the approval of the Supreme Court.
Should the judge fail to resolve the election contest within six months, he
would be placed under preventive suspension and relieve of all duties
except to decide on the case. The judge would also be subjected to
disciplinary action. (New SC Rules of Procedure for Election Contest
Involving Municipal Officials)
c. A defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office in case of
disqualification of the winning candidate. (Labo vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA
297 and Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400)
d. For the position of Punong Barangay or SK Chairman, both of which has
no vice position, the official who can legally succeed in case of vacancy
therein is the kagawad who got the highest number of votes.
e. If the winner is ineligible, the candidate who got the highest number of
votes cannot be proclaimed elected, as he did not get the majority or
plurality of the votes. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76)
28. Award of Damages
1. Actual or compensatory damages may be awarded in all election contests
or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with law, i.e., the provisions
of the Civil Code pertinent to damages. (Sec. 259, BP 881)
2. The loser cannot be ordered to reimburse the winner for the expenses
incurred in the election protest, for no law provides for it. (Atienza vs.
COMELEC, 239 SCRA 298)
c. Under Sec. 264, par. 1 of BP 881, as amended, the award of damages is
not among the imposable penalties for the commission of any of the
election offenses thereunder by an individual. (Regalado vs. CA, 325 SCRA
516)
3. The mere fact that the decision in favor of the protestant was reversed on
appeal is not sufficient basis for ruling that the protestee should be
awarded attorney’s fees, because the protest was filed for
harassment. (Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397)
29. Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal
BP 881 and the other election laws do not specifically provide for
execution pending appeal of judgment in election cases, unlike the Election
Code of 1971. The failure of the extant election laws to reproduce Sec. 218
of the Election Code of 1971 does not mean that the execution of
judgment pending appeal is no longer available in election cases.
The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized and given approval to
execution of judgments pending appeal in election cases filed under
existing laws…The rationale why execution pending appeal is allowed in
election cases is “to give much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s
decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation
by the board of canvassers
Governed by Section 2, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Execution pending appeal should be based upon “good reasons” to be
stated in a special order. The following constitute “good reasons” and a
combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution
pending appeal:
i. Public interest involved or will of the electorate
ii. the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested
office
iii. length of time that the election contest has been pending (Fermo vs.
COMELEC 328 SCRA 52)
iv. Filing of bond as a condition for the issuance of a corresponding writ of
execution to answer for the payment of damages which the aggrieved
party may suffer by reason of the execution pending appeal. (Ramas vs.
COMELEC, 286 SCRA 189)
 Execution pending appeal cannot be ordered on the basis of gratuitous
allegations that public interest is involved and that the appeal is
dilatory. (Camlian vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 757) A motion for execution
pending appeal filed after the expiration of the period to appeal can no
longer be granted. (Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690)
A motion for execution pending appeal based on Sec. 2 of Rule 39, Rules of
Court may be granted on motion of prevailing party that cites good
reasons and while the court has jurisdiction over the case and in
possession of either the original record or the record of appeal at the time
of filing the motion. Good reasons must be stated in the order granting the
motion. (Zacate vs. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 441)
The requisites for the grant of execution pending appeal are:
(1) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the
adverse party;
(2) there must be a good reason for the execution pending appeal; and
3. the good reason must be stated in a special order granting the execution
pending appeal.. (Navarosa vs. COMELEC, 411 SCRA 369)
30. Motion for reconsideration
a. One motion for reconsideration is allowed in the contest involving the
following:
i. President – 10 days
ii. Vice President – 10 days (Rule 65, Rules of Presidential Electoral
Tribunal)
3. Senator – 10 days (Rule 64 of Senate Electoral Tribunal)
4. Congressmen – 10 days (Rule 74, 1988 Rules of HRET)
5. Regional, provincial and city officials – 5 days (Sec. 2, Rule 19, COMELEC
Rules of Procedure)
b. No motion for reconsideration is allowed in election contests involving
the following:
1. Municipal officials (Sec. 256, BP 881; Veloria vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 907)
However, this rule should not be applied to the dismissal of an election
protest for failure of the counsel of the protestant to appear at the pre-
trial, since pre-trial is not applicable to election protest. (Pangilinan vs. De
Ocampo, 232 SCRA)
2. Barangay officials (Sec. 19, Rule 37 and Sec. 12, Rule 38, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure)
3. Sanggunian Kabataan (Sec. 19, Rule 37 and Sec. 12 Rule 38, COMELEC
Rules of Procedure)
c. Since only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be elevated to the
Supreme Court, a party who did not file a motion for reconsideration of a
decision of a division of the COMELEC cannot elevate the case to the
Supreme Court. (Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41)
d. A resolution of the COMELEC en banc is not subject to reconsideration,
therefore, any party who disagrees with it is to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure – a motion for
reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in
election offense cases is a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure.
For a party to wait until the COMELEC en banc denies his motion for
reconsideration would be to allow the reglementary period for filing a
petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to run and expire. (Angelia
vs. COMELEC, 322 SCRA 757)
30. Review
1. Jurisdiction
1. Senator – Supreme Court within 60 days. (Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court)
2. Congressman – Supreme Court within 60 days (Lerias vs. HRET; Sec. 4, Rule
65, Rules of Court)
3. Regional, provincial and city officials – Supreme Court within 30 days (Sec.
7, Art IX-A, Phil. Const.)
4. Municipal officials
1. COMELEC within 5 days (Sec. 22 RA 7166; Sec. 3 Rule 22 of COMELEC Rules
of Procedure, (Lindo vs. COMELEC, 194 SCRA 25 and Zamora vs. COMELEC,
442 SCRA 397)
2) Supreme Court within 30 days (Rivera vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 178)
v. Barangay officials
 1) COMELEC within 5 days [Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-C, Phil. Const.; Sec. 3, Rule 22,
COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Calucag vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 4 05]
2) Supreme Court within 30 days (Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484)
vi. Sangguniang Kabataan
1. COMELEC within 5 days (Sec. 1 RA 7808)
2) Supreme Court within 30 days (Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484)
2. Form
Where the appellant filed an appeal brief instead of a notice of appeal to
the COMELEC, the appeal should not be dismissed, since the determination
of the will of the people should not be thwarted of technicalities. (Pahilan
vs. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205)
3. Failure to Pay Appellate Docket Fee
1. An appeal may be dismissed for failure of the appellant to pay the
appellate docket fee. (Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41)
2. An appeal may be dismissed if the full appellate docket fee was not paid,
as payment of the full amount is indispensable for perfection of the
appeal.(Rodillas vs. COMELEC, 245 SCRA 702)
3. Where the appeal involved a barangay election, appeal must be made to
the COMELEC within five days from promulgation. Appeal fee must be paid
within the same period in the cash division of the COMELEC. While the
notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period and appeal fees
were paid on time the payment was made with the cashier of METC and
not with cash division of COMELEC. After realizing his mistake, appellant
paid the total amount of appeal fee on the ninth day to the COMELEC.
Dismissal of appeal by the COMELEC is proper for failure to pay appeal fees
on time.(Villota vs. COMELEC, GR No. 146724, August 10, 2001)
4.
4. Scope of Authority
Errors committed by the trial court may be considered even if they were
not assigned as errors. (Arao vs. COMELEC, 210 SCRA 290)
XIV. ELECTION OFFENSES
1. Criminal and electoral aspects of an election offense.
An election offense has criminal as well as electoral aspects. (Sunga vs.
COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76)
1. Its criminal aspect involves the ascertainment of the guilt or innocence of
the accused candidate like in any other criminal case, it usually entails a
full-blown hearing and the quantum of proof required to secure a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Its electoral aspect is a determination of whether the offender should be
disqualified from office. This is done through administrative proceeding
which is summary in character and requires only a clear preponderance of
evidence. Thus, under Section 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
petitions for disqualifications “shall be heard summarily after due notice.”
In a disqualification case, it is the electoral aspect that is involved under
which an erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior criminal
conviction. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76)
The COMELEC is mandated to dismiss a complaint for disqualification of a
candidate who has been charged with an election offense under Section
251 of the OEC but who has already been proclaimed as winner by the
Board of Canvassers. But is the COMELEC finds that there is probable
cause, it shall order its Law Department to file appropriate Information
with the Regional Trial Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the
offense, but shall nonetheless, order the dismissal of the complaint for
disqualification, without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal case. If
the trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged, it shall order his disqualification pursuant to Section 264
of the OEC as amended by Section 46 of RA 8189. (Albana vs. COMELEC,
435 SCRA 98)
2. Administrative liability in election related cases
1. A first level court has no jurisdiction to order the suspension of the
canvassing of election returns. Libardos vs. Casar, 234 SCRA 13)
2. A judge who grants a petition for inclusion of voters by simply conducting
an interview of the petitioners is administratively liable. (Mercado vs.
Judge Dysangco, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1301, July 30, 2002)
3. By annulling protestee’s proclamation as duly elected Punong Barangay,
despite being aware of the fact that his court had no power to do so, not
only is the judge guilty of grave abuse of authority, he also manifests
unfaithfulness to a basic legal rule as well as injudicious conduct..
Whenever an application for TRO is filed, the Court may act on the
application only after all parties have been notified and heard in a
summary hearing. Issuing the TRO after receiving evidence ex parte is
grave abuse of authority, misconduct and prejudicial to the proper
administration of justice.(Gustilo vs. Judge Real, 353 SCRA 1)
 4. A lower court judge who issued a writ of injunction against the
COMELEC, his court being of subordinate status and rank vis-à-vis the
COMELEC, is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The judge should have
known that COMELEC, since its creation, has been accorded full discretion
given its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relative
to the conduct of election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
recall.(COMELEC vs. Judge Datu Imam, 304 SCRA 106)
5. Violation of Section 232 of the OEC, which makes unlawful for the
persons referred therein to enter the canvassing room, is a non-criminal
act but certainly warrants, after proper hearing, the imposition of
administrative penalties. Under Section 2 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, the COMELEC may recommend to the President the
imposition of disciplinary action on any officer or employee the COMELEC
has deputized for violation of its directive. Also, under the Revised
Administrative Code, the COMELEC may recommend to the proper
authority the suspension or removal of any government official or
employee found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to comply
with COMELEC orders or findings. (Malinias vs. COMELEC, 390 SCRA 480)
3. Persons criminally liable
Not only principals but also accomplices and accessories, as defined in the
Revised Penal Code, are criminally liable for election offenses. If one
responsible be a political party or an entity, its president or head, the
officials and employees of the same, performing duties connected with the
offense committed and its members who may be principals, accomplices
or accessories shall be liable, in addition to the liability of such party or
entity.
Transactional Immunity. Those who have committed election offenses but
volunteer to give information and testify on any violation of said law in any
official investigation, or proceeding with reference to which his
information and testimony is given transactional immunity. The testimony
of a voluntary witness in accord with his sworn statement operates as a
pardon for the criminal charges to which it relates. If such witness later
refuses to testify or testifies but contrary to his affidavit, he loses his
immunity from suit and may be prosecuted for violation of Sec. 261 (a) and
(b) of the OEC, perjury under Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, or false
testimony under Art. 180 of the same Code. (COMELEC vs. Espanol, 417
SCRA 554)
The power to grant exemption is vested solely on the COMELEC. This
power is concomitant with its authority to enforce election laws,
investigate election offenses and prosecute those committing the same.
The exercise of such power should not be interfered with by the trial court.
Neither may the Supreme Court interfere with the COMELEC’s exercise of
its discretion in denying or granting exemptions under the law, unless the
COMELEC commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack
of jurisdiction. (Ibid.)
4. Penalties
As a general rule, the penalty for an election offense under the Code,
except that of failure to register and failure to vote, is imprisonment of not
less than one year but not more than six years and the offender shall not
be subject to probation and shall suffer disqualification to hold public
office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. However, RA 9369 upgraded
the penalty to 8 years and 1 day to 12 years for the offense of failure to
post voters list, stealing ballots, election returns and certificates of canvass
and, to life imprisonment for the special election offense of electoral
sabotage.
5. Investigation and Prosecution: COMELEC Jurisdiction
1. The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to investigate and when
appropriate, prosecute election offenses. (Art. IX-C, 2(6)). The conduct of
preliminary for the purpose of determining whether or not there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charge,
and therefore, should be subjected to trial is the function of the
COMELEC. (COMELEC vs. Espanol, 417 SCRA 554)
2. The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation of and prosecute election offenses committed by any person,
whether private individual or public officer or employee, and in the latter
instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in relation to
his official duties or not. It is the nature of the offense and not the
personality of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an
election offense, jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the
COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over the conduct of
election. [Sec 2(6), Art. IX-C, Phil. Const.; Sec. 265 BP 881; Naldoza vs.
Lavilles, 254 SCRA 286) This holds true even if the offense is committed by
a public officer in relation to his office. (Corpuz vs. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA
281)
3. All that is required in the preliminary investigation is the determination
of probable cause to justify the holding of petitioners for trial. Preliminary
investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the
parties’ evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and
accused is probably guilty thereof. The Finding of probable cause in the
prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC’s sound discretion.
Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC
absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. (Baytan vs. COMELEC,
396 SCRA 703)
4. Under Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC, through its duly authorized
legal officers, has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation
of all election offenses punishable under the OEC, and to prosecute the
same. The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated
authority are, in legal contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC. (COMELEC
vs. Espanol, 417 SCRA 554)
The COMELEC may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government. The COMELEC can deputize prosecutors to investigate and
prosecute offenses even after election. (People vs. Basilla, 179 SCRA
87) The Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Prosecutors, or their
respective assistants are given continuing authority, as deputies of the
COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving
election offenses and to prosecute the same. This authority may be
revoked or withdrawn by the COMELEC anytime whenever, in its
judgment, such revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the
integrity of the COMELEC and to promote the common good, or when it
believes that the successful prosecution of the case can be done by the
COMELEC. (COMELEC vs. Tagle, 397 SCRA 618
When the COMELEC nullifies a resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor
which is the basis of the informations for vote-buying, it, in effect,
withdraws the deputation granted to the prosecutor. Such withdrawal of
the deputation was clearly in order, considering the circumstances
obtaining in those cases,where those who voluntarily executed affidavits
attesting to the vote – buying
incident became witnesses against the vote buyers now stand as accused
for the same acts they had earlier denounced. What the Prosecutor did
was to sabotage the prosecution of the criminal case against the “vote-
buyers” and put in serious peril the integrity of the COMELEC. (Id.)
5 .In the absence of any revocation of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure delegating authority to other prosecution arms of the
government to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving
election offenses, the city prosecutor’s “continuing delegation” to
prosecute a case for violation of the election gun ban stays. (Margarejo vs.
Escoses, 365 SCRA 190)
6. A provincial election supervisor authorized to conduct a preliminary
investigation may file a case without need of approval of the provincial
prosecutor. (People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788)
7. A prosecutor who was deputized by the COMELEC cannot oppose the
appeal filed by the COMELEC from the dismissal of a case, since the power
to prosecute election offenses is vested in the COMELEC. (COMELEC vs.
Silva, 286 SCRA 177)
8. Since it is a preliminary investigation, it is the COMELEC who will
determine the existence of probable cause, the complainant cannot ask it
to gather evidence in support of the complaint. (Kilosbayan, Inc. vs.
COMELEC, 280 SCRA 892)
9. Whether initiated motu propio or filed with the COMELEC by any other
party, the complaint shall be referred to the COMELEC Law Department for
investigation…The COMELEC Chairman, in his personal capacity may file a
complaint directly with the COMELEC Law Department pursuant to Sec. 4,
Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. No requirement in Sec. 5 that
only the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department
for investigation nor is there a rule against the COMELEC Chairman
directing the conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself
were the complainant in his private capacity…Where the complaint was
directly filed with the Law Department under Sec. 4 of Rule 32 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure obviously there is no need to refer such
complaint to the same Law Department…Under Sec. 5 of Rule 34 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the preliminary investigation may be
delegated to any of those officials specified in the rule upon the direction
of the COMELEC Chairman. (Laurel vs. Presiding Judge, RTC Manila Br. 10,
323 SCRA 778)
10. The court in which a criminal case was filed may order the COMELEC to
order a reinvestigation. (People vs. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715)
F. Jurisdiction to try the Case
The Regional Trial Court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try
and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the Omnibus
Election Code.
The expanded jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (RA 7691) does not
include criminal cases involving election offenses, because by special
provision of Section 268 of BP 881, they fall within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court. (COMELEC vs. Noynay, 292 SCRA 354)
 Under Sec. 268 of BP 881, regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to
try and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation of the Code,
including those penalized by imprisonment not exceeding six years, but
“except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to
vote.”(Juan vs. People, 322 SCRA 125)
G. Preferential disposition of election offense
Section 257 of the OEC requires that the election cases brought before the
COMELEC shall be decided within 90 days from the date of its submission
for decision. However, the “preferential disposition” applies to cases
involving violations of the election laws before the courts and not those
before the COMELEC. Hence, the COMELEC did not abuse its discretion
when it failed to treat the case preferentially. (Alvarez vs. COMELEC, 353
SCRA 434)
H. Prescriptive period for election offenses
Prescription of the crime or offense is the forfeiture or loss of the right of
the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of certain time. Election
offenses shall prescribe after five (5) years from the date of their
commission. If the discovery of the offense be made in an election contest
proceedings, the period of prescription shall commence on the date on
which the judgment in such proceedings becomes final and executory.
The offense of double registration allegedly occurred on June 22, 1997
when petitioners registered for a second time in a different precinct
without canceling their previous registration. At this point the period of
prescription for the alleged offense started to run. However, prescription is
interrupted when the proceedings are instituted against the offender.
Specifically, the period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of the
complaint even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or
preliminary investigation. The liberal construction of punitive laws in
relation to the prescription of offenses cannot be invoked to prejudice the
interest of the State to prosecute election offenses. (Baytan vs. COMELEC,
396 SCRA 703)
I. Conviction and Pardon
1. The necessary penalty of temporary absolute disqualification disqualifies
the convict from public office and from the right to vote, such
disqualification to last only during the term of sentence.
2. The accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification for exercise of
suffrage deprives the convict of the right to vote or to be elected to or hold
public office perpetually, as distinguished from temporary disqualification
which last during the term of the sentence.
3. The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the
right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term
of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to
vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to such
office.
4. The President may grant pardon for those convicted of election offenses
only upon the recommendation of the COMELEC.
5. A plenary pardon, granted after the election but before the date fixed by
law for assuming office, has the effect of removing the disqualification
prescribed by both the criminal and electoral laws. (Lacuna vs. Abes, 24
SCRA 780)
6. Where the court failed to impose the accessory penalty provided for by
law, the same is deemed imposed.
7.
6. Offenses
1. Vote-buying
1. The fact that at least one voter in at least 20 % of the precincts in a
municipality, city or province was offered money by the relatives, leaders,
or sympathizers of a candidate to promote his elections shall create a
presumption of conspiracy to bribe voters.
2. The fact that at least 20% of the precincts of the municipality, city or
province to which the office aspired for by the candidates is affected by
the offer creates the presumption that the candidate and his campaign
managers are involved in the conspiracy.
c. Any person who is guilty and willingly testifies shall be exempt from
prosecution. (Sec. 28, RA 6646)
One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of vote-buying and
of prosecuting those committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal
liability in favor of the party whose vote was bought. This grant of
immunity will encourage the recipient or acceptor to come into the open
and denounce the culprit-candidate, and will ensure the successful
prosecution of the criminal case against the latter. (Tagle vs. COMELEC,
397 SCRA 618)
d. The traditional gift-giving by the municipality during Christmas, which
was not done to induce voters for the mayor, does not constitute vote-
buying. (Lozano vs. Martinez, 203 SCRA 256)
2. Appointment of New Employees
The prohibition against appointment of a government employee within 45
days before regular election refers to position covered by the civil service
and does not apply to the replacement of a councilor who died. (Ong vs.
Martinez, 188 SCRA 830)
3. Transfer of Government Employees
Since the Omnibus Election Code does not per se prohibit the transfer of
government employees during the election period but only penalizes such
transfers made without the prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance
with the implementing regulations, the transfer of government employees
before the publication of the implementing regulations is not an election
offense. (People vs. Reyes, 247 SCRA 328)
Two elements of the offense prescribed under Sec. 261 (h) of BP 881, as
amended are: (1) a public officer or employee is transferred or detailed
within the election period as fixed by the COMELEC, and (2) the transfer or
detail was effected without prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance
with its implementing rules and regulations. (Regalado vs. CA, 325 SCRA
516)
4. Unauthorized Entry into Polling Place
Mere presence of an unauthorized person inside a polling place is an
offense. (COMELEC vs. Romillo, 158 SCRA 716)
5. Failure to make Proclamation
Proclaiming a losing candidate instead of the winner also constitutes
failure to make a proclamation. (Agujetas vs. CA, 261 SCRA 17)
6. Carrying deadly weapon in Precinct
To support a conviction carrying a deadly weapon inside a precinct under
Section 261(p) of the OEC, it is not necessary that the deadly weapon be
seized from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a radius of
100 meters therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried the deadly
weapon “in the polling place and within a radius of 100 meters thereof”
during any of the specified days and hours. (Mappala vs. Nunez, 240 SCRA
600)
7. Refusing to Credit Candidate with Vote
Under Sec. 27(b) of RA 6646, two act, not one, are penalized i.e., first, the
tampering, increasing or decreasing of votes received by a candidate in any
election; and second, the refusal, after proper verification and hearing, to
credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes. (Pimentel vs.
COMELEC, 289 SCRA 586) Under RA 9369, if these acts are perpetuated in a
large scale, the same shall be considered not as an ordinary election
offense under Sec 261 and/or 262 of BP 881 but a special election offense
to be known as electoral sabotage and the penalty to be imposed shall be
life imprisonment.
8. Switching of Ballots
Switching of official ballots with simulated ballots is an election related
incident, not an ordinary act of falsification of public documents, for which
the COMELEC, through its authorized legal officers, has the exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute.(Pena vs.
Martizano, 403 SCRA 281)
9. Electoral Sabotage
Under RA 9369, The Poll Automation Law, amending RA 8436, the
following shall be guilty of a non-bailable special election offense to be
known as electoral sabotage which is punishable by life imprisonment:
1. Any person who removes the certificate of canvass posted on the wall,
whether within or after the prescribed 48 hours of posting, or defaces the
same in any manner.
2. Any person who simulates an actual certificate of canvass or statement of
votes, or a print or digital copy thereof.
3. The Chairman or any member of the Board of Canvassers who signs or
authenticates a print of the certificate of canvass or its supporting
statement of votes outside of the canvassing area.
4. When the tampering of votes, or refusal to credit the correct votes or
deduct tampered votes is/are committed in the election of national
elective office which is voted upon nationwide and such acts shall
adversely affect the results of the election to the said national office to the
extent that losing candidate/s is/are made to appear the winner/s.
5. Regardless of the elective office involved, when the tampering of votes
committed, or the refusal to credit the correct vote or to deduct tampered
votes perpetrated, is accomplished in a single document and involved in
the said tampering exceed 5000 votes, and the same adversely affects the
true results of the election.
6. Any and all other forms of tampering increase/s and/or decrease/s
perpetuated or in cases of refusal to credit the correct votes or deduct the
tampered votes, where the total votes involved exceed 10,000 votes.
I. Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy
1. 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 function
which must first be decided by the COMELEC in division. Hence, the
COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the
cancellation of a candidate’s certificate of candidacy without first referring
the case to a division for summary hearing. A summary proceeding does
not mean that the COMELEC should throw away the requirements of
notice and hearing. The COMELEC should have at least given notice to the
candidate to give him the chance to adduce evidence to explain his side in
the cancellation proceedings. The COMELEC has deprived the candidate of
procedural due process of law when it approved the report of the Law
Department without notice and hearing. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 414
SCRA299)
2. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a
ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. The COMELEC may
not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. A petition to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy shall be heard summarily
after due notice. The law mandates that the candidates must be notified of
the petition against them and should be given the opportunity to present
evidence on their behalf. This is the essence of due process.(Luna vs.
COMELEC, 522 SCRA 107)
In Lluz vs. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 456, the Court cited three
conclusions: First, a misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is
material when it refers to the qualification for elective office and affects
the candidate’s eligibility. Second, when a candidate commits a material
representation, he or she may be proceeded against through a petition to
deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78, or
through criminal prosecution under Section 262 for violation of Section
74. Third, a misrepresentation of a non-material fact, or a non-material
misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy under Section 78. In other words, for a candidate’s
certificate of candidacy to be denied due course or canceled by the
COMELEC, the fact misrepresented must pertain to a qualification for the
office sought by the candidate.
necessarily presupposes that the “qualified citizen of the Philippines
abroad” is not physically present in the country. Under RA 9189, an
immigrant may still be considered a “qualified citizen of the Philippines
abroad” upon fulfillment of the requirement of registration under the new
law for the purpose of exercising their right of suffrage. The qualified
Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to have retained his
domicile in the Philippines. He is presumed not to have lost his domicile by
his physical absence from this country. His having become an immigrant
does not necessarily imply an abandonment of his intention to return to
his domicile of origin, the Philippines. He must be given the opportunity to
express that he has not actually abandoned his domicile in the Philippines
by executing the affidavit. The execution of the affidavit is not the enabling
or enfranchising act. The affidavit is not only proof of the intention of the
immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the
Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that
he had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin.
In the same case, the Court also ruled that Section 25 of the same law
empowering Congress through the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee to exercise the power to review, revise, amend and approve
the Implementing Rules and Regulations that the COMELEC shall
promulgate, is unconstitutional This portion of the law is violates the
independence of the COMELEC as it restricts the COMELEC’s constitutional
domain to enforce and administer all election laws.

In the case of Macalintal vs. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 11, 2003, the
Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(d) of RA 9189 does not violate the
residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution. Stating
that it is an exception to the residency requirement. The Constitution’s
framers intended to enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino citizens
abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin. Congress
enacted the law prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in
compliance with the constitutional mandate. Such mandate expressly
requires that Congress provide a system of absentee voting that