ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
together and they elect the federation officers. That is the federation
PART I- ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
ELECTION, GENERALLY
ELECTION, DEFINED
How do you define election?
 It is a means by which people choose their officials for a definite and fixed
period and to whom they entrust for the time being the exercise of the
powers of government.
COMMENT:
 I describe this definition as the classic definition. It captures every essence
of the election.
What are the “means” to choose officials?
 Either manual or automated system
What is the basis for the phrase “people choose their officials”?
 It is based on the sovereign will or power of the people.
What does the phrase “for the time being” mean?
 It is only temporary.
What does the phrase “definite and fixed period” mean?
 It refers to the term of office, which means a fixed period of time which the
law describes that an officer may hold an office.
 It is the time during which an officer may claim to hold an office as a
matter of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents
shall succeed one another.
COMMENT:
 If you are elected, you are time bound. There is a contract that your term
of office is until that period of time
How is election defined in its ordinary and common use?
 It is voting which includes the act of receiving and casting the ballots,
counting them and making the return.
How is election defined in the context of the Constitution?
 It refers to the conduct of polls including the registration, campaign,
casting, counting, and canvassing of votes.
COMMENT:
 Election is comprehensive
ELECTION, DEFINED UNDER
TAULE VS SANTOS
Facts: The Secretary of the Local Government nullified the election of
federation officers on the ground of irregularity. It was argued that
jurisdiction over election contests involving election of federation officers
belongs to COMELEC.
Held: The jurisdiction of the COMELEC is limited to popular election only,
which is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people.
It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by
popular vote as opposed to election of federation officers.
In Constitutional context, it is the conduct of polls. Including
registration, campaign, casting, counting, and canvassing of votes.
None of these characterizes the federation election.
COMMENTS:
 What happened here was there was a federation officers election (SK).
Every barangay there is an SK Chair, and all Sk Chair from all barangay come
Page 1 of 42
officers election.
 In this case it was not about the SK but about the ABC. But there is no
such term as Barangay Captain as in law we call them Punong Barangay,
not Kapitan..not Kap.
 Because of irregularities, the DILG nullified the election. They argued
that you have no right to nullify because election gani, comelec jud na.
 In other words, if its federation officials gani and wala nag directly vote
ang mga botante, that is not under the jurisdiction of COMELEC;
 What is the role of the COMELEC when we elect ABC Officers? The
comelec is only there to supervise, to observe but it has no jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction belongs to the DILG.
ELECTION, DEFINED WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION
JAVIER VS COMELEC
Facts: Javier challenged the proclamation of Pacificador by the COMELEC
Second Division on the ground that it should be done by the en banc
pursuant to the Constitution. Pacificador argued that at the time the
complaint was filed, it was still in the nature of a pre-proclamation
controversy hence may be resolved by a division in the exercise of its
administrative power to enforce election laws relative to election,
return and qualifications.
Held: Under the Constitution, the term “election” should be interpreted in
its totality that it refers to the conduct of polls, registration of voters,
campaign, and the casting and counting of votes.
In making the COMELEC the sole judge of all contests involving
the election, returns and qualifications of Members of Congress, the
Constitution intended to give it full authority to hear and decide these
cases from the beginning to end and on all related matters, including
those arising before the proclamation of winners.
ELECTION, PURPOSE
LINO LUNA VS RODRIGUEZ
The purpose of elections in a democratic society is to give the
voters a direct participation in the affairs of their government, either in
determining who shall be their public officials or in deciding some
question of public interest; and for that purpose all of the legal voters
should be permitted, unhampered and unmolested, to cast their ballot.
RULLODA VS COMELEC
Facts: A widow substituted her deceased husband as candidate for
punong barangay and obtained the highest number of votes. But it was
voided because substitution is not allowed in barangay elections, it
being non-partisan. As such, there is no political party from which a
substitute is designated.
Held: The absence of the provision for substitution in barangay elections
does not mean it is prohibited. Such interpretation ignores the purpose
of election laws which is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will
of the voters.
COMMENTS:
 The widow did not file a COC, but she merely wrote the COMELEC law
department that she will replace her husband. So election…nidaog sya.
So the losing party questioned it contending that she is not a legitimate
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
party because she did not file a COC.
 Technicalities aside, somebody won, the people have spoken respect that.
 It treated the letter to the law department as the COC. In other words, it
liberalize the rules.
 Caveat: please do not use this as precedent because today COMELEC is
very strict. The moment you file your COC, that’s the only time you are
considered as a candidate. Without a COC you can never be a candidate.
ELECTION LAWS, HOW CONSTRUED
CARLOS VS ANGELES
Facts: The proclamation of a mayor was nullified by the lower court on the
account that he won through significant badges of fraud like mismatch of
keys to the padlocks, empty ballot boxes, boxes with election returns, delay
in counting due to brownouts, absence of watchers during counting.
Held: These did not affect the integrity of the ballots.
Election contests involve public interest and technicalities should not
impede the determination of the true will of the people.
FRIVALDO VS COMELEC
Facts: A candidate for governor was disqualified because he did not reacquire
his Filipino citizenship at the time he filed his CoC and at the time of
election.
Held: Citizenship need not be possessed at the time of filing of CoC or
election, but must be at the start of the term.
In case of doubt, election laws are liberally construed and equitably
construed in favor of sovereign will.
In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of
popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood
legalisms.
COMMENTS:
This was the time of Marcos, and he was anti- Marcos. As he could no
longer stand the dictatorship, he went to the US, renounced his Philippine
citizenship. He became a US citizen. However, when Cory Aquino came to
power, he came back, ran for governor once or twice, and won twice. On the
third time, there was a disqualification case filed against him contending that
at the time he filed his COC, he was not yet a Filipino Citizen, he did not
reacquire his Philippine citizenship.
At the start of term lang niya na reacquire iyang Philippine citizenship;
and again, the SC liberalized.
Caveat: Do not use this as precedent because today, comelec’s very strict.
You will be disqualified when you lack the necessary qualifications at the
time of the filing of the COC.
It’s only here that when we construe election laws, the purpose is only to
give life to the sovereign will or choice of the people. Technicalities aside.
I AM SO INLoVE WITH THIS STATEMENT. So well written. That’s my one liner
for this case.
ELECTION, CLASSIFIED
What are the kinds of election?
 Regular election – refers to one provided by law on such dates at regular
intervals for the election officers either nationwide or in certain
subdivisions.
 Special election – refers to one held to fill vacancy before the expiration of
the full term for which the incumbent was elected.
- it is also held when there is failure of election
Page 2 of 42
Is the Sangguniang Kabataan election regular or special?
 Neither, based on the definition of a regular and special election.
COMMENTS:
There was a protest but the RTC nullified the proclamation on the basis
that his victory was done through badges of fraud such as:
 the keys to the ballot box were mismatched: the fact that you cannot
open that meaning it is so safe and secured
 there were empty ballot boxes: what of it? We are not going to count
an empty ballot box.
 Boxes without election returns: if there is no election returns, no
problem. In the same way that if you see a PCOS machine somewhere
else, don't be alarmed. It's useless. A PCOS machine without a memory
card is like a cellphone without a sim card. But people speculate.
 Delay in counting due to brownout: if there is a brownout or power
interruption, the best thing to do is stop the counting. If there is power
again, resume the counting.
 Absence of watchers during counting: it is not the fault of the COMELEC
if the watchers disappeared during the counting because the
proceedings inside the polling place continue with or without the
watchers.
The Supreme court said: These did not affect the integrity of the ballots.
 If the watchers believe that there are irregularities inside the polling
place, the proper thing to do is file a written protest and must be
received by the BEI (teachers). Once received, give to the lawyer for the
election protest later on.
 The watchers are actually the lawyers inside the polling place. Election
contests involve public interest and technicalities should not defeat the
determination of the true will of the people. The Supreme court said
the the RTC is without jurisdiction to nullify the proclamation.
Kinds of election
 How do you classify elections?
Regular – regular intervals like president, vice president down to
municipal councilors elected 2nd Monday of May every 3 years.
Special – if there is vacancy in the office (eg. Congressman has
permanent disability, death), we fill it out by special election. What if
the vacancy occurs in the office of the governor/mayor, there is no
election because the remedy is succession. There is also another
kind of special election if there is failure of election. If election fails
in a municipality for example, then that has to be postponed and
reset to another date and that another date is now the special
election.
SK is neither regular nor special. Then what it is then? They say it is
irregular.
How is this answered in the case of Paras v Comelec?
SK ELECTION IS NOT A REGULAR
PARAS VS COMELEC
Facts: A punong barangay was subject of a recall election that was
scheduled within a year prior to the SK election, which also falls on the
second year of the term of office of local elective officials.
Section 74 of the Local Government Code prohibits recall election within a
year from assumption of office and within a year immediately
preceding the next regular local election.
Held: If the SK election was a regular election, there would be no more
recall election because it always falls within the second year of term of
office, the only time when a recall election is allowed. Thus, the next
regular election must refer to one where the office of the official
sought to be recalled is contested.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
The SK election is not a regular election because its members do not even
possess suffrage under the Constitution. The SK is nothing more than a
youth organization. Its elected officer are not one of those enumerated as
elective local officials under the law.
COMMENTS:
 In this case, there was a punong barangay subject of a recall election. On
the year na ma recall unta sya, there was also an SK election. Sec 74 of the
LGC says, yes there can be a recall election. However, you cannot do that
within the year from the assumption of office and within the year following
the next regular election.
 In this case, the SK election was held on the 2 nd nd
year. And that 2 year was
supposedly the only time he can recall an elective official. The result is you
can never recall an elective official. How did the supreme court rule? If the
SK election is a regular election, there will be no recall election because it
always falls on the 2nd year of the term of office.
 The SK officials is not one of those enumerated as public officials. In this
case, Justice Davide said that the SK is nothing but a mere youth
organization which jurisdiction falls under the DILG and not the COMELEC.
What are the requisites of special election after failure of election in Lucero
v COMELEC?
SPECIAL ELECTION AFTER FAILURE
LUCERO VS COMELEC
Facts: Two candidates for district representative were separated by a mere
175 votes. But no election as done in one polling place with 213 voters due
to ballot snatching. But the leading candidate questioned the authority of
the COMELEC to call for special election after almost two years.
Held: There are two requisites for holding a special election: One, there is a
failure of election. Two, such failure affects the results of the election.
Since only 175 votes separate them, the 213 votes in the polling place
where election failed could still affect the results of the election.
The delay was not attributable to the voters of the polling place where
election failed but to the legal maneuvers of parties. Thus, the holding of
special election almost two years after the regular election is still
‘reasonably close to the date of election not held.’
COMMENTS:
 The problem is nagdaog na. But the difference is only 175 votes.
 Precinct – that is your territory. That is your address, your sitio, your
barangay, your neighborhood.
 Voting Center – the school
 Polling place – the classroom where you actually vote
 In this case, there is a polling place which results were snatched. That is a
ground where you can say there is failure of election. But in that polling
place, there were a maximum of 213 votes. There is still a possibility where
you can still overcome the first placer. What if the 2 nd placer got 213 votes
then he can still overcome the first placer. Keyword: statistically probable.
 The COMELEC now reset the election and had a special election for that
polling place. The winner said the COMELEC has no authority because the
law says if you want to reset the election, it must be reasonably close to
the election upheld. What happened in this case is it is only after 2 years
that had the special election. The supreme court answered that there are 2
requisites for holding a special election.
 One there is failure of election. In this case, ni fail man jud ang election – gi
snatch ang ballot. Even though there was voting in the polling place, but
the results which embody the proceedings in the voting can no longer be
found.
Page 3 of 42
 Second, the failure affects the results of the election. In other words,
even if we give everything to the 2nd placer, does it affect the results? Is
it still statistically probable?
 In this case, these 2 conditions were met. So the court granted the
special election. Another argument was it's too late of the day – it's
been 2 years. The law says reasonably close. The supreme court said it
is your fault. Your lawyers had legal maneuvers that delayed the
proceedings.
SYSTEMS OF ELECTION
Manual system of election.
B.P 881 or the Omnibus Election Code
Automated Election System (AES)
R.A 8436 as amended by R.A. 9369
Manual count during automated election.
R.A. 8436, Section 9
R.A 9369, Section 11
COMMENTS:
Even though we are automated nationwide, still the barangay elections
remain manual. The reason is there is no need for transmission. Why? In
barangay elections, including SK, the winners are proclaimed within the
barangay only.
How did Loong v COMELEC answer whether there can be manual count
during automated election?
MANUAL COUNT DURING
LOONG VS COMELEC
Facts: During the first automated election in ARMM the counting
machines in the Province of Sulu could not accurately read the official
ballots because the ovals opposite the names of candidates were
misaligned. In 5 municipalities, the official ballots were rejected
because of incorrect sequence codes. Thus, the COMELEC ordered a
manual count which was opposed on the ground that under the
automation law, automated counting is mandatory. The remedy is not
manual count but replacement of defective counting machines.
Held: Manual counting during automated election is not prohibited by
law. The Constitutional grant of power to ‘enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of election’ is so broad as
to cover all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the
objective of holding a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
COMMENTS:
 There are glitches and the system can detect it. In this case, because of
the misalignment of the ovals, if you vote for candidate A, the vote
goes to candidate B. In 5 municipalities, the ballots were rejected
because in automation, dili jud masaag ang ballots. The COMELEC said
okay, dili man ta ka count accurately, manual count nalang ta. It was
opposed. How can there be manual count in automated elections? The
supreme court said manual count in automated elections is not
prohibited by law. In the first place, automated elections is not
mandatory. If you read the law, it says “Congress authorizes COMELEC
to automate the elections”. It did not say mandates but merely
authorizes. Manual elections is the last resort. It is always possible.
 If you insist on automated counting, the result is inaccurate – does not
reflect the true will of the people.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR ELECTION
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 4 of 42
Article II, Section 1, 1987 Constitution:
The Philippines is a democratic and Republican State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanate from them.

ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, ENUMERATED

Who are elective officials?
 1 President
 1 Vice-President
 12 Senators
 1 House Representative per legislative district
 1 Governor per province
 1 ARMM Governor
 1 ARMM Vice-Governor
 3 ARMM Assemblymen per assembly district
 1 Mayor per city and municipality
 1 Vice-Mayor per city and municipality
 12/10/8 SP Members per city
 8(?) Members per municipality

For May 9, 2016 elections:

 1 President
 1 Vice-President
 12 Senators
 238 House Representatives
 81 Governors
 81 Vice-Governors
 776 SP Members
 145 City Mayors
 1,624 SP Members
 1, 489 Municipal Mayors
 1, 489 Municipal Vice-Mayors
 11, 916 SB Members
 1 ARMM Regional Governor
 1 ARMM Regional Vice-Governor
 24 ARMM Regional Assembly
 18, 083 contested seats

Is there a Cordillera Autonomous Region according to Ordillo v COMELEC?

ORDILLO VS COMELEC
Facts: In a plebiscite, the people in the Cordillera region rejected autonomy,
except the Province of Ifugao. Thus, the COMELEC resolved that it now
compose the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
Held: A sole province cannot constitute an autonomous region which should
be interpreted in its common use and ordinary meaning, which
presupposes two or more provinces as shown in the 13 regions composed
of contiguous provinces into which the country is divided for administrative
purposes.

COMMENTS:
Q: Is there a cordillera autonomous region?
A: None. There was a plebiscite but out of the provinces, only Ifugao voted to
be part. The SC said the sole province cannot constitute an autonomous
region. There should be at least 2 provinces to constitute a region. This is a
statutory construction case. It would result to absurdity. We have regional
and provincial officials governing same territory and constituency.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
PRESIDENT, HOW ELECTED,
TERM OF OFFICE AND TERM LIMIT
Article VII, Section 4(1), 1987 Constitution:
The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the
people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same
date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-
election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such
for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at
any time.
COMMENTS:
 What does the phrase “direct vote” mean?
It means the president is elected by popular vote of the people for a term
of six years.
 The president is elected through popular vote. Compare with the US
system of elections. Americans do not directly elect their president and
vice president. They vote through electoral college. Principle: Winner takes
all. Each state has a minimum of 3 electoral votes. Advantage: avoids
concentration of power; disadvantage: does not reflect popular will
 The presidency is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
 In Pormento v Estrada: How did COMELEC resolved the issue regarding
Estrada's candidacy as president? That provision only applies to incumbent
presidents.
 Furtheremore, there was no TRO. The SC rendered it moot and academic
since Erap already lost to Nonoy.
How is it different from the election of President and Vice-President in the
United States?
 Americans do not directly elect their president and vice-president.
 Technically, they pick “electors” in an Electoral College.
 538 Electoral College votes are distributed among the 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
 Each State along with the DC has a minimum of Electoral College votes.
 It increments depending on the population according to the Census.
 Based on 2010 Census, effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential
elections, the electoral votes are distributed as follows:
o California - 55
o Texas - 38
o Florida - 29
o New York - 29
o Illinois - 20
o Pennsylvania - 20
o Ohio - 18
o Georgia - 16
o Michigan - 16
o North Carolina - 15
 The candidate who gets the popular vote in each state, wins all its the
Electoral College votes.
 Except in Maine and Nebraska, which use a tiered system.
 To win, the candidate needs at least 270 Electoral College votes.
 Argument for Electoral College system: it avoids concentration of power
under the hands of urban populations.
 Argument against – does not reflect the national will. In 2000, Gore won
the popular vote but Bush won 271 after he was deemed to have taken in
Florida.
What does the sentence “The President shall not be eligible for any
reelection.” mean?
 It means that the presidency is once in a lifetime opportunity. He cannot be
Page 5 of 42
reelected either immediately after his term of office or after an interval
of two or more terms.
But why was Joseph Estrada allowed to run in 2010 after having been
elected in 1998?
 The COMELEC said that the provision applies to incumbent presidents
only.
 It is said the better policy approach is to let the people decide who the
next president is.
 For on political questions, this court may err but the sovereign people
will not.
What did the Supreme Court say in Pormento v Estrada?
 It declined to exercise its power of judicial review. Since Estrada already
lost in the elections, the issue whether he can still run has become
moot and academic. It is no longer justiciable.
PORMENTO VS ESTRADA
FACTS:
 Estrada was elected President of the RP in the May 1998 elections
 He sought the presidency again in the May 2010 elections
 Pormento opposed Estrada’s candidacy and filed a petition for
disqualification. His petition was denied by the COMELEC (Division), as
well as his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration (En Banc)
 He filed the present petition for certiorari before the Court; however,
since such filing does not stay the execution of judgment or order of
the COMELEC under the Rules of Court, Estrada was able to participate
as a candidate for President in the May 10, 2010 elections where he
garnered the second highest number of votes
ISSUE:
 Whether Joseph Ejercito Estrada is covered by the ban on the President
from any reelection
HELD: The petition was rendered moot by the failure of Estrada to be
elected as President in the 2010 elections
 One of the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial
review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking
in this case.
 Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase “any
reelection” will be premised on a person’s second election as President,
there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case.
 There is no definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy that
touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.
No specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in this
case that will benefit any of the parties herein
 As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.
When a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.
 Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the
proclamation of a President who has been duly elected in the May 10,
2010 election, the same is no longer true today. Estada was not elected
President for the second time. Thus, any discussion of his “reelection”
will simply be hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or
practical purpose.
What is the difference of effects of succession on term limit between the
vice president and the vice mayor enunciated in Borja vs Comelec?
DIFF. OF EFFECTS OF SUCCESSION ON TERM LIMIT BETWEEN
THE VP AND V-MAYOR
BORJA VS COMELEC
Facts
 A vice mayor succeeded the mayor who died. He was elected mayor
twice in a row. He ran again as a mayor but was opposed on the ground
that he already served 3 consecutive terms as mayor.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
 Article VIII, Section 4 provides for succession of Vice President as President
in the event of vacancy where it says the President shall not be eligible for
any reelection.
 Then it says that “No person who has succeeded as President and has
served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to
the same office at any time
 By analogy the vice mayor shall likewise be considered to have served a full
term as mayor if he succeeds to the latter’s office and serves for the
remainder of the term
 The framers of the Constitution included such a provision because, without
it, the Vice President, who simply steps into the Presidency by succession
would be qualified to run for President even if he has occupied that office
for more than four years.
 The absence of a similar provision in Article 10 Section 8 on elective local
officials throws in bold relief the difference between the two cases. It
underscored the constitutional intent to cover only the terms of office to
which one may have been elected for purpose of 3 term limit on local
elective officials, disregarding for this purpose service by automatic
succession
 The Vice President is elected primarily to succeed the President in the
event of the latter’s death, permanent disability, removal or resignation.
While he may be appointed to the cabinet, his becoming so is entirely
dependent on the good graces of the President
 In running for Vice President, he may thus be said to also seek the
Presidency. For their part, the electors likewise choose as Vice President
the candidate who they think can fill the Presidency in the event it
becomes vacant. Hence, service in the presidency for more than four years
may rightly be considered as service for a full term.
 This is not so in the case of the vice mayor under the LGC, he is the
presiding officer of the sanggunian and he appoints all officials and
employees of such local assembly. He has distinct powers and functions,
succession to mayorship in the event of vacancy therein being only one of
them
 It cannot be said of him, as much as of the Vice President in the event of a
vacancy in the Presidency, that in running for vice mayor, he also seeks the
mayorship. His assumption of the mayorship in the event of vacancy is
more a matter of chance than of design. Hence, his service in that office
should not be counted in the application of any term limit.
 Succession of the vice president to the presidency for more than 4 years
is counted as one term whereas succession of the vice mayor to the
mayorship is not counted as one term for the purpose of determining
term limit.
PRESIDENT, QUALIFICATIONS
Art VII, Sec 2, 1987 Constitution
No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least 40 years of age
on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least 10
years immediately preceding such election.
Art IV, Sec 1 (3), 1987 Constitution
The ff are citizens of the Philippines:
xxx
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Flipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Art IV, Sec 2, 1987 Constitution
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with par. 3,
Section 1 shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO, DEFINED
Natural Born Filipino, defined
 Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from
Page 6 of 42
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship.
Is this rule absolute?
 No because it may be done through election. Article IV, Section 2, 1987
Constitution: Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3) , Section1 hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens
 Article IV Section 1 (3), 1987 Constitution: Those born before January
17 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
COMMENTS:
 Remember CARRL
1. Citizenship,
2. Age
3. Residency
4. Registration
5. Literacy
How do we define natural born Filipino?
 Also in the 1987 Constitution, it said there that, those born before Jan
17, 1973, who upon age of majority elects Philippine Citizenship are
also considered natural born citizens.
 Question there is, because the first premise is this: you are considered
natural born if you don’t need to do anything to acquire or perfect
Philippine citizenship. But here it says that once you reach majority,
and you elect Philippine citizenship, you are still considered natural
born. Why? Is election not a positive act to perfect your Philippine
citizenship?
 If the former (do not need to do anything to perfect etc.) is the general
rule, then the latter (Filipino mothers, elect at age of majority) is the
exception.
 1987 Consti Art 4 , Sec 1, par 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority.
How is this illustrated in Fornier vs Comelec?
NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO, DEFINED
FORNIER VS COMELEC
Facts:
 FPJ ran for president but he was sought to be disqualified because he is
not a natural born Filipino, his parents are both foreigners.
 His father could not be Filipino because his grandfather was a Spanish
subject
 Even if his father was a Filipino, he could not have transmitted his
Filipino citizenship to his son FPJ because the latter is illegitimate.
Held: The grandfather would have benefited from the en masse
Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Having
acquired Filipino citizenship, the grandfather extended it to his son,
who is the father of FPJ. Article IV Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution:
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
Since FPJ has first seen light under the 1935 Constitution which confers
citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate, he is a natural born Filipino because he did not need to
perform any act to acquire or perfect his Filipino citizenship.
FORNIER v COMELEC
G.R. No. 161824 March 3, 2004
One-liner: Natural-born citizens include those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
FACTS:
 This is a disqualification case filed against Fernando Poe Jr. assailing that
Poe made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy when
he claimed to be a natural born Filipino citizen. This case further raises the
issue of qualifications that a presidential candidate must possess to hold
the highest office of the land.
RULING:
 Denied the petition.
 Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:
"No person may be elected President unless he is
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of
age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election."
 The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include "those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship."
 It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a
natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not the
father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino
citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of
respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his
putative father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou
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 Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization"
that the Philippine bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo
Pou), 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.
 With this, Poe should be considered as a natural born citizen and further
qualified to run for presidency.
 Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes
are deserving of the privilege. It is a "precious heritage, as well as an
inestimable acquisition," that cannot be taken lightly by anyone — either
by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it.
Citizenship Issue (in-depth notes)
 Aristotle: Citizen refers to a man who shared in the
administration of justice and in the holding of an office. The
concept grew to include one who would both govern and be
governed, for which qualifications like autonomy, judgment
and loyalty could be expected.
 No Philippine citizens during Spanish regime, but “Subjects
of Spain” or “Indios”.
 Treaty of Paris (1898) between Spain and USA, Philippines
was ceded to the US. US Congress called us Philippine
citizens.
 Philippine Bill of 1902 aka Phil. Organic Act: a "citizen of
the Philippines" was one who was an inhabitant of the
Philippines, and a Spanish subject on the 11th day of April
1899. The term "inhabitant" was taken to include 1) a native-
born inhabitant, 2) an inhabitant who was a native of
Page 7 of 42
Peninsular Spain, and 3) an inhabitant who obtained
Spanish papers on or before 11 April 1899.
 Status of children born in the Philippines from Apr 11,
1899 to Jul 1, 1902? Acdg to Jus Soli, Filipinos.
 Through its history, four modes of acquiring citizenship
— naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis –
had been in vogue. But only jus soli and jus sangunis could
qualify a person to being a "natural-born" citizen of the
Philippines.
 Jones Law: a native-born inhabitant of the Philippines
was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 April
1899 if he was 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, 2)
residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that
date, not a citizen of some other country.
 1935 Constitution: Jus sangunis is the basis for Filipino
citizenship.
COMMENTS:
Fornier vs. COMELEC
 In this case, FPJ presented a body of evidence. How did the SC treat
that body of evidence? Did the SC fully believe the pieces of evidence
presented by FPJ? Not necessarily. But how come it said that based on
this body of evidence, FPJ is natural born if in the first place it was not
so 100% convinced about the authenticity, and sufficiency of these
pieces of evidence?
 What is the quantum of proof necessary to prove you are natural born?
Preponderance of evidence.
 Here in this case, the SC acutally did not 100% fully believe everything
that FPJ presented. But it said that it actually preponderates against the
petitioner. Because lisud man gud na when you say you are not natural
born. You are duty bound to prove a negative fact. As opposed to
positive presentation of evidence. It’s so hard to say he’s not president
as opposed to saying I am president. Remember the Grandfather of FPJ
was considered a Spanish subject Filipinized.
 Is it your fault that your father is a Foreigner? It’s not your fault why
imong inahan na minyo ug foreigner. That’s why the Constitution did
not place them in the same category ??? (them = those born of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship etc)
FOUNDLING AS A NATURAL BORN
POE VS COMELEC
RESIDENCE, DEFINED
Residence, defined
How is residence treated under election laws?
Residence is synonymous with domicile.
How is this illustrated in the case of Imelda Marcos vs Comelec?
MARCOS VS COMELEC
Facts:
 A candidate for district representative wrote in her CoC seven months
as her period of residence in the constituency where she seeks to be
elected preceding the election
 She was sought to be disqualified for failure to comply with the one
year residency requirement because she briefly stayed in the
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
constituency and resided and even voted in different places for four
decades
Held:
 It is the fact of residence, not a statement in the Certificate of Candidacy,
that is decisive whether an individual satisfies the residency requirement.
 Domicile means the individual’s permanent home, a place to which
whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return.
 An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has maintained several
residences for different purposes over a long period of time.
 If none of these purposes point unequivocally to an intention to abandon
her domicile of origin, she retains it.
MARCOS v COMELEC
G.R. No. 119976 Sept. 18, 1995
One-liner: For election purposes, ‘residence’ is synonymous with ‘domicile’,
that is, a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the
intention of returning.
FACTS:
 A petition for disqualification was filed against Mrs. Imelda- Romualdez
Marcos upon her filing of candidacy for the position of Representative of
the First District of Leyte. Said petition was filed by the incumbent
representative and was also running for the same position, alleging that
Mrs. Marcos did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency.
RULING:
 Dismiss the complaint and further proclaim Marcos as the duly elected
representative of the said district
 The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House
of Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the election."
 The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification
for certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that
when the Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it actually
means only "domicile"
 Domicile = an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever
absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on
facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent." It includes
the twin elements:
1. "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and
2. animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.
 Residence = the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is
the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country.
 A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another.
Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the
intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one
domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous
places of residence.
 His place of residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any
means necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of
remaining will constitute domicile.
 In the case at bar, Mrs. Marcos held various residences for different
purposes during the past four decades. None of these purposes
unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in
Tacloban, Leyte. While she was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally
followed the domicile of her parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached her
adulthood there and eventually established residence in different parts of
the country for various reasons. Even during her husband's presidency, at
the height of the Marcos Regime's powers, she kept her close ties to her
domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her
birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home province,
instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and
hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and
close relatives held positions of power either through the ballot or by
Page 8 of 42
appointment, always with either her influence or consent
 Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a
change of domicile, one must demonstrate:
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;
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
Only with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements
can the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change
of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one
cannot have two legal residences at the same time. Here, the evidence
adduced plainly lacks the degree of persuasiveness required to convince
the court that an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile
of choice indeed occurred. To effect an abandonment requires the
voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner's former domicile with
an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing
(domicilium voluntarium).
COMMENTS:
MARCOS VS COMELEC
 How many years was she a resident? 7 months, which is short of 5
months of residency as required by the law.
 How did Imelda justify this? Actually she said there, it was an honest
mistake.
 How did the SC treat that 7 month declaration, did the SC say that she
was a resident of TACLOBAN. Yes. How come the SC said she is but in
fact Imelda herself unilaterally declared in her COC that she is only a
resident for 7 months, how did the SC justify this response? Now
actually here, the SC said, regardless of your unilateral declaration in
your COC, the determination of your period of residence, is not
dependent upon it. It should be based on established facts, of whether
or not you are resident of your place. But here, you cannot move thru
this case, if you don’t pass by the concept that, residence is one with
domicile for purposes of election.
 How do you define domicile? … So even you leave that place for
business or pleasure, you always have that intention to return.
 Why? Where did Imelda go? Did she register somewhere else, aside
from Tolosa, in that 4 decade period? Yes, as a matter of fact she voted.
She went wherever Ferdinand went.
 Actually in this case it also classifies the 3 kinds of domicile.
1. Domicile of origin
a. Is it necessary that you are born there for that place to be your
domicile of origin? No. Imelda was in fact 8 years old when her
parents brought her there. So we cannot say that the domicile of
origin is necessarily your place of birth, because as young as 8 years
old you do not have any discretion as to where you want to go. Thus,
domicile of origin may be the place where you were born, or where
you were raised.
2. Domicile by operation of law
a. When she married Marcos, did she change her domicile by
operation of law? Because in this case it was established, that she
had the intention to go back. But, marriage operates to change by
operation of law, your domicile, provided if you comply with the
requisites. IN this case, the SC said there is no evidence to show that
Imelda abandoned her domicile.
b. Did the death of Marcos further strengthen Imelda’s position that
she did not abandon Tacloban? Yes. Why? The SC said, you cannot
compel the wife to still cling on to the domicile of her dead husband.
3. Domicile of choice
 So remember, residence is synonymous with domicile. So if residence is
defined as, physical presence in a locality, that would be sufficient. But
since we say that it is synonymous with domicile, your physical
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
presence in the locality is not required, as long as you intend to return to
that domicile, provided that is your domicile of origin.
DOMINO VS COMELEC
Facts: Domino ran as Representative in Sarangani, with 1 yr
and 2 months as residency in his COC. Comelec disqualified
him as his Voter’s Registration Record negate such. The
Constitution required at least 1 year residency. Domino won,
but his proclamation was put on hold.
Issue: WON Domino satisfied the residency requirement.
Held: No. The principal elements of domicile, physical
presence in the locality involved and intention to adopt it as
a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new domicile.
Domino lacked the intention to abandon his residence in QC
as he registered there as a voter (then just had it cancelled by
a MeTC to effect transfer to Sarangani). While voting is not
conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong
presumption of residence especially in this case where
DOMINO registered in his former barangay. Exercising the
right of election franchise is a deliberate public assertion of
the fact of residence, and is said to have decided
preponderance in a doubtful case upon the place the elector
claims as, or believes to be, his residence. While, Domino's
intention to establish residence in Sarangani can be gleaned
from the fact that he bought a house, sought cancellation of
his previous registration in QC and that he applied for
transfer of registration, DOMINO still falls short of the one
year residency requirement.
DOMINO v COMELEC
310 SCRA 546 (1999)
One-liner: "Residence" as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the
same thing as "domicile," which requires not only such bodily
presence in that place but also a declared and probable intent
to make it one's fixed and permanent place of abode, one's
home.
FACTS:
 This is a disqualification case to deny due course to or cancel the certificate
of candidacy of Juan Domino for the position of Representative of the lone
district of Sarangani Province because, allegedly, he is neither a resident
nor a registered voter of the province of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998
elections. That, Domino is a not a resident much less a registered voter of
the province of Sarangani substantiated by his registration in the precinct
of balara Quezon City and the Certificate of Candidacy filed in the same city
on 1995. That, he does not comply with the one year residence
requirement
ISSUE:
 WON Domino was a resident of the Province of Sarangani for atleast one
year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 election
RULING:
 No.
 The term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
Page 9 of 42
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as domicile. The
latter refers with the (1) intention to reside in a fixed place (2) personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.
 Definition of "Domicile"
- fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for
business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to
return.
- can be ascertained with the presence of the following rules,
namely: (1) that a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) when once established it remains until a new
one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or
domicile at a time.
 In the case at bar, petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos
Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice
at Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the
position of representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the May
1995 election.
 Moreover. a person's "domicile" once established is considered to
continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To
successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one
and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. In other words,
there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must
be for an 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.
 To establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place
must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. It requires
not only such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and
probable intent to make it one's fixed and permanent place of abode,
one's home.
 As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile,
(1) physical presence in the locality involved and
(2) intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to
establish a new domicile. No change of domicile will result if either of
these elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile without actual
residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor
does the fact of physical presence without intention.
 The lease contract entered into sometime in January 1997, does not
adequately support a change of domicile. The lease contract may be
indicative of DOMINO's intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not
engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of
one's original domicile. The mere absence of individual from his
permanent residence, no matter how long, without the intention to
abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile Thus the date
of the contract of lease of a house and lot located in the province of
Sarangani, i.e., 15 January 1997, cannot be used, in the absence of
other circumstances, as the reckoning period of the one-year residence
requirement.
 Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon
City is further strengthened by his act of registering as voter in one of
the precincts in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive of
residence, it does give rise to a strong presumption of residence
especially in this case where DOMINO registered in his former
barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is a deliberate public
assertion of the fact of residence, and is said to have decided
preponderance in a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as,
or believes to be, his residence. The fact that a party continuously
voted in a particular locality is a strong factor in assisting to determine
the status of his domicile.
 In showing compliance with the residency requirement, both intent
and actual presence in the district one intends to represent must satisfy
the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. Domino's failure
to do so rendered him ineligible and his election to office null and void.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
COMMENTS:
 3 requisites in order to change domicile:
1. Actual transfer of domicile
2. Bona fide intent to transfer
3. Actual acts that would prove such purpose
 Take note that these 3 requisites are actually matter of intention. It’s so
hard to concretize intentions. So the evidence should be based on actions.
In this case it’s a very common practice amongst politicians.
 In Domino vs COMELECc, what did the politician do to establish residence?
Contract of lease in Sarangani.
 After the contract of lease what happened? Did that contract graduate to
something else? Was there no extrajudicial settlement that actually sold
the property later on? There was.
 So at first, it was a rented house and lot. Later it said it was sold. That is
very common among politicians. How did the SC treat that kind of body of
evidence proving residence. The SC said that mere lease of house and lot is
not sufficient to engender a kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of residence.
PERIOD OF RESIDENCE
POE VS COMELEC
RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT, RATIONALE
TORAYNO VS COMELEC
Facts: Immediately after being the governor of Misamis
Oriental for the third term, Emano ran as Mayor of CDO,
saying in his COC his residency thereat for 2 yrs and 5
months. Emano asserted under oath that he was qualified to
act as governor until end of his term and admitted in sworn
statements that he was a resident of Misamis Oriental.
Petitioners: Residence is a continuing qualification that an
elective official must possess throughout his term. Thus,
private respondent could not have changed his residence to
CDO while he was still governor of Misamis Oriental.
Emano: I actually and physically reside in CDO while being Governor, since the
seat of provl govt is in CDO. There is no law preventing an elective official
from transferring residence while in office.
Issue: WON Emano acquired a bona fide domicile of choice
for at least 1 yr to qualify him to run as Mayor of CDO.
Held: Yes. The Constitution or the law intends 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. Such provision is aimed at excluding outsiders
from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing
in that community for electoral gain. Emano could not be
said to be a stranger or newcomer.
TORAYNO v COMELEC
G.R. No. 137329 August 9, 2000
Page 10 of 42
One-liner: The Constitution and the law requires residence
as a qualification for seeking and holding elective public
office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be
familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials
for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their
constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate
the seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire
for.
FACTS:
 Petitioners filed a case against respondent, Emano on the ground that
he was not able to fulfill the requirement of residency of 1 year when
he ran for mayor in CDO.
 Respondent previously served as governor in Misamis Oriental for 3
consecutive terms before he registered as a voter and ran for mayoralty
post in CDO.
ISSUE:
 WON respondent possessed the minimum period of residence to be
eligible to vote in CDO and be voted as a mayor thereof
RULING:
 YES.
 Respondent fulfilled the residency requirement because he bought a
house in CDO where he and his family actually resided in 1973 before
he registered as a voter in 1997.
 There is nothing in the law which bars an elected provincial official
from residing and/or registering as a voter in a highly urbanized city
whose residents are not given the right to vote for and be elected to a
position in the province embracing such highly urbanized city as long as
he has complied with the requirements prescribed by law in the case of
a qualified voter.
 Residence requirement, rationale: 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 — their needs, difficulties,
aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters
vital to their common welfare. The requisite period would give
candidates the opportunity to be familiar with their desired
constituencies, and likewise for the electorate to evaluate the former's
qualifications and fitness for the offices they seek.
COMMENTS:
 Because CDO, is a highly-urbanized city, you cannot be part of a
province. IOW, people in highly-urbanized cities cannot vote for
provincial officials. Mandaue city, is highly urbanized, but it remains
part of the province of Cebu, the reason there is prior to the LGC? Ask
Atty. Largo.
 There are 2 viewpoints here.
1. The viewpoint of the candidates: you should know the problems in the
locality of where you are running.
2. The viewpoint of the voter: is to know the qualifications, credentials,
personality, character and everything about the candidate. You cannot
know these things if the candidate is not residing in the locality.
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION
MAQUERA VS BORRA
FACTS:
 Maquera seeks that, RA 4421 which requires a candidate to post a
surety bond equivalent to one-year salary of the position to which he is
a candidate, be declared unconstitutional.
 Republic Act NO. 4421 requires a candidate to post a surety bond
equivalent to one-year salary of the position to which he is a candidate,
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
which bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government, if the candidate,
except when declared winner, fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast
for the office, there being not more than four candidates for the same
office.
ISSUE:
 WON RA 4421 is constitutional
HELD:
 NO. Property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of
the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of
social justice underlying the same, for said political system is premised
upon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that
the right to vote and to be voted for shall not be dependent upon the
wealth of the individual concerned, whereas social justice presupposes
equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no
person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to
public office; and
 The effect of said Republic Act No. 4421 is to impose property
qualifications in order that a person could run for a public office, which
property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the
Republican system ordained in the Constitution and the principle of social
justice underlying the same. Consequently, Republic Act No. 4421 is
unconstitutional and hence null and void.
COMMENTS:
 SC the posting of a cash bond is not one of those contemplated in the
Constitution. Why what are the qualifications to be President? CARRL. The
SC said that the enumeration of the requirements for Presidency are
exclusive. You cannot change by mere legislation. IT needs amendment by
the constitution.
 If it is required for you to post a cash bond, and you fail, it is called a
property disqualification.
 Along that line, there is a proposal, that only those taxpayers should be
allowed to vote? Does not make sense, forgetting that everybody pays
taxes everyday. Kanang VAT. Even the poorest of the poor.
VICE-PRESIDENT, HOW ELECTED,
TERM OF OFFICE AND TERM LIMIT
Art VII, Sec 4, 1987 Constitution
The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by
direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the
day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six
years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-
election. No person who has succeeded as President and has
served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
of the service for the full term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or
Page 11 of 42
city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of
canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than
thirty days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress,
upon determination of the authenticity and due execution
thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. x
xx
COMMENTS:
How is the vice President elected, how long is his term of office and
what are his qualification?
Article VII, Section 3, 1987 constitution:
There shall be a vice president who shall have the same qualifications and
term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the
President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the
President.
What is the term limit for the Vice President?
Article VII, Sec 4, 2nd par., 1987 Constitution
No Vice president shall serve for more than two successive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected
How is voluntary renunciation defined in Aldovino vs Comelec?
It is an act of surrender based on the free will or loss of title to office by
free choice. It is an act of abandonment that emanates from the author.
ALDOVINO VS COMELEC
FACTS:
 Respondent was elected councilor for three consecutive terms.
 During respondent’s third term Sandiganbayan preventively suspended
him which was subsequently lifted.
 Petitioner sought to cancel respondent’s certificate of candidacy or to
cancel it on the ground that he had been elected and had served for
three terms; his candidacy for a fourth term therefore violated the
three-term limit rule under the Constitution and Section 43(b) of RA
7160.
 COMELEC ruled that preventive suspension is an effective interruption
because it renders the suspended public official unable to provide
complete service for the full term; thus, such term should not be
counted for the purpose of the three-term limit rule.
 The present petition seeks to annul and set aside this COMELEC ruling
for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
1. Whether preventive suspension of an elected local official is an
interruption of the three-term limit rule; and
2. Whether preventive suspension is considered involuntary renunciation
as contemplated in Section 43(b) of RA 7160
RULING:
1. No.
i) Preventive suspension does not involve an effective interruption of a
term and should therefore not be a reason to avoid the three-term
limitation.
ii) A preventive suspension cannot be a term interruption
because the suspended official continues to stay in office although
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
he is barred from exercising the functions and prerogatives of the office
within the suspension period. The best indicator of the suspended
official’s continuity in office is the absence of a permanent replacement
and the lack of the authority to appoint one since no vacancy exists.
iii) Preventive suspension does not have the element of voluntariness that
voluntary renunciation embodies. Neither does it contain the element
of renunciation or loss of title to office as it merely involves the
temporary incapacity to perform the service that an elective office
demands. Thus viewed, preventive suspension is – by its very nature –
the exact opposite of voluntary renunciation; it is involuntary and
temporary, and involves only the actual delivery of service, not the title
to the office.
iv) Recognizing preventive suspension as an effective interruption of a term
can serve as a circumvention more potent than the voluntary
renunciation that the Constitution expressly disallows as an
interruption.
2. Section 43 (b) of RA 7160 practically repeats the constitutional provision,
and any difference in wording does not assume any significance in this
case.
Does preventive suspension interrupt the term of office?
 No. preventive suspension does not involve loss of title to office; hence, it
cannot interrupt the term of office.
How do you illustrate the sentence “No person who has succeeded as
president and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified
for election to the same office at any time?”
 Joseph Estrada assumed the presidency on June 30, 1998. But he was
forced by people power II to step down on January 20, 2001.
 Thus, he served for only 2 years and 6 months, leaving a balance of 3 years
and 6 months from his 6 year term as president
 Gloria Arroyo succeeded and served for 3 years and 6 months. Since she
did not serve for more than 4 years, she was able to run and win the
presidency in 2004.
PRESIDENT AND VP- BASIS FOR PROCLAMATION
Art VII, Sec 4, 1987 Constitution
x x x The person having the highest number of votes shall
be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of
the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
Art IX , Sec 6, 1987 Constitution
Each [Constitutional] Commission en banc may promulgate its
own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights.
WINNER, DEFINED
RULLODA VS COMELEC
Page 12 of 42
One-liner: The winner is the candidate who has obtained a
majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.
Facts: A candidate for Brgy Chairman died before the
election day. His widow wrote the Comelec to substitute
him. She won but the Comelec disregarded the same as
there is no substitution of candidates for brgy and SK
officials. Instead, respondent Placido was proclaimed
winner.
Placido: Brgy election is non-partisan, substitution of
candidates is not allowed. Petitioner did not file any
COC, hence I was the only candidate for Brgy Chairman.
Issue: Can the widow be proclaimed as the duly elected Brgy Chairman?
Held: Yes, as it was she who obtained the plurality of votes
in the contested election. Technicalities and procedural
niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in
the way of the true will of the electorate. Absence of any
provision governing substitution of candidates in brgy
elections cannot be inferred as a prohibition against it. As
doing so would ignore the purpose of election laws which
is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the
voters. In case of doubt, political laws must be so
construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate
freely expressed through the ballot. In all republican
forms 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. Further, the letter-request was
treated by Comelec as a COC.
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL TIE, HOW
BROKEN
Art VII, Sec 4, 1987 Constitution
x x x The person having the highest number of votes shall
be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have
an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing
of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION, IN CASE OF
VACANCY AT THE START OF TERM
Art VII, Sec 7, 1987 Constitution
The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall
assume office at the beginning of their terms.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-
elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall
have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice
President-elect shall act as President until a President shall
have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall
become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen
or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or
become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or,
in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a
Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which
one who is to act as President shall be selected until a
President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of
death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION, IN CASE OF
VACANCY ON MID-TERM
Art VII, Sec 8, 1987 Constitution
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or
resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become
the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death,
permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of
both the President and Vice-President, the President of the
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President
or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as
President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation
of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or
the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and
be subject to the same restrictions of powers and
disqualifications as the Acting President.
PERMANENT DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT
Art VII, Sec 11, 1987 Constitution
Whenever the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
Page 13 of 42
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume
the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability
exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office.
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the
Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress
shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last
written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days
after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of
his office.
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
One-liner: The determination of the President’s inability to
govern is determined by Congress and such is a political
judgment that cannot be subject to judicial review.
Facts: Estrada was accused to be a jueteng lord that led to
his impeachment case. Edsa Revolution II ensued with
people asking Estrada’s resignation, and his allies
defected (AFP, PNP and most of his cabinet members).
On the day Arroyo took her oath as the new President,
Estrada wrote Senate Pres and Speaker of the House
that he is unable to exercise Presidential powers and
duties. However, he claims he did not resign as President,
but merely was on leave on the ground that he is unable
to govern temporarily. Despite receipt of letter, the House
of Reps and Senate passed Resolutions expressing
support to Arroyo as the new President.
Issue: WON SC has jurisdiction to review the claim of
temporary inability of Estrada and thereafter revise the
decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing Arroyo
as the new President.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
Held: SC does not have jurisdiction. It is Congress that has the
ultimate authority to determine such, and the determination
of Congress is a political judgment which the SC cannot
review. Estrada’s claim had been put to rest by Congress by
the latter declaring Arroyo as the de jure President. Such
decision made by the Congress, a co-equal branch of
government, cannot be reviewed by SC.
RESIGNATION OF THE PRESIDENT
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
One-liner: Estrada’s acts and omissions before, during and
after Arroyo’s oathtaking, or taking into account the totality
of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the
issue, implied his resignation from presidency.
Facts: Estrada claims he did not resign as President, but
merely was on leave on the ground that he is unable to
govern temporarily. He wrote a letter (see above) about it.
Further, Estrada relies on RA No. 3019 (AGACPA)
prohibiting his resignation from office. The circumstances
surrounding the case were based on an “Angara Diary”.
Estrada: (to Angara) Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit x x x
Negotiations involving Estrada’s resignation and Arroyo’s
assumption took place.
Issue: WON Estrada has resigned as President before Arroyo
took her oath as President.
Held: Yes. Elements of resignation are (1) there must be an
intent to resign and (2) the intent must be coupled by acts of
relinquishment. It is not governed by any formal
requirement – it can be oral, written, express or implied. As
regards the letter re: inability to govern, if it was prepared
before the press release of the petitioner clearly showing his
resignation from the presidency, then the resignation must
prevail as a later act. If, however, it was prepared after the
press release, still, it commands scant legal significance.
Petitioner's resignation from the presidency cannot be the
subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical will
especially if the resignation is the result of his repudiation by
the people. Further, reliance on RA No. 3019 was misplaced.
The intent of the law is to prevent the act of resignation or
retirement from being used by a public official as a
protective shield to stop the investigation of a pending
criminal or administrative case against him and to prevent
his prosecution. But no person can be compelled to render
service if he wants to retire or resign.
VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE VP- HOW FILLED
Art VII, Sec 9, 1987 Constitution
Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-
President during the term for which he was elected, the
President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the
Page 14 of 42
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority
vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
voting separately.
COMMENTS:
 What if there’s a vacancy in the office of the vice president. How do
you fill it up?
The president will nominate a vice president from the senate And from
the house of the rep
 And after the nominations, what happens next?
Congress will confirm the nomination separately
 What if the lower house confirms and the upper house doesn’t
confirm?
Is there a constitutional basis there? Is the constitution silent?
Yes. The constitution is silent.
 So, if you were the president and the constitution is silent. What will
you do if your nominee is unacceptable to both houses?
Nominate another.
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
One-liner: Upon nomination for VP of the President from
among the Congress members, both Houses of Congress
shall confirm such by voting separately.
Facts: After assumption into office, Pres. Arroyo
nominated Sen. Guingona as her Vice President. Both the
Senate and House of Reps separately resolved to confirm
such nomination. Thereafter, Guingona took his oath as
Vice President.
Issue: WON Guingona’s assumption to Vice Presidency was proper.
Held: Yes.
ESTRADA V DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 146710-15 March 2, 2001
FACTS:
 It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving
bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption were
made against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On
November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on
December 7, impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate
during which more serious allegations of graft and corruption against
Estrada were made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when
11 senators, sympathetic to the President, succeeded in suppressing
damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial
was thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out
and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against
Estrada.
 On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for
Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a snap
presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and
local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this
election. On January 20, SC declared that the seat of presidency was
vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. At noon,
Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as
the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left Malacañang Palace.
Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It
sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from “conducting any
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as
president ends. He also prayed for judgment “confirming Estrada to be the
lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines
temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office.
ISSUES:
1. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
2. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
3. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
4. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial
publicity.
RULING:
1. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and (b) acts of
relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left the Palace.
Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial
evidence— bearing material relevant issues—President Estrada is deemed
to have resigned— constructive resignation. SC declared that the
resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his
leaving Malacañan Palace. In the press release containing his final
statement:
 He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;
 He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace
and in order to begin the healing process (he did not say that he
was leaving due to any kind of disability and that he was going to
reassume the Presidency as soon as the disability disappears);
 He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to
serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past
opportunity);
 He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that
may come in the same service of the country;
 He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of relinquishment—act or
omission before, during and after January 20, 2001.
2. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly stating its
support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the
Philippines and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination of
Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice President. Senate passed HR No. 83
declaring the Impeachment Courts as Functius Officio and has been
terminated. It is clear is that both houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as
the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the
inability of Estrada is no longer temporary as the Congress has clearly
rejected his claim of inability.
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is political in
nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. In fine, even
if Estrada can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully
claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely
unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress
and the decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal
branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.
3. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character. They involve
plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the imagination
can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be
covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. He
cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit
criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability.
The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and
the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same
footing as any trespasser.
4. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free press are
incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not use the jury system,
the judge, who is a learned and legally enlightened individual, cannot be
easily manipulated by mere publicity. The Court also said that Estrada did
not present enough evidence to show that the publicity given the trial has
influenced the judge so as to render the judge unable to perform. Finally,
Page 15 of 42
the Court said that the cases against Estrada were still undergoing
preliminary investigation, so the publicity of the case would really have
no permanent effect on the judge and that the prosecutor should be
more concerned with justice and less with prosecution.
COMMENTS:
 So what happened in Estrada vs. Desierto that illustrates how the vice
pres is nominated? What happened?
GMA nominated Senator Giungona, Jr as Vice-president. Congress
confirmed it. However some senators voted yes but with reservations
because there’s still a pending challenge on the legitimacy of GMA’s
presidency.
 In other words, despite reservations, the nomination of the vice was
confirmed. After it was confirmed what happened next?
He took his oath of office as a Vice-President.
 Summarize how you fill out the office of the vice president.
Pres will nominate from congress. Congress will confirm the
nomination. If they will not confirm the nomination, the pres will
nominate another. If the congress confirms the nomination, that
person nominated will become the vice-president.
 So, to fill out the vacancy in the office of the vice.
 Nomination by the president
 Confirmation by the congress
 Oath-taking
 What do you think is the reason why out of the entire person in
Congress, GMA nominated Guingona? Of course in her press release
she said I want to nominate a son of Mindanao because they
underrepresented? But what do you think is the real reason aside
from they came from the same party? How old is Guingona? Was he
old?
Yes. Because Guingona was too old. He is not a threat to the
presidency.
 Did you notice that this is about a story. The President was gone. He
stepped down. The V-Pres assumed office. Someone from the senate
was nominated as the V-pres. So there’s a vacancy in the senate.
DOMINO EFFECT.
VACANCY IN BOTH P AND VP- HOW FILLED
Art VII, Sec 8, 1987 Constitution
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office,
or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall
become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case
of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or
resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the
President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as
President until the President or Vice-President shall have
been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as
President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the
President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and
qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers
and disqualifications as the Acting President.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 16 of 42

Art VII, Sec 10, 1987 Constitution

The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third
day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-
President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a
special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be
held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days
from the time of such call. The bill calling such special
election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section
26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon
its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations
for the special election shall be charged against any current
appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of
paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The
convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special
election postponed. No special election shall be called if the
vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the
next presidential election.

Art VI, Sec 25(4), 1987 Constitution

A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for
which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually
available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised
by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.

COMMENTS:
 If president dies who becomes president? Vice-president

 What if president and v-president both die at the same time? Senate
President, if not then the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as
Acting President

 What will congress do for the meantime? Congress will legislate. But still
no legislation for that till today because it is a remote possibility that the
same situation will happen

 What if all 4 dies? Pres, V-Pres, Senate President, and Speaker of the
HOR? All went aboard Air-Force 1 and it exploded in the air. Their charred
bodies were found beyond recognition, shredded to pieces.
Special Elections will be held but Congress must first legislate.

Art VI, Sec 4, 1987 Constitution

The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall
commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator
shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service
for the full term of which he was elected.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
SENATORS, NUMBER, HOW ELECTED, TERM OF
OFFICE AND TERM LIMT
Art VI, Sec 2, 1987 Constitution
The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who
shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Art XVIII, Sec 2, 1987 Constitution
The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and
the local officials first elected under this Constitution shall
serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the elections in 1992, the first
twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for
six years and the remaining twelve for three years.
COMMENTS:
 How many ELECTIVE senators are there? 12 senators.
 Was there ever a time that we had more than 12? Yes
 When? The first senatorial election happened in 1992 not 1987. In 1992
we had 24 senators. At that time Aquino was so popular. And because of
her popularity: 23 out of 24 senatorial candidate she produced won.
 Only one from the opposition made it to the top 24. Who do you think it
is?
ERAP. Popular among the masses. He then became V-President and then
President overwhelmingly.
 What do you think is the reason why after we elected 24 senators in
1993, there were now 12 senators elected every 3 years?
Based on the constitution, you alternate. First 12 are for 6 years and the 2 nd
is for 3 years.
 In other words you replenish. It’s called staggered. What do you think is
the reason why constitution staggers the term of office of the senators?
Because, the first six years, there’s 12. And in any case if there’s a problem
or failure in election, at least there are still 12 senators that are still
functioning.
 Top 12 serve for 6 years, bottom 12 for 3 years. At midterm after 3 years
the bottom 12 disappears and the top 12 stays for another 3 years. But
bottom 12 that disappeared is replenished by a new batch. So this new
batch of senators find companion in the senate. In this case what do you
think is the reason now?
Continuity. In other words, the older 12 will bring experience in the senate
and the new batch will bring freshness, new ideas. Mixture of experience
and freshness.
 What is the term of office? 6 years
 Term limit? 2 consecutive terms. That is the term of office. Meaning you
cannot exceed 2 successive terms. After 2 successive terms you rest. Then
can run again.
 Since the term of office is 6 years. But the election is held every 3 years.
Do you need to rest for 6 years or 3 years only before you can run again?
When we get to the topic term limit, you will realize that even a gap of one
day will already qualify one for another term. Law does not distinguish
between 3 or 6 years. There was a case against Drilon because he only
Page 17 of 42
rested for 3 years. A disqualification case was filed alleging that he
should rest for 6 years because that is exactly the length of his office.
COMELEC dismissed the case because there is NO legal basis. So one
can rest for 3 or 6 years for as long as there is a gap after the 2
successive terms.
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC
One-liner: Although the Comelec failed to call and give
notice, the special election is still valid as the right and
duty to hold the election emanate from the statute and not
from any call for the election by some authority and the
law charges voters with knowledge of the time and place
of the election (statutory notice).
Facts: After Arroyo’s succession to Presidency and Sen.
Guingona’s confirmation as the new VP, a seat in Senate
was left vacant. Senate resolved to call on Comelec to fill
such vacancy through a special election to be held
simultaneously with the upcoming regular election, such
that the Senatorial candidate with the 13th highest
number of votes shall fill the vacancy. The Comelec did
so.
Issue: WON a special election to fill a vacant 3-yr term
Senate seat was validly held.
Held: Yes. The calling of an election, that is, the giving
notice of the time and place of its occurrence, whether
made by the legislature directly or by the body with the
duty to give such call, is indispensable to the election's
validity. In a special election to fill a vacancy, a statute
that expressly provides that an election to fill a vacancy
shall be held at the next general elections fixes the date at
which the special election is to be held and operates as
the call for that election. And besides, there was no proof
that Comelec’s failure misled voters (test to determine the
validity of a special election re: failure to give notice).
COMELEC, having adopted the Senate’s proposal, has a
wide latitude of discretion in adopting means to carry out
its mandate of ensuring free, orderly, and honest elections
so long as these means are not illegal or do not constitute
grave abuse of discretion. We should respect the
electorate's will and let the results of the election stand,
despite irregularities that may have attended the conduct
of the elections.
Election Issue (in-depth notes)
 In case a vacancy arises in Congress at least one year
before the expiration of the term, Section 2 of R.A. No.
6645, as amended, requires COMELEC: (1) to call a special
election by fixing the date of the special election, which
shall not be earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than ninety
(90) after the occurrence of the vacancy but in case of a
vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election;
and (2) to give notice to the voters of, among other things,
the office or offices; to be voted for.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
COMMENTS:
 What happened in Tolentino vs. Comelec?
When Arroyo assumed office and Guingona as V-president, there’s already
a vacancy in the senate. So they’re lacking one senator. Based on the
constitution they have to call a special election
 Which body calls for a special election?
The congress.
 They have to certify first that there’s a vacancy and inform the COMELEC
of such vacancy. And once the COMELEC is informed that there’s a
vacancy,…of course COMELEC knows that there’s a vacancy. But they
need a certification from Congress that there’s really a vacancy. And once
the COMELEC knows that there’s vacancy what does it do?
They will call for a special election once they receive a certification from
congress.
 Now what is the problem in this case?
The problem in this case was that the COMELEC failed to inform the people
that there will be a special election and it was not on a separate ballot.
 When was that special election held? It was a regular election.
 In other words a situation rises in this case which is unique because a
special election for the 12 th senator was held simultaneously with the
regular election. Why is there a problem?
Financial issue. But SC held that the failure of COMELEC to call out for a
special election does not invalidate it because based on the constitution
there’s no other option but to really hold a special election simultaneously
with the regular election.
 How did the SC justify the failure of the COMELEC to notify? Didn’t
Supreme Court say that “it’s okay, It’s alright”? But Because based on Sec
12 of RA 6645 you can see that the special election will be held
simultaneously with the succeeding regular election and to give notice.
 So COMELEC did not notify. Was there another way to notify the public?
The statutory notice/ constructive notice.
 Yes, because there was a law calling for the schedule of that election. In
other words, SC is saying that even if the COMELEC failed to notify, it is in
the law. It was a statutory notice or a constructive notice. Now, okay, so
the SC treated those badges of fault. It says it’s alright. But did not the SC
acknowledge that the COMELEC is at fault?
There was a word for COMELEC that although it was not invalidated, they
have to strictly follow the law.
 In other words, the SC is saying that it’s okay for now, but next time..
 Now who was that 13th senator that benefited from that election?
HONASAN
 How many votes did he obtain? More than 10 million
 What did the SC say if it will nullify the 13 th
senator?
We cannot just nullify 10 million votes. If we are to nullify those votes, they
will be DISENFRANCHISED of suffrage. (term if one cannot register, cannot
vote or vote is nullified.)
 What if it was a special election for district representatives? Would the SC
still justify the COMELEC?
No because the COMELEC now must notify.
Page 18 of 42
 Note: Special Elections for District Representatives, COMELEC must
notify. For senators, COMELEC was justified in not notifying public in
the case of Tolentino because it provided for in the law, however SC
said that COMELEC must also notify public next time.
 This also happened when PNOY became president. There was also
vacancy but they did not elect 13 th senator on his midterm. It could
have been Risa Hontiveros. Congress did not certify senate vacancy.
SENATOR, QUALIFICATIONS
Art VI, Sec 3, 1987 Constitution
No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is
at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not
less than two years immediately preceding the day of the
election.
COMMENTS:
 Registered voter anywhere in the country; elected at large
unlike District Representatives (only in their respective
districts)
 In the case of Aquino Sr, his age was short of few days at
the day of election, still short of few days at the day of
proclamation, however at the time he assumed office he
was already of age, so he was accommodated by a split
decision of SET at that time.
 Today, under the 1987 Constitution, he should be of age
at the DAY OF ELECTION, not on the day of
proclamation, not on the day of assumption of office.
Maybe under age in filing COC but must be of age on the
day of election
PIMENTEL VS COMELEC
One-liner: The right of a citizen in the democratic process
of election should not be defeated by unwarranted
impositions of a requirement not otherwise specified in
the Constitution.
Facts: Law and Comelec resolution requiring mandatory
drug testing of candidates for public office, etc were
questioned as unconstitutional.
Issue: Can Congress or COMELEC expand the
qualification requirements of candidates for senator under
the Constitution?
Held: No. A law or an administrative rule violating any
norm of the Constitution is null and void and has no
effect.
COMMENTS:
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 19 of 42
 Qualifications of a Senator cannot be amended, expanded or
restricted by ordinary legislation. We have to amend the
constitution.
 Maquera v Borja = property qualification
 Pimentel v COMELEC = lifestyle qualification
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
HOUSE OF REPS, NUMBER, HOW ELECTED, TERM
OF OFFICE AND TERM LIMIT
Art VI, Sec 5, 1987 Constitution
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of
their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including
those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
3. xxx
4. Within three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.
Art VI, Sec 7, 1987 Constitution
The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected
for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election. No Member of the House of
Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
COMMENTS:
 How many are members of the House of Representatives? 250
 Is that the maximum? Why or why not?
It is the maximum as provided, but it can be adjusted later.
 What is the basis for Congress to adjust?
Aside from the constitution, the growing population. As the number of
inhabitants increments, meaning as it gets larger, then chances are, we are
going to add more districts. Especially if it is a city and it now has 250, 000
inhabitants, it can be made as a sole district.
 When we say inhabitants, do we mean representatives?
No, it is only the population. That is the reason why if you legislate a
district, you don’t need to get a certificate from COMELEC of the number of
registered voters to support that but a certification from the Census or the
National statistics office that you have reached 250, 000 inhabitants
 So, out of this 250 members of the house of representatives, how many
are the party-list members?
Page 20 of 42
Party-list members shall constitute 20% of the total number of the
house of representatives. The 20% allocation is based on the combined
number of the district representative and the party-list representatives.
NUMBER OF PARTY-LIST
VETERANS FED. PARTY VS COMELEC
One-liner: Having determined that the twenty percent seat
allocation is merely a ceiling, and having upheld the
constitutionality of the two percent vote threshold and the
three-seat limit imposed under RA 7941, to determine
how many party list seats the qualified parties are entitled
to rank all of the parties and allocate basing on the votes
garnered by the party in first rank.
Facts: Comelec resolution “proclaiming 38 additional
party-list representatives to complete the full complement
of 52 seats in the House of Reps as provided in the
Constitution”.
Issue: Should the twenty percent allocation for party-list
solons be filled up completely and all the time?
Held: No, it is just a mere ceiling. COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in granting 38 seats (on top of the 14
reps already proclaimed, to total 52 as provided in the
Constitution) which violated the two percent threshold
and proportional representation requirements of RA
7941.The Supreme Court held that Section 5 (2), Art. VI
of the Constitution stating that "the party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the
total number of representatives including those under the
party-list" is not mandatory; that this percentage is a
ceiling the mechanics by which it is to be filled up has
been left to Congress; that in the exercise of its
prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941 by which it
prescribed that a party, organization or coalition
participating in the party-list election must obtain at least
two percent of the total votes cast for the system to
qualify for a seat in the House of Representatives but that
no winning party, organization or coalition can have more
than three seats therein; that Congress has the prerogative
to determine whether to adjust or change this percentage
requirement; and that the two percent threshold is
consistent with the intent of the framers of the law and
with the essence of "representation” (ie, organizations
and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents
deserving of representation are actually represented in
Congress).
Election (in-depth notes)
To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list
election, the Constitution and RA No. 7941 mandate at least
four inviolable parameters. These are:
1. Twenty percent allocation — the combined number of
all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
of the total membership of the House of Representatives,
including those elected under the party list.
2. Two percent threshold — only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House
of Representatives;
3. Three-seat limit — each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two
additional seats.
4. Proportional representation — the additional seats which
a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in
proportion to their total number of votes."
Sec 11, RA 7941: In determining the allocation of seats for the
second vote, the following procedure shall be observed:
(a) 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.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one seat each; Provided, that
those garnering more than two percent (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.
Comelec’s elements of the party-list system to determine 52
reps (but ignoring the 2% rule):
1) the system was conceived to enable the marginalized sectors
of the Philippine society to be represented in the House of
Representatives;
2) the system should represent the broadest sectors of the
Philippine society;
3) it should encourage the multi-party system.
How to allocate additional seats:
1) One additional seat per 2% increment - a party that wins at
least six percent of the total votes cast still be entitled to
three seats; another party that gets four percent will be
entitled to two seats; and one that gets two percent will be
entitled to one seat only;
2) The Niemeyer Formula - adopted by Germany as its method
of distributing party-list seats in the Bundestag; would
violate the principle of "proportional representation," a basic
tenet of our party-list system; not applicable to the
Philippines because of our three-seat limit and the non-
mandatory character of the twenty percent allocation; the
number of additional seats to which a qualified party would
be entitled is determined by multiplying the remaining
number of seats to be allocated by the total number of votes
obtained by that party and dividing the product by the total
number of votes garnered by all the qualified parties.
3) Philippine setting formula:
a. Rank all the participating parties, organizations and
coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the
number of votes they each received, then compute the
ratio by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the
Page 21 of 42
parties participating in the system. All parties with at
least 2% are guaranteed 1 seat. Only these parties shall
be considered in the computation of additional seats.
b. Determine the number of seats the first party is entitled
to (first party votes divided by total valid votes cast for
all the party list groups). The other qualified parties
will always be allotted less additional seats than the
first party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said
parties and the first party will always be less than 1:1,
(2) the formula does not admit of mathematical
rounding off, because there is no such thing as a
fraction of a seat.
c. To solve for the number of additional seats that the
other qualified parties are entitled to, based on
proportional representation:
COMMENTS:
Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC
 Petitioner questions whether or not the 20% allocation should be filled
up completely and should the 20% allocation be mandatory or merely a
ceiling.
 Ruling : Not mandatory but merely a ceiling.
 Another issue was that whether the 3 seat limit is constitutional.
 Ruling: 3 seat limit is constitutional because congress wanted to ensure
that only those parties with sufficient number of constituents should
have a representation in Congress.
 Why is there a 3 seat limit?
 The reason why there is a party-list is to ensure the broadest
representation of underrepresented and marginalized. If you allow
popular party-list to monopolize the number of seats in Congress, it will
defeat the purpose. That is why there has to be a 3 seat limit or 3 seat
cap.
 The reason why there is a 2% threshold is to prevent the proliferation
of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant
legislation that might pose a threat to destabilize Congress.
 How did they compute the 20% allocation?
Number of district representatives x .20 = number of party- list law
makers 80
 If we use that formula, can we exhaust or maximize the 20%
allocation? No.
 Summarize the 4 parameters
1. 20% allocation
2. 2% threshold
3. 3 cap limit
4. Proportional representation
BANAT VS COMELEC, BAYAN MUNA VS
 Is the 2% threshold Constitutional?
The 2% threshold is constitutional in so far as the first seat allocation is
concerned; but it is unconstitutional as it allocates additional seats.
 Is the 20% allocation mandatory?
It seems mandatory because we need to maximize or exhaust the 20%
allocation because the purpose there is to ensure the widest or the
broadest participation of those groups that cannot win the election
because they are underrepresented or marginalized.
 Does it not make sense to you when we said that we cannot allow
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 22 of 42
party list groups with insufficient number of members? Because it will
destabilize the party-list system as well as Congress.

 Based on the trend, we allow party-list with less than 2% threshold but not
to as low as 1000-2000 votes. As a matter of facts, if you don’t win 2
successive elections, you will be delisted from the party-list system
because you failed to prove that you are winnable with sufficient number
of votes.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
THREE-TERM LIMIT
TERM LIMIT, PURPOSE OF
BORJA VS COMELEC
 What is the justification of the Supreme Court in this case why there is a
3-limit rule?
Legal Justification: Constitution and LGC
Practical Justification: Because the argument there is that if we are a
democratic country, why are we limiting the choices of the people?
 What is the purpose of the three term limit?
-Not to develop proprietary rights – that is in Latasa vs Comelec that if we
allow politicians to serve more than three terms, chances are they will tend
to develop a sense of interest over the public office
-Prevent monopolization of power
-Enhance freedom of choice of the people
 Democracy only works when we have an intelligent electorate.
Unfortunately, they cannot discern what is abuse from what is proper;
hence, there are certain safeguards provided under the constitution, and
one is the three term limit. For as long as our electorate, again this is not
an absolute statement, sees election not as a political activity but as an
economic opportunity, we will never be able to choose (??)
LATASA VS COMELEC
 What is the purpose of term limit? How did the SC justify term limit when
it said you can no longer run for city mayor because anyway you are going
to govern the same territory and the same constituents?
The SC said you got 9 years already if we allow you to run as city mayor this
time and if we are going to follow your argument that a city is different
from a municipality then you will still have the chance to serve another
three successive terms
 If you stay that long in the public office, 18 years as a mayor from
municipality to city you might develop a sense of proprietary interest of
the public office and it should not be because you only borrow it from the
mandate of the people that you are going to occupy that office for a
certain period of time. If it goes beyond 9 years, you might develop affinity
to public office and you might think it is your own. Once you think of it as
your own it is hard to give it up.
COMMENTS:
 Now, from Borja to Latasa what are the justifications why there is a term
limit?
In Borja there are two justifications:
1. to prevent monopoly of political power
2. to enhance the freedom of choice of the people
In Latasa:
1. to prevent an official form developing proprietary interest in the
public office
SUCCESSION, EFFECT ON TERM CONTINUITY
BORJA VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 In other words here if you succeed, it does not count as one term.
 As a vice-mayor, he succeeded as mayor. As a mayor, does it count as one
term? No, because he merely succeeded.
 Now as a vice mayor since he vacated that by virtue of succession, does the
vice-mayor count as one term? No again. The effect here is you interrupt
Page 23 of 42
both terms, as vice mayor it is interrupted and as mayor it is
interrupted. In other words, if you succeed it is favorable to both
positions. As mayor it does not count as one term and as a vice mayor
it does not count as one term because it is effectively interrupted by
succession and succession is not your choice. It is under the law.
MONTEBON VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
What are the requisites for disqualification?
1. the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive
terms in the same local government post
2. that he has fully served three consecutive terms
3. obtain the position by way of election
 What is the mode by which you get into that position? By election. In
other words, you must be elected to that particular position and fully
served that particular office of the same position
 That will count as one term for three terms for purposes of three term
limit.
 In which case, if you succeed, is that by election? No. Thus, if you
succeed that does not count as one term because the requisite is you
must be elected to that position to count as one term.
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, EFFECT ON TERM CONTINUITY
ALDOVINO VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 In other words, the SC said there is no loss of title into the office and
your suspension does not interrupt the term.
 What is the best evidence that you did not lose title?
There was no permanent replacement because it is going to be a
temporary replacement.
 E.g. if you are going to be a mayor the vice mayor acts as the mayor
during the time that you are suspended. Now, The SC actually said that
if you are suspended preventively it gives rise to a presumption.
 What is that presumption in so far as the term limit is concerned?
In this point, the SC is strict when it said that preventive suspension
does not interrupt the term. The SC said that it gives to the
presumption that you fabricated the accusations against you so that
your term will be interrupted so that this term will not count.
 What if you are mayor and you discovered that you have stage four
cancer. You went to the US for treatment for a period of 6 months.
Does that interrupt the term considering that sickness is not your
choice?
Prolonged sickness belongs to the same category as preventive
suspension, it does not interrupt the term because again there is no
loss of title and the best evidence is there is no permanent
replacement and that presumption that you fabricate the accusations
for you to be suspended is somehow unfair but the remedy there is do
not do something bad so that you will not be preventively suspended.
We are talking here of the accountability of public officials. The
standard of public officials is too high that you might think that we are
perfect in the government because it says that public officials shall be
at all ties accountable to people. In other words, you cannot say I’m
doing this as a private person. Anything you do inside and outside the
workplace is still subject to scrutiny and discipline because still you are
a public officer.
 There is also an argument which says, actually the only exception is
voluntary renunciation that does not interrupt the term of office. So if
preventive suspension is not voluntary renunciation why are you saying
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
now that preventive suspension does not interrupt the term of office. The
SC said that voluntary renunciation is not the only exception there because
if you read the Constitution, voluntary renunciation of office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
service. The lawyer there argued that look at the provision seemingly it
seems that the only exception is voluntary renunciation but preventive
suspension, sickness are not voluntary renunciation. You did not choose to
be sick and preventively suspended. But the SC here said that it is not the
only reason that interrupts the term of office for purposes of the three
term limit.
 Preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is a safeguard so that you will not
influence the evidence against you while you are still in the office but
suspension as a penalty interrupts.
DISQUALIFICATION PRIOR TO TERM END, EFFECT OF
LONZANIDA VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
How was he interrupted?
 COMELEC issued a resolution for him to vacate the office prior to the end
of term. He was forced to vacate by virtue of writ of execution issued by
the court (for municipality). If it’s a city, COMELEC will issue.
 In this case, he was forced to vacate by virtue of writ of execution. It was
not his choice so he does not fall under the term voluntary renunciation.
He was forced to vacate and prior to the term end. How long was it? 3
months. Even if 3 days or 1 day prior to the end of your term for as long as
there is an interruption without your choice, that interrupts your term.
 Take note that the disqualification here is with finality because you cannot
issue a writ of execution without a finality. Embarrassing but look at the
brighter side of life, it does not count as one term. So you can still run for
another term.
What happened in Ong vs Alegre? It is the opposite now.
DISQUALIFICATION AFTER TERM END, EFFECT OF
ONG VS ALEGRE
 It counts as one term because, when did the disqualification acquire
finality?
It became final after he has fully served his office at the end of the term.
 What are the requisites in which it will count as one term?
1. valid election
2. full service
 Given that scenario we have these requisites, what is the implication if
you are disqualified after the term of office, does it count as one term?
Yes because you have full served the term of office. That is one requisite
full service.
 What about if you are disqualified, can you argue that well it is the
COMELEC that voided my election? In other words, if they are saying that
I was not the winner after all I stole the mayoralty position, they are
saying that my election is invalid in the first place in which case the first
requisite is not satisfied because you are voiding my election. How did
the SC address that? Was he elected now considering that the election
was voided and once the election is void, it retroacts to the day you were
elected or proclaimed. So what you are saying is, your election is null and
void. Now does it count as one term considering that the first requisite is
not satisfied?
Rivera v COMELEC. That is where the SC justifies that.
Page 24 of 42
RIVERA VS COMELEC
 First premise is that the requisites you see which it will count as one
term is:
1. election
2. full service
 What happened here was he was elected, proclaimed then he fully
served but at the end of the term his election and proclamation were
voided and it retroacts. In other words, you are not entitled to the
public office in the first place so are you now removed in the
contemplation of being elected to public office? The argument is very
convincing so it is doubtful on whether or not it counts. How did the SC
resolve that in Rivera vs COMELEC?
 The SC said the argument is convincing it makes a lot of sense.
However, since there is now doubt WON that term counts considering
that one of the requisite is missing. In case of doubt, the doubt should
be resolved in favor of the limitation.
Summary of three cases:
 In case of disqualification and discontinuance of service BEFORE the
end of term, it DOES NOT COUNT as one term.
 If the disqualification or discontinuance occurred AFTER the term of the
official, it will be considered as ONE TERM.
 In case of doubt on WON term counts considering that one of the
requisites are missing, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
limitation.
 In the case of Richard Gomez: His COC was cancelled due to material
misrepresentation.
 Substitution is allowed in case of death, disqualification with finality, or
withdrawal.
 What happened here was Richard did not withdraw but he was
disqualified with finality so Lucy replaced him as a candidate it was
allowed beyond December 10 because Lucy and Richard shared the
same surnames if it had not been the same surnames it will not be
allowed because the ballots were already printed by then. Lucy won
but her election was sought to be voided on the ground that she
substituted Richard who was not a candidate in the first place. If he is
not a candidate in the first place then there is no one to replace.
Remember that his COC was cancelled due to material
misrepresentation so it’s as if Richard never filed his COC that being
said Lucy cannot replace him because he was not a candidate in the
first place and so Lucy’s election was also voided a month prior to term
end. So it does not count as one term. Lucy has three more terms.
RECALL, EFFECT ON THREE TERM DISQUALIFICATION
ADORMEO VS COMELEC
When can we have a recall election?
When is the date of a recall election? Is it within a year prior to
assumption to office or within a year prior to the next regular election or
midterm?
It is midterm. There is a recall election. That is a removal of the office.
But you cannot do that within a year from assumption of office because
it is too early and you cannot do that a year prior to the next regular
election because it by then it is too late. Let’s do that in between:
midterm. So in other words if you do that midterm, there is an interval
of time from the time your second term ended until the period of the
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
election. There is a gap. That is why if you win a recall election, it does not
count as one term because it is that period of time when you are
considered a private citizen. This principle is now more emphasized in
Socrates vs COMELEC.
SOCRATES VS COMELEC
 Supreme Court emphasized the fact that if you run for a recall and won the
recall election, it does not count as one term after you’ve served three
consecutive terms because what is prohibited is immediate election for the
fourth term. In other words, if there is a gap, for example of even just one
(1) day, that is NOT immediate election, that is allowed.
 If for example you are subject of a recall election and of course, you want
to prove them wrong because the basis there is “loss of confidence”, you
want to prove that the people are still behind you, so of course you’ll also
run as mayor, as a matter of fact you have no choice but to run because
you are the “automatic” candidate in the recall election if you are the one
who is sought in the recall election. Can you say that since you are a
candidate now that it interrupts your term?
 For example you are the mayor sought to be recalled, can you just say that
to avoid the Comelec from incurring expenses for election, I will resign.
Is that allowed?
No, it is not allowed because if you are the subject of recall, you are not
allowed to resign. And you have to be forced as a candidate since you are
the automatic candidate.
Summary of these 2 cases:
 A recall election cannot bar the candidate from running because it is not
considered an immediate reelection. There is that period of time/ gap that
you are considered a private citizen, in which case, it does not count as one
term.
 You know, a recall petition is tedious/expensive. However, curiously, almost
always, if there is a recall election in Palawan, it is granted. But here, when
there was a recall election in Danao city. What happened there was the
Durano brothers, and I think it was the Vice-Mayor Durano who initiated,
but of course seemingly for the people, a recall petition against the Durano
Mayor.
 You must prove that the recall petition is called for/signed by at least 25%
of the voters. We verify whether or not the signatures really belonged to
the voter who signed it by comparing it against our records, one-by-one
(around 40,000-50,000 signatures) and we are not hand-writing experts.
There are boxes labeled as “looks similar”, “does not look similar”. So we
just check. That process is very tedious. So after the verification, there are
still other requirements that have to be complied with.
 The COMELEC will then determine if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance, then let there be a recall election. But then suddenly, COMELEC
will suddenly say, there is no budget. And curiously, if it is in Palawan, there
is budget.
 The only ground for a recall election is “loss of confidence”.
Cancellation and disqualification are two
different things.
Cancellation – ground is material misrepresentation or falsity in the COC. You
lied something about CARRL. You never lie about CARRL. So there was no
candidate to speak of.
Disqualification – along the way, the candidate did something that
disqualified him.
- For example: He violated the prescribed size of campaign materials/ he
bought votes
- So if he committed an election offense while he was still a candidate and
he got disqualified with finality, there was still a candidate so he can be
replaced.
Page 25 of 42
CONVERSION OF MUN TO CITY, EFFECT OF
LATASA VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 What is the effect of the conversion of municipality to city in so far as
the three term limit is concerned?
It’s not so much on whether or not it interrupts, but rather whether or
not the city is not different from the municipality (ex: different land
area, different voters, etc.)
ELECTION PROTEST, EFFECTS OF
ABUNDO VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 Did not this case reiterate the requisites by which you can say that it
counts as a term? What are the requisites?
1. He is elected for that purpose
2. He fully served that term
 What do you think is the reason why there are a lot of cases on term
limit?
A politician has all the tricks to circumvent the three term limit. They
are trying to test the waters.
 What if you were disqualified after your term of office? So you will
argue that my election was void from the beginning and so it should
not count as one term. How will you address that?
In case of doubt, resolve in favor of limitation.
Clarifications:
 If suspension was not preventive suspension but as a penalty, would
it interrupt the term?
- I remembered the case of Gov. Gwen Garcia. She was suspended on
her last term. That suspension was as a penalty and not a preventive
suspension. It was a penalty from the office of the president and not
from the ombudsman. Though they have shared concurrent
jurisdiction. Even if it was a penalty, it does not interrupt the period.
- In the case of Aldovino, it was involuntary – they do not interrupt the
office; prolonged leave of absence, sickness, force majeure, and also
included preventive suspension as a penalty. And to top it all, there is a
written opinion issued by the DILG saying that preventive suspension as
a penalty does not interrupt the period. It has not been tested in the
actual case but so far that is the best answer.
Premise: preventive suspension does not interrupt since there is no loss
of title in the office. There is no permanent replacement.
Same goes with suspension as a penalty. For example Gwen Garcia was
suspended, Agnes Magpale assumed office as acting governor and not as
governor. It was only a temporary replacement. No distinction. It does not
interrupt.
The 3 term limit is a ground for disqualification.
- The ground for cancellation is this – if you lie about CARL (citizenship,
age, registration and literacy), if you lie about them, it is a ground for
cancellation for material misrepresentation.
- If you exceed the 3 term limit, it is not a qualification but a
disqualification.
- Today, the COMELEC received a TRO. Prior to that, we also campaign
for the biometrics. If no biometrics, your registration may be
deactivated pursuant to RA 10367 – Mandatory Biometrics Law. The SC
issued the TRO restraining the COMELEC from deactivating voters
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 26 of 42
without biometrics. To me, it seems like mooted because we have already
deactivated voters without biometrics last Nov. 16. There is nothing more
to restrain. We are not in the level of finalizing the project of precincts –
final list of polling places for 2016 elections and who are inside these
polling places. It might have expanded the qualifications in the Constitution
because we have said that you cannot impose literary, substantive
requirements in the exercise to right of suffrage. However, the purpose
there is mainly to – in the commission there is a database where by your
fingerprints alone, it will match anywhere in the country. To go away with
the questions as to the identity of the voter. It might be that the SC will say
defer the implementation because suffrage is the bedrock of all republican
institution. The SC might even nullify the biometrics law. You cannot just
disenfranchise the citizen because it is the citizen exercising his sovereign
will. There is a case that even if you are not a registered voter, but you are
qualified to vote, you should be allowed to vote. It is an old case. The trend
is the SC places high premium of primordial consideration in suffrage. You
cannot blame COMELEC since they are just following the law.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
HOUSE OF REPS, MEMBERS,
Art VI, Section 6, 1987 Constitution
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at
least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-
list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the election.
Art VI, Section 7, 1987 Constitution
The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on
the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the
House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which he was elected.
Sir’s tips: CARRL
Citizenship - Filipino citizen
Age - At least 25 years old on the day of election
Residence - Residence of 1 year in the legislative district
where he presents himself/ herself as candidate
Registration - Registered Voter
Literacy - Able to read and write
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES OR
NOMINEES, QUALIFICATIONS
Art VI. Section 5(2), 1987 Constitution
xxx
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of
representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated
to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
Art. IX (C), Section 8, 1987 Constitution
Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list
system, shall not be represented in the voter’s registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However,
they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
Section 2, RA 7941
The State shall promote proportional representation
in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which will
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and under-represented sectors, organizations and
parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation
that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become
members of the House of Representatives. Towards
this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full,
free and open party system in order to attain the
Page 27 of 42
broadcast possible representation of party,
sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives by enhancing their chances to
compete for and win seats in the legislature, and
shall provide the simplest scheme possible.
Section 9, RA 7941
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person
shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one
(1)year immediately preceding the day of the
election, able to read and write, a bona fide
member of the party or organization which he
seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election, and is at least
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the
election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must
at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election.
Any youth sectoral representative who attains the
age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed
to continue in office until the expiration of his
term.
(still CARRL plus he needs to be member of the party list he is
representing at least 90 days preceding the date of the election)
BAGONG BAYANI OFW VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 What happened in Bagong Bayani? What did we say about
qualifications of nominees? Should they represent the marginalized
sector in bagong bayani? Yes. The party list of the unrepresented
sectors must belong or represent the marginalized but also the
nominees.
 Cite examples that are considered by SC as marginalized
- labor, fisher folk, urban poor
- Elderly, women and youth = not part of marginalized
 Based on these enumeration, what do you see? Is it only about
economic status?
- You are rendered powerless. Intention that you deserve is taken away
from you. “Pinasagdan”
BANAT VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 In the Banat case, the SC became more specific, what did it say about
the nominee?
- In Bagong Bayani it says, if you want to become a nominee, you must
belong to the marginalized sector that you are representing. But in
Banat, the SC became more specific when it said that for example
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 28 of 42
when you are a fisher folk, you should also be a fisher folk. If you are require: Provided, That the sectors shall
representing a senior citizen, you must also be a senior citizen.
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
Summary insofar as the qualifications of the nominees are concerned. indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
 In Bagong Bayani, you should belong to the marginalized or handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
underrepresented.
overseas workers, and professionals.
 In Banat, the SC became more specific.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at
ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC least two (2) national newspapers of general
COMMENTS: circulation.
 In Atong Paglaum, did the SC somehow blurred the lines for the
qualifications? There is a sector composed of human rights leaders. Can The COMELEC shall, after due notice and
they get you, a lawyer, as their nominee?
hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15)
- Yes, you need not belong to the organization PROVIDED there is a track
record. days from the date it was submitted for decision
 What does “you need not wallow in poverty mean”? What is the reason? but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before
- There is no financial status required in the law – in the case of Banat election.
 How about in Atong Paglaum? Did the SC somehow changed again that
definition insofar as that financial status is concerned?
 You must be below or in the middle class – cannot be above SECTORS TO BE REPRESENTED,
 When Chairman Brillantes assumed the commission, they actually said the
party-list is a joke. Joke in a sense that there are a lot of bogus parties.
ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC
Bogus in a sense that they use it as a backdoor entrance to Congress for
 How are they classified in Atong Paglaum v COMELEC?
those who already exceeded the 3 term limit.
Marginalized and underrepresented?
 As for organizations advocating women rights, does the nominee need to
Labor, indigenous communities, urban poor
be a woman?
- Partly yes, partly no. the supreme has already blurred the lines and you will
Those who lack well-defined political constituencies?
never know.
Women, youth, elderly
 Enumerate the sectors that need sectoral representation
- Peasants, fisher folk, elderly, urban poor, etc. . .
 What do you understand by constituencies?
- Those registered voters under you district/province/municipality NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND
 What do you understand when the SC said “lacking well-defined
constituencies”? For example, elderly, where do you find the elderly? STATUTORY ENUMERATION OF
Everywhere. Can you find them in a particular district? Yes. But is there ANG LADLAD VS COMELEC
number sufficient to make you a winner in the district elections? NO. That
is why they lack well-defined political constituencies. They are everywhere COMELEC refused accreditation of Ang Ladlad party-list due to moral and
throughout the country but if you limit their number to a particular district, religious grounds. When it reached the SC, morality and religion are not
they cannot bring you to congress. enough reasons. The COMELEC somehow ran out of arguments.
 What did it raise to save face?
- The LGBT is not enumerated by law as the sectors to be represented by
SECTORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY the party-list.
 How did the supreme court ruled that argument?
Art VI, Sec 5(2), 1987 Constitution
xxx - SC said that the enumeration is not exclusive. You can be a party-list
even if you are not in the enumeration. In statutory construction, the
Section 5, RA 7941 supreme court used the principle of ejusdem generis - “such other
sectors provided by law”
Section 5. Registration. 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 ninety (90) NATURE OF LIST OF NOMINEES
days before the election a petition verified by its BA-RA 7941 VS COMELEC
president or secretary stating its desire to participate
in the party-list system as a national, regional or ONE LINER: The nature for the list of nominees is not confidential but is a
matter of the public’s right to information and is imbued with public
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such interest and public concern.
parties or organizations, attaching thereto its
constitution, by-laws, platform or program of COMMENTS:
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and  In the case at bar, Petitioner wanted to compel the disclosure of the
representatives of the different party-list candidates. So here, the
other relevant information as the COMELEC may COMELEC denied because, although it didn’t really say that there is a
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
reason but it was implied that they denied it because there is a rule that
section 7 of RA 7941 states that the “The names of the party-list nominees
shall not be shown on the certified list.” And the certified list shall be
posted in the polling places on the day of the election.
 They said that the election should not be personalized, the voters should
not vote for the party-list because of the representative so the SUPREME
COURT said that this is in violation of the people’s right to information is
imbued with public interest because the voters must know who they are
 The
voting for, and who they will put out there in the congress.
 The SUPREME COURT said that there is nothing confidential about the list
of nominees, because it involves no less than public interest or public
concern. Is there a definition of public interest or public concern? No
specific definition.
Page 29 of 42
names under that certified list. And this certified list is inside the
polling place. Diba nigkita ninyo naa man nay voting booth right? Then
naa na siya’y cardboard gibutang. Sa atubangan nimo naa nay certified
list of candidates and party list, as well as nominees. But there is that
particular provision. How did the Supreme Court analyze that
contention providing that under the law, it should not be divulged?
Supreme Court said that yes it is clear that it should not be
divulged, but it is only in the certified list, there is nothing in that law
prohibiting the COMELEC from divulging through other mediums and
not on the certified list. So in other venues, there is no prohibition to
the COMELEC to divulge or publish the names, but it is true that in the
certified list, there is that particular prohibition. But as a matter of fact,
when you think about it, that prohibition doesn’t make sense.

VACANCY IN THE SENATE OF HOUSE

 The terms "public concern" and "public interest" have eluded precise
definition. But both terms embrace, to borrow from Legaspi, a broad OF REPS,
spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because
Art VI, Section 9, 1987 Constitution
these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally
In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a
whet the interest of an ordinary citizen. At the end of the day, it is for the
special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner
courts to determine, on a case to case basis, whether or not an issue is of
prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
interest or importance to the public.
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.

 If, as in Legaspi, it was the legitimate concern of a citizen to know if certain Q. Is the rule on special elections absolute in case a vacancy occurs in
persons employed as sanitarians of a health department of a city are civil the Senate or House of Representatives?
service eligibles, surely the identity of candidates for a lofty elective public
office should be a matter of highest public concern and interest.” NO. The rule will depend on the date when the vacancy occurred and the
House where the vacancy originated. If the vacancy occurred in the
 The Supreme Court said that if, in that case the people had the right to Senate, irrespective of the date it occurred, the special elections shall be
know whether these are eligible, the public should know the legibility of simultaneous with the next regular elections.
the representatives of the party-list, because otherwise, if they don’t know
the identity of the nominees, it results in blind voting. If the vacancy occurred in the House of Representative, the rule will
depend on the date when it occurred: 
 Blind voting, here, within the context of this case is, you vote for a party- If vacancy falls inside the one year period prior to the next regular
elections – no more special elections. It shall be done simultaneously with
list without knowing who is going to represent that party list. Blind voting
the next regular elections 
is different from block-voting. Do you know what is block voting? Within
If vacancy falls outside the one year period prior to the next regular
the Marcos’ time, it was not considered as block-voting.in other words, if
elections – there will be a special election.
you vote for a party, Marcos’ party at that time was KBL. If you vote for
that party, everybody running under that particular party will get one vote
Q. When shall the special election be held? (For the HREP)
each. When you say Iglesia, that’s not block voting. That’s “Flock voting”.
If vacancy falls outside the one year period before the expiration of the
We really can’t say, whether or not its true that they’ve been doing flock
term:
voting. Even the SWS and Pulse Asia once said that there is no such thing
Not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the occurrence of
as a religious vote in the country, except probably Iglesia. Unsa may
the vacancy.
meaning sa probably? We really don’t know for sure.
Art III, Sec 22, Omnibus Election Code
 So there is no definition of public concern or public interest right? What xxx
was the contention of COMELEC why at first they refused to divulge the
names of the nominees? They refused on the ground that they don’t want
the voter to vote because of that certain representative. Yeah, because
 What happens if there is a permanent vacancy in the district
representatives?
party list participation is about the representation of the marginalized and
If there is a permanent vacancy, if the vacancy is at least 1 year before the
underrepresented sectors. In other words, here, the COMELEC said that
next regular election for Members of Congress, the COMELEC, upon
party list elections is not about the personalities, its about the issues, its
receipt of a resolution of the House of Representatives, certifying to the
about the parties, it’s about the advocacy. According to COMELEC, no need
existence of such vacancy and calling for a special election, shall hold a
to know about the names of the nominees. The Supreme Court said that it
special election to fill such vacancy. If Congress is in recess, an official
will result to blind voting. But did it not that the COMELEC cited their
communication on the existence of the vacancy and call for a special
grounds for not divulging the names?
election by the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such purpose.
 Section 7 of RA 7941, “Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. The The Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only
COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a for the unexpired term.
certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to
participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all
 And does it count as one term?
Unlike Recall elections, if you are selected for the Senate or House of
precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the
Representatives, it counts as one term for purposes of applying the three
party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list”
term limit rule, no matter how short it is.
 There is that particular provision that says that they cannot divulge the
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 30 of 42
 What happens if the special election occurs within a year from the next
regular elections? Are we going to have that special elections still?  How many votes did he obtain? 10 million
The election will be held simultaneously with the next regular elections.

RA 6645 Sections 1 and 2 states:

 What did the Supreme Court say about the 10 million regarding those
who want to nullify the elections? If the 10 million votes are nullified, it
will be prejudicial to the voters. The Supreme Court used the term
“Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18)
“disenfranchise”.
months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next
regular election for Members of Congress, the Commission on Elections,
 If the votes for Honasan are nullified, the term used is
upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives,
“disenfranchised”, meaning their voices are no longer heard in a
as the case may be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy and calling
democracy.
for a special election, shall hold a special election to fill such vacancy. If
Congress is in recess, an official communication on the existence of the
vacancy and call for a special election by the President of the Senate or by  Remember that Pnoy ran for president while he was still a senator, so
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall be when he won as president, he created a vacancy in the senate, right?
sufficient for such purpose. The Senator or Member of the House of Was there an election? Special election? There was no special election.
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. But in that particular election, somebody would have benefited from
that special elections. Hontiveros. She was the thirteenth. Had there
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the special been a special election, she could have won senator. But only for three
election, which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days not later than years equivalent to the remainder of the term.
ninety (90) days from the date of such resolution or communication,
stating among other things the office or offices to be voted for: provided,  How do you summarize now, how to fill the vacancy in the Senate and
however, that if within the said period a general election is scheduled to the house of representathieves, vis-à-vis notice requirement.
be held, the special election shall be held simultaneously with such
general election.”
- In case there is a vacancy in the Senate, there shall be a special
election during the next regular senatorial elections without need
of notice, and then if the vacancy is in the House representatives,
But RA 7166 Section 4 states that “Postponement, Failure of Election and
the special elections called by the COMELEC is not earlier than
Special Elections. - The postponement, declaration of failure of election
forty (FIVE?) days and not later than 90 days where the notice is
and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
an indispensable requirement.
Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc
by a majority vote of its members. The causes for the declaration of a
 In this case the Supreme Court admonished the COMELEC that
failure of election may occur before or after the casting of votes or on the
although there is already a statutory notice for the Special Elections for
day of the election.
the vacancy in the Senate, that next time they should do their job.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term, the
Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate,
the special election shall be held simultaneously with the succeeding
regular election.”

Section 4, RA 7166
xxx

TOLENTINO VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 There was a vacancy in the Senate, and they held the special elections
together with the regular elections. Petitioners assailed the failure of the
COMELEC to give notice to the special elections.

 In so far as the Senate is concerned, our first premise was if there is a

permanent vacancy in the senate regardless of the time it occurred, that
special election is going to be done simultaneously with the next regular
Senatorial elections.

 And in that next regular elections, there is a specific date. And because
there is a specific date, that amounts as a sufficient notice to everybody
that there’s going to be that special election, however, what if it is a special
elections for the house of representatives? If for the House of
Representatives, the notice cannot be dispensed with because there is no
specific date, so the COMELEC sets the date to notify the electorate about
the date otherwise the special elections will be nullified for lack of the
notice requirement.

 In that case, who was the 13 th

senator? Honasan
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS
TERM OF OFFICE AND TERM LIMIT
Art X, Section 8, 1987 Constitution
Section 43, LGC
DAVID VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 David filed a petition because he wanted to question the term limit for the
barangay officials, because according to him what should apply is the law
that said that the term limit should be 5 years, but there was the new law
under the Local Government Code that say that the term limit of a
Barangay Official should be 3 years.
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of COMELEC. They first gave the history
of the Barangay, and then they gave the different laws of governing
barangay officials and they said that before it used to be 6 years, and then
it was reduced to 5 years. And when this law came, it was reduced to 3
years, and this is the prevailing law.
 According to David, his contention was that the law allowing 5 years as
term limit is a special law, and it should be applied. Because the Local
Government Code is a General Law. Lex specialis derogat legi generali.
 But the Supreme Court said that the provision there in the Local
Government Code is actually a Special law itself, so it should prevail. Aside
from that, it also expresses the intent of the legislative that they intended
it to be 3 years because the other government officials such as the mayor,
vice mayor, which are superior to the barangay, their term limit is 3 years,
so it would be unfair if the inferior, the barangay would have a term limit of
5 years. The Court said if you’re going to harmonize these laws, it should be
the Local Government Code that should prevail and 3 years should prevail.
 Term of office of Local Elective Officials except Barangay officials that shall
be determined by law, shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve more
than 3 consecutive terms. So take note here that somehow it appears that
the Constitution is saying that:
The term of public elective local official of office is 3 years and
when it says that except for barangay officials as may be determined by
law somehow it creates an impression that it would be any other term
of office except 3 years. Right? Seemingly that is the first impression.
How did the Supreme Court Address that contention?
 The Supreme Court said that the Constitutional Commission left that part
to be decided by the Congress so it’s up to the Congress to decide the term
limit of the barangay officials, and it was decided by the Congress that it
should be 3 years. What it is saying is that it really depends on the
Congress. That particular Constitutional Provision did not textually prohibit
Congress from setting the term limit, or the term of office of the elective
barangay officials to any other term except 3 years. Ok? It could be 3 years,
it could be longer, it could be shorter. It all depends on congress. And here
the Congress legislated that its going with 3 years. So what were the other
contentions here? So basically this is a statutory construction case right?
First, they said there were 2 prior laws that set 5 years of the Barangay
officials. Then came the LGC that says its going to be 3 years. Now… Which
prevails? The prior law or the subsequent law. As a general rule, the later
law.
 The subsequent law prevails except if it is specifically provided in the law,
and if it is a general law that is later than the special law. Even if the prior
law are special laws, but here the Supreme Court says that “there is
nothing general about that particular provision in the LGC insofar as the
term of office is concerned of the barangay officials”
 So when you say 5 years before, now it becomes 3 years, is there
inconsistency there? Yeah, definitely there is. Ok you reconcile the
Page 31 of 42
inconsistency. Just recall your stat-con. It’s not there. Can you reconcile
the 3 years and the 5 years? Because here the repealing clause of the
lgc is actually an implied repeal. It did not specify the laws and specific
provisions. Can the Supreme Court say “Ok, let’s meet half way. 3 years
and 5 years, so 4 years.” Can the Supreme Court do that? The average.
To make everybody happy. Can the Supreme Court do that? S: No, it
will be Judicial Legislation.
 Term of office and term limit of barangay
officials is 3 years, not to exceed 3 consecutive
terms.
QUALIFICATIONS
Section 39, LGC
Section 39. Qualifications. -
(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a
registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in
the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be
elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino
or any other local language or dialect.
(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or member
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor, vice-mayor or member of
the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent
component cities, component cities, or municipalities must be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must be at least eighteen (18) years
of age on election day.
(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the
sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on
election day.
(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen
(15) years of age but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age on
election day.
Section 7, RA 9164
WHEN SHOULD YOU POSSESS
FRIVALDO VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
NOTE: Frivaldo Doctrine no longer applies because, we (COMELEC) are
very strict insofar as its qualifications. Frivaldo Doctrine, still applies
however, if you are confronted with a problem, with perfectly similar
circumstances in the Frivaldo case.
 Who is Frivaldo? He was an anti-Marcos, at the height of the
dictatorship, he fled the country. When Cory Aquino won, he went back
to the Phils, and ran for governor twice, and won. The on the third time
there was this disqualification.
3 ways in which you re acquire your citizenship?
1. Direct act of Congress (but many enemies in Congress)
2. Naturalization (it’s a very tedious process)
3. Repatriation
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
 When Frivaldo filed his COC, was he a natural-born citizen? No. Because
the repatriation process was still ongoing. On the day of elections, was he a
natural born citizen? No. On the day of proclamation? Yes. When he
assumed office? Yes.
 When did he assume office? June 30 2PM. Supposedly the term of office
starts 12nn. So he was late by 2 hours. However, here the SC really
liberalized Frivaldo. This is a very special case, and Frivaldo here, his act of
patriotism to the country, and his advanced age factored in the decision of
the SC.
 The main issue is: When should you possess citizenship as a qualification?
How did the SC address that? Sec 39 LGC.
 In the latter part of the law, it specifies when we should possess age
requirement. On the day of election. But in the first part of the law, it
merely says, Local Elective Officals. It does not talk about candidates. And
it does not specify when should you possess the qualification of being a
natural-born citizen. The SC used this.
DISCUSSION:
 When you say falsity, it refers not to any other detail, found in the COC, but
only refers to CARRL. If you lie about this, it will constitute a material
misrepresentation for falsity of COC, which will be a ground for cancellation
of COC, or denial of due course. If your COC is cancelled/denied due
course, the effect would be that there was no candidate to speak of in the
first place. That’s what happened to Poe in the Senate Decision. They say
that Poe falsified her COC when she claimed that she is a natural-born
citizen, when in fact she was not.
On Duterte replacing Dino as President:
 There is talk that Diño, filed a COC for Mayor and not for President. Sir
finds it so strange why people insist that he filed a COC for Mayor before
the Law Dept. If you want to run for mayor use the COC for mayor, for Pres
use COC for Pres. Now, granting that Dino really filed a COC for Mayor, and
filed in the law dept, it is still another strange story because, when you go
the law dept, it only accepts COC for President, VP and Senators. Most
likely, Dino filed a COC for President. Because otherwise, Duterte could not
have the guts to replace him. Because there’s no one to replace. There’s a
talk that Duterte cannot replace Dino because he is a nuisance candidate.
Probably, he could have been declared as one, but smart move, withdrew
his COC, so the COMELEC lost jurisdiction.
 No filing fee: Reason? Property Qualification.
 For Frivaldo, at the time he filed his COC, he was not yet a Filipino citizen. If
you lie about that, your COC may be cancelled on the ground that you lied
about being Filipino, when in fact, you are not. Frivaldo doctrine, probably
it would happen if you signed this, naka lusot, and wala ni file ug
disqualification. But later, there is a petition for disqualification, now you
can apply Frivaldo doctrine. But previously, at the first level of filing COC,
you cannot.
 Cancellation of COC = also has falsity as a ground.
While Grace Poe’s DQ Case was still pending:
 Brillantes, said that COMELEC has no jurisdiction to disqualify Grace Poe on
the ground of falsity. Because it was argued, if you say falsity, there is
deliberate intent to falsify. What if Grace Poe honestly believes she’s a
citizen, and these are difficult questions of law. However, the case has not
yet reached the SC.
 What if her name is still on the ballot and people vote for her, yet she gets
disqualified? They will become stray votes. Not Disenfranchisement
because not all disenfranchisements are illegal.
 Can Grace Poe be replaced? No because she has no party. Even if Grace
Poe had a party, she could not be replaced because there was no one to
Page 32 of 42
replace.
 Can Chiz replace her? No, because Chiz is independent. This is to
ensure continuity. Because if you are independent, there is nothing to
continue.
 Can Duterte replace Dino, despite the fact that Duterte is not PDP
Laban? Yes, because it only takes PDP Laban Party to say the Duterte is
our guy.
 Residence requirement for voting is not reckoned 6 months prior to
registration, but 6 mos prior to elections. In which case, there is no
such thing as flying voters. Because when you say flying votes, (“dili
mana sila taga dire”)…. Because even on the day of registration, you are
not a resident of Cebu city, you can register, because take note that the
rules of the law, the Constitution will say that registration is a mere
proposal to vote. You can register, as long as you establish residence 6
months prior to elections. Remember that voter’s registration is
conducted more than 6 months prior to elections.
LABO VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 What happened to Labo here insofar as his Filipino citizenship? How
did he lose it? By naturalization because he married an Australian.
 To reacquire citizenship, did he go to Congress? No. Did he apply for
repatriation or naturalization? No. So IOW (in other words) here the SC
said if you don’t do any of these 3 you cannot take back your Filipino
citizenship. Because here, what Labo is saying is since my marriage
became annulled, impliedly I am now back as a Filipino citizen. Here
the SC said, you cannot take it back merely by that. You have to
undergo any of the 3 processes
 Labo also argued, it is the will of the people, technicalities aside. Here
Labo cited Frivaldo with the technicalities aside, will of the people
thing. However, in this case it is not a loud, thunderous will of the
people, since the margin of votes in favor of Labo is only 2,100, just a
whimper.
Sec. 39. Qualifications. — (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of
the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or
province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, the district where he
intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
SK OFFICIALS, Q AND DQ
Sec 10, RA 10742
Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act (RA 10742, SEC. 10.) SEC. 10.
Qualifications. –
An official of the Sangguniang Kabataan, either elective or appointee,
must be:
1. a citizen of the Philippines,
2. a qualified voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan,
3. a resident of the barangay for not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the elections,
4. at least eighteen (18) years but not more than twenty-four (24) years of
age on the day of the elections,
5. able to read and write Filipino, English, or the local dialect,
6. must not be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity to any incumbent elected national official or to any incumbent
elected regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official, in the
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
locality where he or she seeks to be elected, and
7. must not have been convicted by final judgment of any crime involving
moral turpitude.
GARVIDA VS SALES
One-liner: For you to be an SK Chair you must be 18 yrs. Old but not more
than 24 yrs old on the day of the election.
Q. If you are 24 years old and 6 months are you more than 24 years old?
Yes, because under the rules of statutory construction a year is 365 days. Not
more than 24 years old means exactly 24 years old.
COMMENTS:
Remember there is a new law for SK – RA 10742 (Qualifications and
Disqualifications). Before one important qualification but rather
disqualification is that you must not be related to an incumbent government
official with the 4th civil degree of consanguinity.
TN: the rules in political law are different from that of succession (civil law).
- Here the parents of your adoptive parents can be counted if they are
incumbent.
- The same way that if your natural parent is incumbent since you are adopted
and you sever your ties with him/her you can still run as you are strangers
now in the eyes the law.
This is an attempt to prevent political dynasty of course the Congress have not
yet passed the Anti-Dynasty Bill but would you expect the Congress would
legislate against its interest? I doubt it.
The thing is for example my father is a mayor of Cebu City, I can still run for SK
in Mandaue City because my father and I do not belong to the same
jurisdiction so although we are family we are separated by jurisdiction.
NOW, its 2nd degree. See RA 10742
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 40, LGC
Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any
elective local position:
a. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
TN: Final judgment, in other words there are no other remedies
available under the law but to serve sentence because the judgment here
have reached finality.
This answers the question “How did Jalosjos able to serve and be
elected for 3 consecutive terms when in fact he is serving jail time. He was
imprisoned but he was able to file a COC and serve because again it was not
yet final.
A: His conviction for rape was appealed as such this disqualification
does not apply to him.
Q: Now what if you are convicted? You can still run, just wait 2 years
after serving your sentence. In short within 2 years after you serve your
sentence you are disqualified that period is the disqualification.
b. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
TN: that again FINALITY is the keyword. The Aguinaldo doctrine has
been abandoned by the Supreme Court
Aguinaldo doctrine: If for example you are a mayor now and there is
an administrative case filed against you. If you run for the election and you
are reelected – the people have condoned you so the administrative case is
removed. THIS DOES NOT APPLY ANYMORE because of the Binay case.
c. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance
Page 33 of 42
to the Republic;
d. Those with dual citizenship;
TN: Here that it is not the choice of the person to be a dual
citizen that’s why before it is allowed that a person of dual citizen can
run for public office as long as he does not have dual allegiance. But that
was before.
Filipino citizenship is lost by:
1. Naturalization in a foreign country
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country.
Can be reacquired by:
1. direct act of congress
2. naturalization
3. Repatriation
Take note also that NOW under RA 9225 if you want to reacquire
Philippine citizenship take an oath of allegiance that’s ok. But if you
want to run for a public office there is another requirement that is you
must execute an affidavit renouncing any and all foreign citizenship. The
law says you must execute it at the time of the filing of the COC but
there is a case here that says BEFORE or prior to filing of the COC.
e. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
Q: How do we define FUGITIVES from justice?
Includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid
punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to
avoid prosecution. This definition truly finds support from
jurisprudence and it may be so conceded as expressing the
general and ordinary connotation of the term. Remember the
bottom line here is flight from justice thus you will be covered
here and abroad.
f. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right
after the effectivity of this Code; and
g. The insane or feeble-minded.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
Article IV, Section 5, 1987 Constitution
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
RA 9225
xxx
THERE MUST BE EXPRESS
VALLES VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 Was she issued an Australian passport? Yes. Does that tantamount to a
renunciation of citizenship? Because here the argument is this, she
renounced her Philippine citizenship the moment she applied for alien
certificate of registration, and the moment she was issued an
Australian passport. Does that tantamount to renunciation of Filipino
citizenship? No. It has to be EXPRESS Renunciation. It was said in Labo
case, you cannot reacquire Filipino citizenship by mere implication.
IOW, they cannot renounce their Filipino citizenship by mere
implication. It has to be express. Jus sanguinis? Her father was Filipino
so that was enough for her to become Filipino.
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
FILING OF COC ENOUGH TO
MERCADO VS MANZANO
One-liner: The provision that persons with dual citizenship are prohibited
from running or seeking public office must be understood as referring to dual
allegiance. The mere filing of certificate of candidacy therefore has the effect
of electing Philippine citizenship and renouncing other foreign citizenships
and/or allegiances.
Held: Dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship. The former is a result
of the intentional act of an individual by some positive act to owe loyalty to
two or more states, while the latter may be obtained by reason of the cross
applications of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles. While dual citizenship
is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.
COMMENTS:
Looking into the Manzano case, when Manzano said that he is an American
national holding an American passport, SC said that it is a mere assertion that
he is an American national. Take note of the use of the word nationality, not
citizenship. He is just holding it, not using it. He retains the passport because
his renunciation of American citizenship is still in the process. He did not
surrender his passport at that time.
 If you are dual citizen insofar as this case is concerned, can you run for
public office? Let’s limit to Manzano. Dual citizenship, you’re allowed.
What is not allowed is that if you have dual-allegiance. What’s wrong with
dual-allegiance? Firstly, dual-citizenship arises when there are 2 concurrent
laws applying. However, when you have dual-allegiance, that disqualifies
you because when you run for public office, you should have complete
devotion to country. When you say dual-allegiance that’s being unfaithful.
 In this case, it was argued that even if Edu Manzano was a dual citizen but
at that time before the Bureau of Immigration, he admitted he is an
American Citizen holding an American Passport. How did the SC address
that?
 The SC said, the fact that he admitted that he is American Citizen in the BOI
and that he holds American passport, these are mere assertions of his
American nationality, not citizenship. So prior to the complete termination
of his dual-citizenship, if you say I am American, holding American
passport, these are mere assertions of American nationality.
 Take note that the steps by w/c you re-acquire citizenship or you abandon
your dual-citizenship, insofar as Manzano is concerned, is no longer
enough.
 Whatwere these steps? (personal, sworn statement etc... found in DE
GUZMAN case)
LABO VS COMELEC
One-liner: That foreign naturalization was nullified after a marriage to a
foreign national declared null and void does not automatically restore dual
citizenship.
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
with by law. Labo claims that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst
only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. Such a
specious argument cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. 63,
which enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost:
1. Naturalization in a foreign country
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner.
Page 34 of 42
It is also worth mentioning in this connection that under Article IV, Section
5, of the present Constitution, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
Arty Guji: Labo here invokes that he won by a plurality of votes (2100) and
he said that the SC should listen to the will of the people “thunderous
victory” but the SC said its not that loud as opposed to Frivaldo.
Q. Is there a standard by which we can say that you have to have this
number of votes so that we can say that the sovereign will have spoken?
There is no standard. Even if you win by only one vote if you are a
qualified candidate in the first place you are going to win, but if you are
disqualified or that you are not a candidate to begin with, even if you win
by let say a 100 000 votes you are going to lose because you are not
supposed to be there in the first place.
The reason behind there is because if you suffer one disqualification
in so far as CARL is concerned ok; when you lose one qualification
automatically you cannot be a candidate in any point in time so no matter
how many votes you have you cannot take an oath of office.
TN: But if in the COC you lied on something that is not related to
CARL i.e. you state that you are a lawyer when you are only a law
graduate. That misrepresentation does not make you less of a candidate.
You might be liable for perjury because the COC is under oath but it does
not disqualify you as a candidate because according to the SC that
misrepresentation is harmless for as long as it does not involve CARL.
THERE MUST BE PERSONAL AND
ROSELLER DE GUZMAN VS COMELEC
One Liner: Filing of a sworn statement is not the only qualification to run
for public office. We must not also do something that will vacate our
renunciation.
COMMENTS:
 In connection with Mercado case, upon filing of the COC, that is
enough to effectively renounce your dual-citizenship. But in this case,
what is the other requirement? The law says personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all other citizenship before any public officer
or authorized to administer oath. Who is that public officer? Notary
public.
 What if you just want to renounce your dual-citizenship? Is that
enough? When is personal renunciation of any and all other citizenship
required? If you will run for public office. But if you don’t want to run,
no need.
 When should you renounce this way? Prior to filing of COC. What about
simultaneously filing with COC? In the language of the law it says prior
to filing COC, but there is a case that says PRIOR TO or
SIMULTANEOUSLY with filing of COC, you can execute a personal and
sworn renunciation etc.
 If Grace Poe was natural-born and she wants to reinstate herself as
natural-born, but by doing so she’s going to execute a certain
document. And by execution of that document, it already amounts to
you doing something. But did we not say, that to be natural born, you
need not do anything to perfect your Filipino citizenship. How come
here she is doing something, and she can take back her natural-born
status? Why?
 What happened here was to establish that if you want to run for public
office, you need to execute a sworn and personal declaration of any
and all other citizenship. But here in this case, what happened was her
renunciation was not notarized and sworn. What was her argument? It
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
was mere formality.
 Is it true that in the deliberations, it said that it is a mere formality? Yes.
But, the SC addressed it when it said to De Guzman, you are right. But your
argument is misplaced because, it is a mere formal requirement. The SC
said yes it is a mere formal requirement, but not within the context of your
argument. During the deliberation, it is clear that they said that the
renunciation is a mere formal requirement. But, when you say formal
requirement, it does not mean that you are not going to follow the
formalities involved. It has to be sworn, notarized. When they said it was a
mere formal requirement, it was only because the renunciation must be
deemed a formal requirement only with respect to the reacquisition of you
natural-born citizenship, to override the effect of the principle: that for you
to be natural born, you need not do anything to acquire or perfect your
natural-born citizenship. So the effect is, kung nahitabo diay na, you can be
reinstated as natural-born.
 Answer (Grace Poe question): So if she was natural-born Filipino, and the
fact she was American citizen. She did (the procedure stated above) to
renounce her citizenship. Can she do that to reacquire her natural-born
Filipino citizenship? Yes, even if she did something to perfect her natural-
born Filipino citizenship. It is a mere Formality in that context (deemed a
formal requirement only with respect to the reacquisition of you natural-
born citizenship, to override the effect of the principle: that for your to be
natural born, you need not do anything to acquire or perfect your natural-
born citizenship), and not a formality that can be done away with.
Otherwise stated, renunciation of foreign citizenship must be complete,
unequivocal, irreversible and permanent.
 Last year, previous batch, one of my exam questions was: A candidate filed
a COC but he was still holding his Liberian passport. He comes to you. What
is your advise?
- 90% of the students said “advise not to use the passport anymore” for
it will vacate his renunciation which will disqualify him to run for public
office. CORRECT. Do not answer “hide the passport” especially during
the bar exams. There are ethical considerations. This will offend legal
ethics.
 Another question: Office of the President and Ombudsman has concurrent
jurisdiction in disciplining public officials. You can go either way. If you
were the lawyer of the client, where would you file the complaint? Do
not answer: If the President is an ally of my client, I will file in the Office of
the President. Correct in so far as lawyering is concerned but never in the
bar exams. Ethical considerations. Just a bit of advise.
SOBEJANA-CONDON VS COMELEC
One-liner: The personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public office authorized to administer oath is an
additional qualification for elective office specific only to Filipino citizens who
re-acquire their citizenship under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. Failure to
renounce foreign citizenship in accordance with the exact tenor of Section 5
(2) of RA 9225 renders a dual citizen ineligible to run for and thus hold any
elective public office.
MAQUILING VS COMELEC
One-liner: Anyone who seeks to run for public office must be solely and
exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino who reacquires
Philippine citizenship to continue using a foreign passport — which indicates
the recognition of a foreign state of the individual as its national — even after
the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to allow a complete
disregard of this policy.
Facts: Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen and subsequently acquired
American citizenship by naturalization. He reacquired his Filipino citizenship
by taking his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and that he renounced his
Page 35 of 42
American citizenship. However, after renouncing his American citizenship,
he used his U.S. passport at least six times.
Held: The requirement that the renunciation must be made through an
oath emphasizes the solemn duty of the one making the oath of
renunciation to remain true to what he has sworn to. Allowing the
subsequent use of a foreign passport because it is convenient for the
person to do so is rendering the oath a hollow act. It devalues the act of
taking of an oath, reducing it to a mere ceremonial formality.
It must be stressed that what is at stake here is the principle that only
those who are exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for public office. If
we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their
foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign passports,
we are creating a special privilege for these dual citizens, thereby
effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code.
 Is there a difference between using and holding an American
passport? Looking into the Manzano case, when Manzano said that he
is an American national holding an American passport, SC said that it is
a mere assertion that he is an American national. Take note of the use
of the word nationality, not citizenship. He is just holding it, not using
it. He retains the passport because his renunciation of American
citizenship is still in the process. He did not surrender his passport at
that time.
 In Maquiling:
- Did he take his Oath of allegiance to the Philippines? Yes.
- Did he execute a personal sworn statement of renunciation? Yes
- In other words, perfect for a public official candidate.
- But he did something else. He continued using his passport.
- What is the effect of continued use after renunciation? Continued
use of passport vacates the renunciation.
As the words of the SC go:
The use of foreign passport after renouncing one's foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to one's
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship
regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation
required to qualify one to run for an elective position.
- Used the passport 6 more times. Therefore, he is disqualified.
In effect, Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen only for a
period of eleven days, or from 3 April 2009 until 14 April 2009, on which
date he first used his American passport after renouncing his American
citizenship.
This Court has previously ruled that:
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements
and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may
be seasonably challenged.
We therefore hold that Arnado, by using his US passport after renouncing
his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of Renunciation he
took. Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code applies to his situation.
He is disqualified not only from holding the public office but even from
becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections.
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE
MARQUEZ VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
 Respondent had 10 counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal
property cases still pending before the Municipal Court of LA, California. He
did not receive summons because he flew to the Philippines and then ran
for governor against Marquez. Marquez filed a disqualification case against
Rodriguez being a fugitive from justice.
 Case remanded back from SC to COMELEC.
 COMELEC had an incorrect definition of fugitive from justice.
 This guy did not have finality of judgment. But there are cases filed against
him, pending. No final judgment of conviction yet.
 Fugitive from justice is one who not only escapes to avoid punishment
after judgment with finality but also who flees to avoid prosecution or
being charged or prosecuted.
 So even if you only have a pending case, when you flee from it, you are a
fugitive from justice.
 Are you a fugitive from justice if there is a pending case in the country then
you escape prosecution or escape from punishment after finality of
judgment? Do you need to cross country to be called fugitive from justice?
It does not matter if you escape the justice system here or abroad. If you
disrespect our justice system, all the more you are disqualified.
SC: Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991, to the extent that it confines the term "fugitive
from justice" to refer only to a person (the fugitive) "who has been
convicted by final judgment," is an inordinate and undue circumscription
of the law.
 NOTE: One can still run for public office even if with pending case or
convicted but no finality. As long as there is no final conviction, or still on
appeal. one can still run. Remember Jalosjos. He was already serving time
in Muntinlupa but won congressman twice! Even Arroyo. She is still a
congresswoman even if placed on house/hospital arrest.
 But in case he already flew before summons were served, this does not
apply. Court has no jurisdiction over his person yet.
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN FOREIGN
Sections 12 and 68, Omnibus Election Code
Section 68
Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign
country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant
of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws.
CAASI VS CA
One-liner: Immigration abandons domicile/residence. Application for
immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. and possession of a
green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof of being a permanent
resident of the US.
 These 2 cases were consolidated because they have the same objective, the
disqualification of private respondent Miguel for the position of mayor of
Bolinao on the ground that he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent
resident of USA, not of Bolinao.
 Miguel admitted that he holds a green card issued to him by the US Immigration
Service, but he denied that he is a permanent resident of USA. He allegedly
obtained the green card for convenience in order that he may freely enter the
US for his periodic medical examination and to visit his children there.
 He is implying that he has no intention of remaining there. It is only for his
medical condition and to visit his children.
 But he actually holds a green card. What is the effect of holding a green card?
He has allegiance to that country. Yes and in relation to residency? He is a
permanent resident of that country and has abandoned his residence/domicile
in our country.
Page 36 of 42
Held: To be qualified to run for elective office in the Philippines, the law
requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have waived
his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country.
Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in
the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his
green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and
done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country.
Without such prior waiver, he was disqualified to run for any elective
office.
Atty. Guji : Because the fact that you are a green card holder says that
either you are a permanent resident or immigrant outside the country and
being such you actually abandoned not only your residence but also
domicile in the country in which case you suffer the disqualification of
residence under CARRL.
 The phrase “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion” is
exactly illustrated in this case.
VACANCY IN ELECTIVE LOCAL
GROUNDS
 Death
 Permanent Disability
 Resignation
 Disqualification with finality
 Loss of some continuing requirements
HOW FILLED
Section 45 (C), LGC
xxx
1. Appointment = vacancy in councilors; co-equals
2. Succession = applies to highest ranking officials (Gov, V-Gov, Mayor, V-
mayor)
 Local chief executive appoints officials, does not apply to all
 But if governor dies, it is by succession. Succeeded by vice-governor
 Mayor dies, Vice-mayor becomes mayor.
 Vice-mayor dies, first councilor succeeds Vice-mayor (highest ranking
councilor)
 So there is vacancy in the office of the councilor = fill out with
appointment
2 nd
councilor cannot succeed = co-equal with other councilors; same
rank
 No succession among councilors. No succession among co-equals.
Succession presupposes a lower position assuming a higher position.
 Appoint a councilor who is not an incumbent. He is there already.
Appoint an outsider.
 Does it matter if one who vacated as first councilor belongs to one
political party? YES. As long as it is in the vacancy in councilorial
position. So, if you belong to a political party and you vacate that
position, you must be replaced by somebody from the same political
party.
REASON: for continuity
Q. How is the vacancy caused by a Sangguniang member not
belonging to any political party, filled?
The Local Chief Executive shall appoint a qualified person to fill the
vacancy, upon the recommendation of the sanggunian concerned.
DATE OF ELECTION
Article XVIII, Sections 1, 5, 1987 Constitution
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this
Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1987.
COMMENTS:
 Regular elections (national, provincial, barangay): 2nd Monday of May,
holiday. Started in May 1992. Every 3 years thereafter.
 Regional officers: 2Monday of May (2013); Every 3 years thereafter.
nd
refers to ARMM only, the only region
 Barangay officials: last Monday of October. NO consistent date of
elections. But very specific in day.
Section 42, LGC
Sections 1 and 2, RA 7166
Section 1, RA 9164
ADJUSTMENT OF PERIOD OF PRE-
RA 6646, Sec 29
Designation of Other Dates for certain Pre-election Acts.- If it should no longer
be reasonably possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for
certain pre-election acts, the Commission shall fix other periods and dates in
order to ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be
deprived of their right of suffrage.
RA 8436, Sec 28
CANNOT EXTEND REG (WITHIN
AKBAYAN VS COMELEC
COMMENTS:
 The ERAP impeachment sparked interest among the youth aged 18-21 but
they were not able to beat the deadline in voter’s registration schedule so
they filed a petition asking the SC to extend the voter’s registration and by
doing so they invoked that power of COMELEC which gives the COMELEC
the power to adjust pre-election activities. They said “pre-election
activities” include voter’s registration.
 Voter’s registration may be done everyday except on the prohibited period
120 days before the election and 90 days before special election. There is
even registration on a holiday, Saturdays and Sundays so there is absolutely
no reason for you not to register except procrastination.
 Problem was petitioners filed their petition within the 120-day prohibited
period and the period they asked for also fell within the 120-day period
prior to elections.
 SC: Cannot extend registration. Aside from the fact that voter’s registration
is not the only thing that the COMELEC does. After registration, it also
finalizes its projects on precincts, meaning when we finalize the number of
voters in a polling place; when we cluster/merge precincts. Basically, a
polling place consists only of a maximum of 200 voters. But on election
day, a polling place may consist of 1000 voters because of clustering. This is
to save cost because we are using PCOS machine. Instead of using 5 PCOS
machines for 5 polling places, we only use 1 because of clustering
precincts. We also finalize voter’s lists and appoint board of election
inspectors. Voter’s registration is not limited to filing of form; it goes
through a process. COMELEC works all year round. Do not ask COMELEC to
do the impossible and petitioners should be blamed for not beating the
Page 37 of 42
deadline. Even if COMELEC may adjust pre-election activities, it must be
done under reasonable conditions.
NATURE OF BRGY ELECTIONS
Omnibus Election Code, Sec 38
Conduct of elections.- The barangay election shall be non-partisan and
shall be conducted in an expeditious and inexpensive manner.
COMMENTS:
 Non-partisan and conducted in an expeditious and inexpensive manner
 Not supporting, belonging to or biased in favor of any political party
Specific acts of partisanship:
Filing of CoC representing or allowing to be represented as candidate of
any political party or any other organization.
No party, organization intervenes in the nomination or in the filing of CoC
Party or organization giving support, directly or indirectly, material or
otherwise favorable to or against a candidate
Except?
Relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
Campaign staff – not more than 1 in every 100 registered voters
Caveat!
It should not be in any manner construed to impair the freedom of
individuals to support or oppose any candidate for any barangay office.
OCCENA VS COMELEC
Facts: The constitutionality of an old law which had virtually the same
provision on the non-partisan character of barangay elections was
challenged. It violates constitutional guarantees on the right to form
association and societies for purposes not contrary to law.
Held: The right to form association is not absolute. It is subject to
pervasive police power thus may be constitutionally regulated to serve
important and appropriate public interest.
The right to organize remains intact but certain activities are restricted.
The ban is narrow, not total. It operates only on concerted or group action
of political parties. Acting individually, party members may intervene.
What is the purpose of non-partisan character?
Barangay is the basic unit or the base of the pyramid of both social and
political structure. It should not be insulated from divisive and debilitating
partisan politics. Barangay officials have legislative and consultative
power, Act as agents of neutral community action such as distribution of
basic services, Instruments in conducting plebiscites and referenda, Settle
local disputes. (Occena v Comelec)
COMMENTS:
 Non-partisan = prohibits the participation or intervention of political
party and any organization for that matter. What is prohibited is the
concerted group effort to promote candicacy. Everybody in barangay
election is an individual party. Collaboration such as Team Unity / Team
Performance is already a circumvention of the prohibition.
 Reason for non-partisan character: barangay officials are the first line
of defense, serves as grassroots. They do not only legislate; also
consultative. They even settle disputes. They must be shielded from the
conflicts.
 Can the mayor, in his personal capacity, endorse the candicacy of a
particular punong brgy? You can argue both ways – either on personal
capacity or the circumvention. However, in the Omnibus Election Code
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
Sec 38, it says, “Nothing in this section, however, shall be construed as in
any manner affecting or constituting an impairment of the freedom of
individuals to support or oppose any candidate for any barangay office.”
 In case of doubt, you rule in favor of the preferred freedom of expression.
It was also argued here that non-partisan character violates right to form
association.
 But SC said, this does not take away the right to associate, it only limits,
prohibiting the concerted group effort to promote candicacy.
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION,
Omnibus Election Code, Sec 5
Postponement of election. - When for any serious cause such as violence,
terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force
majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a
free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any political
subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio 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 to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such postponement
or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
What are the grounds for postponement?
 Serious cause
o Violence
o Terrorism
o Loss or destruction of paraphernalia or records
o Force majeure
o Other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of free,
orderly and honest election becomes impossible in any political
subdivision.
COMMENTS:
 GROUNDS: must be serious
 Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records (e.g. official
ballots, election returns, voter’s list). But COMELEC may improvise e.g.
when ballots are delayed, we can borrow ballots from other barangays.
COMELEC is empowered to make snap judgments on election day
Especially during automated elections. I said earlier that that ballots
are polling place specific. What if all the ballots for a certain place was lost?
There cannot be an election there. Election paraphernalia was lost. That’s
the problem with automated elections.
 Force majeure = e.g. earthquake last October 2013. Voting Centers (public
schools) suffered damage so barangay election was postponed.
Q. What is the process of postponement of election?
1. Motu proprio by the Comelec or upon a verified petition by any interested
party
2. Due notice and hearing where all parties are afforded equal opportunity to
be heard
Section 4, RA 7166
Section 2, RA 6679
MONTESCLAROS VS COMELEC
If the ground is not one of those enumerated, the Comelec cannot postpone,
it merely recommends, as when it is operationally very difficult to
simultaneously hold the barangay and SK elections, legislative action to
amend the law resetting the election is required.
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION,
Page 38 of 42
COMELEC EN BANC
BENITO VS COMELEC
Who postpones elections?
The Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members, motu
proprio or upon verified petition by any interested party, after due notice
and hearing where all the interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard.
BASHIER VS COMELEC
Can the Election Officer postpone elections?
The election officer, on basis of threats of violence and bloodshed, cannot
by herself declare failure of election and reset it even with the agreement
of the candidates.
COMMENTS:
 There was violence; safety of everybody was threatened. Candidates
said that they will not complain if elections will be reset. And the
COMELEC officer postponed the election.
 SC: cannot postpone, no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction pertained only to the
commission en banc
 Common in ARMM elections
When is election postponed?
To date reasonably close to date of election not held, suspended or failed
but not later than 30 days after cessation of the cause.
 Like in Bohol. Election resumed after 30 days
 But it should not be too close as to preclude notice to the electorate.
The announcement made minutes before the supposed voting is not a
notice at all to the electorate who should be given ample notice of the
exact schedule and venue of the election.
FAILURE OF ELECTION, GROUNDS
Section 6, Omnibus Election Code
Sec. 6. Failure of election.- If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before
the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,
and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect
the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 4, RA 7166
R.A. 7166 Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections.
The postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of
special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus
Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a
majority vote of its members. The causes for the declaration of a failure of
election may occur before or after the casting of votes or on the day of
the election.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term,
the Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate,
the special election shall be held simultaneously with the succeeding regular
election.
Q. What are the grounds for declaration of failure of election?
1. Force majeure
2. Violence
3. Terrorism
4. Fraud
5. Other analogous causes the election in any polling place was not
held.
Q. What are the 3 instances where a failure of election may be declared?
1. Election in any polling place was not held on the fixed date on
account of force majeure, terrorism, fraud, violence and other analogous
cases.
2. Election in any polling place had been suspended before the close of
voting on account of force majeure, terrorism, fraud, violence and other
analogous cases
3. After voting and during preparation and transmission of election
returns or inter custody of canvass, such election results in failure to elect on
the same grounds.
Somehow it does not apply to automated elections. But there are instances
that it can still apply, like for example you are in a mountain barangay, the
signal is not that strong. What they (teachers) do is they bring the memory
card to the canvassing area. What if along the way, somebody else takes it?
That’s why it can still apply.
Q. Sir, how about during election and there still people lining up but its
already 5pm. Are they still allowed to vote?
If the deadliest deadline is 5pm. If for example, if there are areas where
people are still queuing within 30 meters towards the polling place. What we
do is we ask their names, jot them down tell them to wait for their turn to
votes. Our goal is not to disenfranchise the people.
COMMENTS:
 Election starts at 7AM.
 For manual elections, it ends at 3PM.
 If prior to 3PM, it was suspended already, it gives rise to a ground for
failure of elections.
 For automated elections, we extended the voting hours until 5PM. In 2013,
extended further to 7PM to accommodate everybody (thousand voters in a
polling place).
MITMUG VS COMELEC
Facts: Voter turnout for the election was very low. Only 2,330 out of 9,830
registered voters therein cast their votes. Upon Other candidates filed
separate petition for the declaration of failure of election in some or all
precincts.
Held: Even if less than 25% of the electorate in the questioned polling places
cast their votes, it must still be respected. Low turnout does not result in
failure of elections. It only means no interest on the part of the people to
vote.
The law does not require majority of voters cast their votes, mere plurality of
votes is enough for a candidate to be proclaimed a winner
CANICOSA VS COMELEC
Late election returns is not a ground for failure of election. That the
election returns were delivered late and the ballot boxes brought to the office
of the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking
metal seals cannot impel us to declare failure of election. The late deliveries
did not convert the election held in Calamba into a mockery or farce to make
us conclude that there was indeed a failure of election.
Page 39 of 42
Facts: A mayor was proclaimed winner after obtaining a majority of 24,
000 votes. But the second placer petition to declare failure of election due
to fraud, violence, threat, intimidation, vote-buying and delay in the
delivery of election documents and paraphernalia.
 Missing names of registered voters
 More than half of the registered voters failed to vote because
others voted for them.
 He was credited with less votes than he actually obtained.
 Control data of election returns were not filled out in some polling
places.
Held:
 These grounds do not warrant failure of election as none of them fall
under the three instances where failure of election may be declared.
 Missing name’s in voter’s list – remedy is inclusion or exclusion or
annulment of book of voters.
COMMENTS:
After finalization of voter’s list, we publish or post it outside the
COMELEC office. We also give copies to political parties way before
election. They know already the list.
If indeed some of the names are missing and they should be there
in the first place, remedy is file for inclusion (to include somebody who is
excluded by the ERB) or exclusion (if ERB approved the application of a
voter despite the fact that he or she does not possess all the
qualifications) or annulment of book of voters (when book of voters was
not prepared according to law or contains statistically improbable data).
Have these remedies before the election. Do not complain during or after
election. These remedies won’t be available. They are lost forever.
It happens when you fail to vote for two consecutive elections, your
votes will be deactivated. The COMELEC informs you of the deactivation of
your votes only after the deactivation not before as what the law says.
For purpose of counting, Barangay elections is considered regular
except SK.
TN: Since a copy of the complete list of voters is published in the
Comelec website and posted in the bulletin of the Comelec.

You’ll think it is unfair, but no it is not unfair because the remedy is
not Failure of Election but Election Protest. But the problem is Election
protest takes a lot of time and it might be resolved after term of office.
 More than half of the registered voters failed to vote because others
voted for them – remedy is challenge the identity of the voter during
inside the polling place (ROLE OF WATCHERS)
COMMENTS: challenge in writing, in English. But in highly
urbanized cities, there is already a picture and thumb mark of the voter.
Teacher only verifies. Presumption of regularity. Voter’s ID is not
needed to vote. Only needed when one’s identity is challenged. May
present any other valid ID, for that matter.
 Less votes – should have been raised before the BEI that counted the
votes. So BEI can rectify.
TN: Manifest error readily seen by the naked eye – raise that before the
Board of Election Canvassers that counted the votes) 
 Control data of election returns were not filled – should have been
raised before the Board of Canvassers that canvassed the election
returns.
COMMENTS: But even if raised, it would not matter for it
does not affect the integrity of election. Control data has serial
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
numbers and has statistics. Teachers sometimes fail to fill up the statistics
such as total number of registered voters, total number of those who
actually voted, males, females. Failure to fill these up does not affect the
integrity of election returns. Election returns contain the votes counted.
Names of candidates have corresponding number of votes then thumb
marked by the teachers. Sometimes, they fail to place their thumb marks.
Even the signatures of watchers are not required. They are mere
circumstantiality. With or without the signatures of watchers, election is
valid. However, there are election returns which are completely filled up by
meticulous teachers. Then, one will object because the election ballot is
immaculately clean. It is spurious, too good to be true. A mere formal
defect does not affect integrity.
 Unsecured ballot boxes - a mere defect that does not affect their integrity
COMMENTS: A ballot box has 3 padlocks. Sometimes teachers
lose one padlock or two. Sometimes they borrow padlocks from watchers.
So others will contest the security of ballot boxes. They say that the
padlocks are not the prescribed COMELEC padlocks. However, this does not
affect integrity. We don’t care about the ballot boxes after the counting
because it does not contain the official ballots anymore. It contains the
counted ballots already. For canvassing, the election returns matters, not
the ballot boxes.
 Late election returns – not a ground for failure.
COMMENTS: It is possible that the election returns will be
delayed e.g. those from the mountain barangays, island barangays. This is
for the manual elections. If it were automated, as long as there is signal
wherever you are, you can transmit the data.
Q. What are the two requisites for the en banc to act on a verified petition
to declare failure of election?
1. No voting took place in the polling places on the date fixed by law
2. The votes that were not cast affect the result of elections
(Mitmug v Comelec, Benito v Comelec)
COMMENTS:
 For example, we have 4 polling places - 405, 406, 403, 407. We are a small
barangay. Number of voters – 250, 260, 270, 280. No voting happened in
one polling place. Election paraphernalia, voter’s lists are lost. No ballot
boxes, no election returns. No voting for the 280.
 If candidate A got 700 votes and B obtained 80 votes. Is there failure of
elections? NONE. Because even if we let the 280 vote, it is statistically
improbable for B to overcome the votes for A. Special election will be
useless. B is a sure loser because of A’s lead.
 But if the votes not cast will affect the elections, we can by all means have
special elections. So, first declare failure of elections then have special
elections.
Illustrative Case:
Facts: A punong barangay lost by 29 votes. He alleged 100 of his relatives and
supporters were not able to vote because the BEI in 3 polling places
discontinued the voting.
Found: Out 316 voters, 220 actually voted.
Held: No failure of election. If indeed voters were prevented from voting,
remedy is election protest. (Batabor v Comelec)
Even if less than 25% of the electorate in the questioned polling places cast
their votes, it must still be respected. (Mitmug v Comelec)
Even if only 1 out 177 voted in a polling place, there is still no failure of
election. (Benito v Comelec)
For as long as there is voting, regardless of number, there is no failure of
election. It only fails if the sovereign will has been muted and cannot be
ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, it must be respected.
(Sardea v Comelec)
Page 40 of 42
The power to nullify an election must be exercised with greatest care as
not to disenfranchise voters. (Ruiz v Comelec)
 To declare failure of elections should be the last resort.
BATABOR VS COMELEC
Facts: Proclamation of one position was sought to be annulled on the
ground of failure of election.
Held: Failure of election necessarily affects all elective positions in the
place where elections failed. To hold otherwise is discriminatory and
violates equal protection clause. We cannot take out one position if
exposed to the same ground.
SARDEA VS COMELEC
Facts: While the canvassing of the election returns was going on, some
sympathizers of a defeated mayoralty candidate stormed the municipal
building and destroyed all election materials and paraphernalia including,
among others, the copies of election returns furnished to respondent
Board.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and assessed the extent of
the damage wrought by the demonstrators. It discovered that the election
returns in the possession of the MTC Judge were intact, so it ordered the
retrieval of said election returns for use in the canvass. Several people
filed a petition to declare a failure of election.
Held: The pre-conditions for declaring a failure of election are:
(1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force
majeure, violence or terrorism
(2) the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections.
The language of the law clearly requires the concurrence of these two
circumstances to justify the calling of a special election.
The destruction and loss of the copies of the election returns intended for
the Municipal Board of Canvassers on account of violence is not one of
the causes that would warrant the declaration of a failure of election
because voting actually took place as scheduled and other valid election
returns still existed. Moreover, the incident did not affect the result of the
election.
For as long as there is voting, regardless of number, there is no failure of
election. It only fails if the sovereign will has been muted and cannot be
ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, it must be
respected.
DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF
ELECTION, JURISDICTION
Omnibus Election Code, Article VI Sec. 45.
Postponement or failure of election. - When for any serious cause such as
violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or
records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such nature that
the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become
impossible in any barangay, the Commission, upon a verified petition of an
interested party and after due notice and hearing at which the interested
parties are given equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the
election therein for such time as it may deem necessary.
If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes, the election in any barangay has not been held on the
date herein fixed or has been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
the closing of the voting therein and such failure or suspension of election
would affect the result of the election, the Commission, on the basis of a
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION
verified petition of an interested party, and after due notice and hearing, at
which the interested parties are given equal opportunity to be heard shall call
for the holding or continuation of the election within thirty days after it shall
have verified and found that the cause or causes for which the election has
been postponed or suspended have ceased to exist or upon petition of at
least thirty percent of the registered voters in the barangay concerned.
When the conditions in these areas warrant, upon verification by the
Commission, or upon petition of at least thirty percent of the registered
voters in the barangay concerned, it shall order the holding of the barangay
election which was postponed or suspended.
Q. Who declares failure of election?
The Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members, motu
proprio or upon verified petition by any interested party, after due notice and
hearing where all the interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be
heard.
COMMENTS:
The election officer, on account of threats of violence and bloodshed, cannot
by herself validly suspend of or postpone elections even with the agreement
of the candidates. (Bashier v Comelec)
BENITO VS COMELEC
Facts: Rival Mayoralty candidate won by 48 votes. Losing candidate then filed
a petition to declare failure of election in precincts 3 precincts: 15A, 6A/6A1
and 17A.
Allegedly, five election precincts were clustered namely, precincts 15A,
6A/6A1, 17A, 2A/2A1 and 13A. On election day, voting was disrupted before
noon by armed men. The voting resumed an hour after the firing occurred.
Notwithstanding the turn of events, the ballot boxes for the 5 precincts were
taken together with those from the 19 other precincts for counting. The votes
from precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A were excluded upon objection by losing
candidate's counsel who, it is claimed, arrived only after the ballots from the
other 19precincts had already been tabulated.
Considering that rival candidate would still lead petitioner by 7 votes even if
all 41 votes from the 3 excluded precincts were counted in the latter's favor,
his rival candidate was proclaimed mayor.
Losing candidate filed a petition to declare failure of election and to call a
special elections in precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A.
Held: It is odd that Benito singled out only 3 precincts when there were 2
other precincts in the same school threatened by armed men. There was no
objection raised to the count of votes in the said two precincts during the
counting of votes at the counting center. So why a selective objection to the 3
precincts herein?
Further, there cannot be a failure of election in a political unit if the will of the
majority has not been defiled and can be ascertained, as in the case at bar. All
the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of
valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if only
1 out of 177 voted in a polling place, there is still no failure of election
provided there is notice.
Note: As long there is notice, no turn-out in a precinct does not mean a failure
of elections. For all you know, all others had no interest to cast their votes.
The power to nullify elections must be exercised with greatest care so not to
disenfranchise the electorate. In short, the power to declare failure of
election must be the last remedy.
LOONG VS COMELEC
Facts: Automated elections systems was used for the regular elections held in
Page 41 of 42
the ARMM which includes the Province of Sulu. Some election inspectors
and watchers informed the head of the COMELEC Task Force of
discrepancies between the election returns and the votes cast for the
mayoralty candidates.
To avoid a situation where proceeding with automation will result in an
erroneous count, the head suspended the automated counting of ballots
and immediately communicated the problem to the technical experts of
COMELEC and the suppliers of the automated machine. After the
consultations, the experts told him that they found nothing wrong with
the automated machines. The error was in the printing of the local ballots,
as a consequence of which, the automated machines failed to read them
correctly.
The head called for an emergency meeting of the local candidates and the
military-police officials overseeing the Sulu elections, including the
respondent winning candidate and petitioner losing candidate for
governor. COMELEC issued Minute Resolution ordering a manual count
but only in the said municipality. After a manual count, respondent was
proclaimed governor-elect.
Two of the losing candidates questioned the resolutions of the COMELEC
ordering a manual count of the votes.
Held: Losing candidates were given every opportunity to oppose the
manual count. They were orally heard and submitted written position
papers and their representatives escorted the transfer of ballots to Manila
and watched the manual count from the beginning to the end.
COMELEC is given the broad power to "enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall". This provision gives COMELEC all the necessary
powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and credible elections. Embraced therein is the power to order a
manual count where automated counting fails. Furthermore, R.A. No.
8436 did not prohibit the manual counting when machine count does not
work.
CARLOS VS ANGELES
Facts: The Municipal Board of Canvassers, proclaimed petitioner Carlos as
the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela having obtained 102,688 votes, the
highest number of votes, over that of respondent Serapio who obtained
77,270 votes.
Respondent filed with the RTC an election protest challenging the election
results. RTC rendered its decision and set aside the final tally of valid votes
because of its finding of "significant badges of fraud”.
Despite the plurality of valid votes in favor of protestee Carlos, the trial
court set aside his proclamation and declared protestant Serapio as duly
elected mayor of Valenzuela City.
Held: In a petition to annul an election under Section 6, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, two conditions must be averred in order to support a sufficient
cause of action: (1) the illegality must affect more than 50% of the votes
cast and (2) the good votes can be distinguished from the bad ones.
It is only when these two conditions are established that the annulment of
the election can be justified because the remaining votes do not
constitute a valid constituency.
Assuming that the trial court was correct in holding that the final tally of
valid votes as per revision report may be set aside because of the
"significant badges of fraud," the same would be tantamount to a ruling
that there were no valid votes cast at all for the candidates, and, thus, no
winner could be declared in the election protest case. In short, there was
failure of election. In such case, the proper remedy is an action before the
Commission on Elections en banc to declare a failure of election or to
annul the election. However, the case below was an election protest case
ELECTION LAW (PRE-MIDTERM) NOTES- ALMONDS COMPILATION Page 42 of 42
involving an elective municipal position which, under Section 251 of the
Election Code, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the appropriate
RTC.

Nonetheless, the annulment of an election on the ground of fraud,

irregularities and violations of election laws may be raised as an incident to an
election contest. Such grounds for annulment of an election may be invoked
in an election protest case. However, an election must not be nullified and the
voters disenfranchised whenever it is possible to determine a winner on the
basis of valid votes cast, and discard the illegally cast ballots. In this case, the
petitioner admittedly received 17,007 valid votes more than the protestee,
and therefore the nullification of the election would not lie. The power to
nullify an election must be exercised with the greatest care with a view not to
disenfranchise the voters, and only under circumstances that clearly call for
such drastic remedial measure.

 The RTC, on account that a victory was attended by significant badges of

fraud, cannot declare failure of election in guise of voiding the
proclamation of the winner despite obtaining 25, 000 majority votes during
canvass, 27, 000 votes by physical count and 17, 000 votes by revision.
(Carlos v Angeles)

COMMENTS:
Canvass is when we consolidate results from all polling places. If there is
protest, there will be physical count, looking into who is voted for without
first determining whether that vote counts. Revision is equivalent to the RTC’s
ballot appreciation. Appreciation is determining whether the particular vote
can be counted for the candidate. Manual elections have nuisances. E.g.
RONULO. Then, you might vote for ROMULO. Wrong spelling. But, there is a
principle in ballot appreciation “sounds alike are counted”. After revision, he is
still the winner. But RTC said his victory was attended by badges of fraud e.g.
unsecured ballot boxes and BROWN OUT. Suddenly, results were changed.

SC said RTC cannot nullify votes on the ground of significant badges of fraud
because you are actually circumventing the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en
banc. RTC judge cannot declare failure of election in the guise of voiding
proclamation.