AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the

President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# An ad interim appointment that is by passed because of lack of time or failure of the Commission on Appointments to organi!e is another matter. A by passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent such decision" the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by passed appointee. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the President can renew the ad interim appointments of by-passed appointees. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# ADMINI$TRATI%E (OME*E( &'N(TION! ()AIRMAN O& T)E

The Chairman" as the Chief #xecutive of the C$%#&#C" is expressly empowered on his own authority to transfer or reassign C$%#&#C personnel in accordance with the Civil 'ervice &aw. (n the exercise of this power" the Chairman is not required by law to secure the approval of the C$%#&#C en banc. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# ADMINI$TRATI%E &'N(TION %$. +'A$I,-'DI(IA* The denial of due course or cancellation of one)s certificate of candidacy is not .it/in t/e a01ini2t"ative po.e"2 of

Election Jurisprudence

Page 2

the Commission" but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi judicial functions. (ip"iano v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145530! A6g62t 10! #004 The term 7a01ini2t"ative8 connotes" or pertains" to *administration" especially management" as by managing or conducting" directing or superintending" the execution" application" or conduct of persons or things.+ (t does not entail an opportunity to be heard" the production and weighing of evidence" and a decision or resolution thereon. ,hile a 796a2i,:60i3ial ;6n3tion8 is a term which applies to the action" discretion" etc." of public administrative officers or bodies" who are required to investigate facts" or ascertain the existence of facts" hold hearings" and draw conclusions from them" as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003 Reynato Baytan! Reynal0o Baytan an0 A0"ian Baytan vs. T/e (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! G.R. No. 143944. &eb"6a"y 4! #003 A&&IDA%IT$ A$ E%IDEN(E The -esolution of the C$%#&#C 'econd .ivision cannot be considered to be based on 26b2tantial evi0en3e. (t relied merely on affidavits of witnesses attached to the petition for disqualification. As stressed" the C$%#&#C 'econd .ivision gave credence to the affidavits without hearing the affiants. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# (t is settled that no undue importance should be given to a sworn statement or an affidavit as a piece of evidence because" being taken ex parte" an affidavit is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. /ut" it is equally settled that when there is an omission in an affidavit concerning a very important detail" the omission can affect the affiant0s credibility. PEOP*E O& T)E P)I*IPPINE$ v2. &IDE* RAGA= y DE RO$A$! DANI*O ODANI y NATA*ON! DOMINGO T'MAGO$ y DING*E an0 >O$IMO GON>AGA y AGEN$I! G.R. No. 105#34! 199< A6g 11

Election Jurisprudence

Page 3

$bviously" the evidence relied upon mainly by petitioners to support their charges of fraud and irregularities in the election returns and in the canvassing consisted of Affidavits prepared by their own representatives. The self serving nature of the said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court has pronounced" reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits. 12nderscoring ours.3 O?)a"a v. (o1ele3! 4#5 P/il. 1041! G.R. No2. 145941,4#Ma"3/ 1#! #00# (ndeed" as this Court pointedly observed in 4elayo v. C$%#&#C56 78.-. 9o. :;<=:;" > %arch 5666" p. 5?" citing Casimiro v. C$%#&#C" :@: 'C-A A=? 1:>?>3B the Cself serving nature of said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court has pronounced" reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits.C Do1alanta v. (o1ele3 ! G.R. No. 1#445 ! #000 -6n #9@ 334 $(RA 444

ANN'*MENT O& E*E(TIONA&AI*'RE O& E*E(TION (n Loong v. Commission on Elections we ruled that *a pre proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results" or failure of elections.+ A1pat6an et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 149503! -an6a"y 31! #00# ANN'*MENT PROTE$T O& PRO(*AMATION B E*E(TION

%oreover" not all actions seeking the annulment of proclamation suspend the running of the period for filing an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 Dor it is not the relief prayed for which distinguishes actions under E 5A? from an election protest or quo warranto proceedings" but the grounds on which they are based. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 ANN'*MENT ERROR O& PRO(*AMATION B MANI&E$T

Election Jurisprudence

Page 4

The C$%#&#C likewise did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated private respondent Co)s petition as one for annulment of proclamation although it was denominated as also for correction of manifest errors. (n fact" it finds support in several cases decided by the Court. Dor example" in Mentang v. COMELEC" we held that where the relief sought is the correction of mathematical errors which are not attributable to incorrect entries in any of the election returns" statement of votes and certificate of canvass but in the mere computation of the votes reflected in those election documents" it is a petition for annulmentFdeclaration of nullity of proclamation" not a petition to correct manifest errors. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00 (n Milla v. Balmores-Laxa" 18.-. 9o. :<:5:=" Guly :?" 566;" A6: 'C-A =@>3 we sustained the power of the C$%#&#C to annul the proclamation" due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the statement of votes" of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had taken his oath and assumed office as such. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00 ANN'*MENT O& NOTI(E B )EARING PRO(*AMATION! CIT)O'T

Thus" although the C$%#&#C possesses" in appropriate cases" the power to annul or suspend the proclamation of any candidate" we also ruled in Farias vs. Commission on Elections" Re es vs. Commission on Elections and !allardo vs. Commission on Elections that the C$%#&#C is .it/o6t po.e" to pa"tially o" totally ann6l a p"o3la1ation o" 262pen0 t/e e;;e3t2 o; a p"o3la1ation .it/o6t noti3e an0 /ea"ing. Na1il! et al.! vs. (o1ele3! Dapina! et al.! EG.R. No. 140440. O3tobe" #5! #003F ,e held that" as the case involved a manifest error" although the C$%#&#C erred in annulling the proclamation of petitioner without notice and hearing" the expedient course of action was for the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers to reconvene and" after notice and hearing in accordance with -ule 5@" E@ of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure" to effect the necessary corrections on the certificate of

Election Jurisprudence

Page 5

canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidates on the basis thereof. (a2t"o1ayo" v. (OME*E(!1# E#40 $(RA #95 G1994H a2 3ite0 in Angelia vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2 an0 Tan! G.R. No. 1344 5. May 31! #000 APPEA*! PER&E(TION o; The subsequent payment of the filing fee on 5? Ganuary 566; did not relieve Hamoras of his mistake. A case is not deemed duly registered and docketed until full payment of the filing fee. $therwise stated" the date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of the filing of the notice of appeal. >a1o"a2 v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145 10@ Nove1be" 1#! #004 Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory" and deprives the appellate court or body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal. >a3ate v. (o1ele3 et Bal0a0o ! G.R. No. 144 <5. Ma"3/ 1! #001 (t is axiomatic that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. As a consequence" the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period as required by the -ules has t"e effect of defeating the right of appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. 'o the Iigh Court rules in #illanueva vs. Court o$ %&&eals' et.al. 156< 'C-A <;@3. And so" it should also be in the case at bar. Antonio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1345 9! $epte1be" ##! 1999 The C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure 1-ule ;@ 'ection 5:3 provides that $rom t"e decision rendered b t"e court' t"e aggrieved &art ma a&&eal to t"e Commission on Elections wit"in $ive ()* da s a$ter t"e &romulgation o$ t"e decision. -ule 55 'ection > 1d3 of $ur -ules of Procedure further provides that an appeal from decisions of courts in election protest cases ma be dismissed at t"e instance o$ t"e Commission $or $ailure to $ile t"e required notice o$ a&&eal

Election Jurisprudence

Page 6

wit"in t"e &rescribed &eriod. Antonio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1345 9! $epte1be" ##! 1999 APPEA*! RIG)T TO The "ig/t to appeal i2 1e"ely a 2tat6to"y p"ivilege and a litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. (t is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if there was no appeal filed at all. >a1o"a2 v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145 10@ Nove1be" 1#! #004 'uffice it to state that the period for filing an appeal is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. (t is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. The right of appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by" and in accordance with" the provisions of the law. Antonio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1345 9! $epte1be" ##! 1999 APPRE(IATION O& BA**OT$ The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the C$%#&#C" a speciali!ed agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country" as it is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional" provincial and city officials" as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and baranga officials. (n the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law" the factual findings" conclusions" rulings" and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court. Balingit v. (o1ele3 et al! G.R. No. 1<0300! &eb. 9! #00< The @">== votes were correctly invalidated as written by one person because aside from the observation that the ballots

Election Jurisprudence

Page 7

bore similarFidentical handwritings" the %inutes of 4oting in numerous precincts had no entries as to the names of the illiterate voters and their respective assistors" contrary to the aforecited rule applied by I-#T. Abb6baIa" v. )RET et al. G.R. No. 1<3 09! Ma"3/ <! #00< A ballot indicates the voter)s will. There is no requirement that the entries in the ballot be written nicely or that the name of the candidate be spelled accurately. (n the reading and appreciation of ballots" every ballot is presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its rejection. The object in the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter" if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. Do:illo v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 44#! -6ly #4! #00 ,e relied on the descriptions of the ballots given by the parties" the trial court" and the C$%#&#C" and weighed their assertions. Do:illo v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 44#! -6ly #4! #00 %arked ballots" idem sonans" stray ballots. Do:illo v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 44#! -6ly #4! #00 (t is well to remember the basic principle that the cardinal objective of ballot appreciation is to discover and give effect to" rather than frustrate the intention of the voters" thus" every ballot shall be presumed valid unless clear and good reasons justify its rejection. #xtreme caution should be observed before any ballot is invalidated and doubts in the appreciation of ballots are resolved in favor of their validity. Thus" it is a well founded rule ensconced in our jurisprudence that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. De G6J1an v. (o1ele3 B P6li0o G.R. No. 149<13. Ma"3/ 31! #004 72Bpholding the sovereignty of the people is what democracy is all about. ,hen the sovereignty of the people expressed thru the ballot is at stake" it is not enough for this Court to make a statement but it should do everything to have that sovereignty obeyed by all. ,ell done is always

Election Jurisprudence

Page 8

better than well said. Corollarily" laws and statutes governing election contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. De G6J1an v. (o1ele3 B P6li0o! G.R. No. 149<13. Ma"3/ 31! #004 #ven assuming that the respondent judge erred in the appreciation of the documentary evidence" the extraordinary writ of certiorari will not lie" as no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged wrongful appreciation of facts and evidence. Ta0ena v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 #55#. Ap"il #<! #004 ,hile 'ection 5A of -epublic Act 9o. @:==" otherwise known as *An Act Providing Dor 'ynchroni!ed 9ational and &ocal #lections and Dor #lectoral -eforms"+ requires the /#( chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot" the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to said /#( chairman. 9owhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained therein shall be nullified. P6nJalan v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1# 9. Ap"il #<! 1995 The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the C$%#&#C" a speciali!ed agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. (t is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional" provincial and city officials" as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. P6nJalan v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1# 9. Ap"il #<! 1995 (t is axiomatic that the C$%#&#C need not conduct an adversarial proceeding or a hearing to determine the authenticity of ballots or the handwriting found thereon. 9either does it need to solicit the help of handwriting experts in examining or comparing the handwriting. (n fact" even evidence aliunde is not necessary to enable the Commission to determine the authenticity of the ballots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as an examination of the ballots themselves is already sufficient P6nJalan v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1# 9. Ap"il #<! 1995

Election Jurisprudence

Page 9

APPRE(IATION O& BA**OT$! MARDED BA**OT$ There are ;A marked ballots in the case at bar. Dourteen 1:A3 ballots are marked with the word *Goker+J six 1=3 ballots with the word *Alas+J seven 1@3 ballots with the word *Kueen+J and" seven 1@3 ballots with the word *Lamatis.+ These ballots were all deducted by the trial court from the votes of petitioner. ,hile each of these words appears in more than one ballot and may not identify a particular voter" it is not necessary that the marks in a ballot should be able to specifically identify a particular voter. ,e have ruled that the distinction should always be between marks that were apparently carelessly or innocently made" which do not invalidate the ballot" and marks purposely placed thereon by the voter with a view to possible future identification" which invalidates it. The marks which shall be considered sufficient to invalidate the ballot are those which the voter himself deliberately placed on his ballot for the purpose of identifying it thereafter. %illag"a3ia v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 5#9 ! -an6a"y 31! #00<

A'TOPTI( PRO&EREN(E %uto&tic &ro$erence" in legal parlance" simply means a tribunal0s self perception" or autopsy" of the thing itself. Balingit v. (o1ele3 et al! G.R. No. 1<0300! &eb. 9! #00<

BI**BOARD$! AD%ERTI$EMENT$ (t is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts or agreements to endorse certain products" he acted as a private individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to these products. Iowever" when he filed his certificate of candidacy for 'enator" the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan political character because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy. (/aveJ v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 #<<<! A6g62t 31! #004

BOARD O& (AN%A$$ER$! POCER O& (OME*E( (t should be added that the C$%#&#C possesses the power of supervision and control over Angangan" as Chairperson of

Election Jurisprudence

Page 10

the %/C" and the %/C. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00 BOARD O& (AN%A$$ER$! -'RI$DI(TION (ORRE(TION O& MANI&E$T ERROR ON

The /oard of Canvassers may correct manifest errors committed under the circumstances enumerated therein before proclamation of the winning candidate. (n this case" therefore" either the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers of Patikul" 'ulu or the Provincial /oard of Canvassers of 'ulu has jurisdiction to take cogni!ance of respondent &oong)s Petition Dor Correction of %anifest #rror. 'ince the canvassing proceedings for the subject position were already before respondent Provincial /oard of Canvassers of 'ulu and the petition for correction was filed before it" respondent Provincial /oard of Canvassers correctly took cogni!ance of the petition. Ba00i"i v. (o1ele3 B PBO( o; $6l6! G.R. No. 1 4 <<! -6ne 5! #004 BROAD POCER$ O& T)E (OMMI$$ION (t bears emphasis that the C$%#&#C has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it. (n the case at bar" it was well within the C$%#&#C)s discretion to avail of the means it deemed effective" such as requiring the parties to present their side through position papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory hearing wherein the members of the /$C were required to shed light on the two proclamations made. /esides" it is a settled rule that the C$%#&#C)s judgment cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. ARADAI$ %. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 14<5 3. Ap"il #5! #004 B'RDEN O& PROO& (n administrative proceedings" the complainant has the burden of proving the charge against the respondent by substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. %illa"in v. &lo"i0o" A.(. No. 04 ! &eb"6a"y 13! #00<

Election Jurisprudence

Page 11

(ANDIDATE 2nder 'ection @>1a3" a candidate is one who *has filed a certificate of candidacy+ to an elective public office. 2nless one has filed his certificate of candidacy" he is not a *candidate.+ *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00

(ANDIDATE AND PREMAT'RE (AMPAIGNING 2nder 'ection ;1b3 of the $mnibus #lection Code" the applicable law prior to -A ?A;=" the campaign period for local officials commences A< days before election day. Dor the 566A local elections" this puts the start of the campaign period on 5A %arch 566A. This also puts the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy" under the law prior to -A ?A;=" on 5; %arch 566A. #usebio is deemed to have filed his certificate of candidacy on this date for purposes other than the printing of ballots because this is the interpretation of 'ection ?6 of the $mnibus #lection Code most favorable to one charged of its violation. 'ince 'ection ?6 defines a criminal offense" its provisions must be construed liberally in favor of one charged of its violation. T/62! E62ebio be3a1e a 73an0i0ate8 only on #3 Ma"3/ #004 ;o" p6"po2e2 ot/e" t/an t/e p"inting o; ballot2.+ *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00

(A'$E O& A(TION ,hat determine a cause of action are the facts or combination of facts alleged in a party)s pleading. $i2on v. (OME*E(! 304 $(RA 1<0

(ERTI&I(ATE (AN(E**ATION

O&

(ANDIDA(=!

DENIA*

OR

The Commission may not" by itself" without the proper proceedings" deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. (ip"iano v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145530! A6g62t 10! #004

Election Jurisprudence

Page 12

(t is therefore clear that the law mandates that the candidate must be notified of the petition against him and he should be given the opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. This is the essence of due process. (ip"iano v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145530! A6g62t 10! #004 As early as :>:?" this Court" has pronounced that the rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory before the election but after the elections" they become merely directory. Corollarily" defects in the certificates of candidacy should be questioned on or before the election and not after the will of the people has been expressed through the ballot. The reason for this is because innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part. Thus" after the termination of the election" public interest must prevail over that of the defeated candidate. GonJale2 v. )RET! G.R. No. 145001. -6ne 10! #003 At the very outset" it must be made clear that the Comelec has jurisdiction to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. 'uch jurisdiction continues even after the elections" if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the elections" and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest number of votes" and provided further that the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken his oath of office. $aya,ang v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14405< Nove1be" #5! #003 A petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy shall be heard summarily a$ter due notice. $aya,ang v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14405< Nove1be" #5! #003 (n Lambonao v. +ero" the Court held that defects in the certificates of candidacy should have been questioned on or before the election and not after the will of the people has been expressed through the ballots. (t was further held in the said case that while provisions relating to certificates of candidacy are mandatory in terms" it is an established rule of interpretation as regards election laws" that mandatory provisions requiring certain steps before elections will be construed as directory after the elections" to give effect to the will of the electorate. The rationale for this principle was explained in Lino Luna v. Rodrigue," where the Court said

Election Jurisprudence

Page 13

that these various and numerous provisions were adopted to assist the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat that object. ,hen voters have honestly cast their ballots" the same should not be nullified simply because the officers tasked under the law to direct the elections and guard the purity of the ballot did not do their duty. $aya,ang v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14405< Nove1be" #5! #003 (ERTI&I(ATE PRO(*AMATION O& (ANDIDA(=! DENIA* A&TER

These various and numerous provisions were adopted to assist the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat that object. ,hen voters have honestly cast their ballots" the same should not be nullified simply because the officers tasked under the law to direct the elections and guard the purity of the ballot did not do their duty. $aya,ang v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14405< Nove1be" #5! #003 (ERTI&I(ATE O& (ANDIDA(=! &I*ING NOT IP$O &A(TO RE$IGNATION 'ection :A of -epublic Act 9o. >66= 1The Dair #lection Act3" expressly repealing 'ection =@ of Batas -ambansa Blg. ??: 1The $mnibus #lection Code3 which providesM .EC. /0. Candidates "olding elective o$$ice. 1 %n elective o$$icial' w"et"er national or local' running $or an o$$ice ot"er t"an t"e one w"ic" "e is "olding in a &ermanent ca&acit ' exce&t $or -resident and #ice--resident' s"all be considered i&so $acto resigned $rom "is o$$ice u&on t"e $iling o$ "is certi$icate o$ candidac . is constitutional. Ro0ol;o (. &a"iKa2! et al. vs. T/e ELe36tive $e3"eta"y! (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! et al.! EGR No. 14<35<. De3e1be" 10! #003F@ (ong. Ge""y A. $alap600in! vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2!EG.R. No. 14#1 1. De3e1be" 10! #003F $ee Di1apo"o v. Mit"a! #0# $(RA <<9 G1991H

Election Jurisprudence

Page 14

(ERTI&I(ATE O& (ANDIDA(=! $'B$TIT'TION

Gunaid" having been nominated by -#P$-%A only after the expiration of the period for filing of certificates of candidacy" could not be considered as officially nominated by the latter. Consequently he could not be substituted by petitioner" a nominee of -#P$-%A" since the law requires that the candidate to be substituted and the substitute should come from the same party. Ba3a"a1an vs. (o1ele3 EG.R. No. 145143. Nove1be" 15! #003F (ERTI&I(ATE O& %OTE$ Apparently" respondent -eyes" Gr. is counting on the certificate of votes to establish that he is the second highest winning candidate. As we have pointed out earlier" a certificate of votes is not sufficient to establish the true and genuine results of the election. A certificate of canvass issued on the basis of the election returns is required to proclaim the elected candidate. DAI$ER B. RE(ABO! -R.! petitione"! v2. T)E (OMMI$$ION ON E*E(TION$ an0 &RAN(I$(O R. RE=E$! -R.! "e2pon0ent2.! G.R. No. 134#93! 1999 -6n #1! En Ban3H Certificates of 4otes are issued by /oards of #lection (nspectors 1/#(3 to watchers" pursuant to E5:< of the $mnibus #lection Code 1$#C3. ,hile such certificates are useful for showing tampering" alteration" falsification or any other irregularity in the preparation of election returns" := there is no reason for their use in this case since the integrity of the election returns is not in question. $n the other hand" in the canvass of votes" the %/C is directed to use the election returns. :@ Accordingly" in revising the 'tatement of 4otes supporting the Certificate of Canvass" the %/C should have used the election returns from the precincts in question although in fairness to the %/C" it proposed the use of election returns but the C$%#&#C en banc rejected the proposal. The 'tatement of 4otes is a tabulation per precinct of votes garnered by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. GE199<%# 1EF -O$E (. RAMIRE>! petitione" v2. (OMMI$$ION ON E*E(TION$! M'NI(IPA* BOARD O& (AN%A$$ER$ O& GIPOR*O$! EA$TERN $AMAR an0 A*&REDO I. GO! "e2pon0ent2.! G.R. No. 1##013! 199< Ma" # ! En Ban3H

Election Jurisprudence

Page 15

(ERTIORARI The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment but *capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction" or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.+ Pe0"agoJa v. (o1ele3 B $616long! G.R. No. 1 9554 -6ly #4! #00 -ule :?" 'ection :; of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure requires that a timely motion for reconsideration of a C$%#&#C .ivision decision has to be filed with the C$%#&#C en banc before a special civil action for certiorari may be filed with this Court. Consequently" the filing of the instant petition was premature. Petitioner failed to exhaust adequate administrative remedies available before the C$%#&#C. %i3ente v. (o1ele3 B $onJa EG.R. No. 1<0#44. -an6a"y 31! #00 F As a general rule" any decision" order or ruling of the C$%#&#C in the exercise of its quasi judicial functions may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari under -ules =A and =< of the -evised -ules of Court within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Iowever" these decisions or rulings refer to the decision or final order of the C$%#&#C en banc and not of any division thereof. A motion for reconsideration of a decision of the C$%#&#C .ivision has to be filed first" which is resolved by the C$%#&#C en banc' whose decision on the motion for reconsideration may then be the subject of a petition for certiorari with this Court. %i3ente v. (o1ele3 B $onJa EG.R. No. 1<0#44. -an6a"y 31! #00 F (n accordance with -ule =< and other related provisions of the :>>@ -ules of Civil Procedure" as amended" governing petitions for certiorari" prohibition and mandamus filed with the 'upreme Court" only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. $n the basis thereof" the Court -esolved to DI$MI$$ the instant petition for certiorari for non compliance therewith" particularly for failure to fully pay the legal fees in violation of -ule A=" 'ection ; in relation to

Election Jurisprudence

Page 16

-ule <=" 'ection 5. An06eJa v2. B"avo B )RET! G.R. No. 1 15<! -an6a"y #4! #004. Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is concurrence of the essential requisites" to witM 1a3 the tribunal" board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction" and 1b3 there is no appeal" nor any plain" speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be capricious" arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper. Aggabao v. Mi"an0a G.R. No. 1 3<4 -an6a"y # ! #004 8rave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction" or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. $an -6an v. )RET B (e"ille2! G.R. No. 1 0939. -6ly ! #004 8enerally" a motion for reconsideration is a pre requisite to the viability of a special civil action for certiorari. Iowever" there are exceptions to the rule. The aggrieved party is not obliged to first file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before filing a petition under -ule =< of the -ules of Court" as amended where" as in this case" 1:3 the question is purely legal" 153 judicial intervention is urgentJ 1;3 its application may cause great and irreparable damageJ and 1A3 the controverted acts violate due process. Na1il! et al. v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 140440. O3tobe" #5! #003 ,e hold that petitioner acted correctly in filing the present petition because the resolution of the C$%#&#C in question is not subject to reconsideration and" therefore" any party who disagreed with it only had one recourse" and that was to file a petition for certiorari under -ule =< of the -ules of Civil Procedure. Angelia v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1344 5. May 31! #000! 355 P/il. 4 0! 4

Election Jurisprudence

Page 17

The instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the C$%#&#C en banc which do not pertain to election offenses. Ience" a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy in accordance with 'ection 5" -ule =A of the -ules of Court. Angelia v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1344 5. May 31! #000! 355 P/il. 4 0! 4 #ven assuming that the respondent judge erred in the appreciation of the documentary evidence" the extraordinary writ of certiorari will not lie" as no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged wrongful appreciation of facts and evidence. Ta0ena v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 #55#. Ap"il #<! #004 (n accordance with -ule =A and other related provisions of the :>>@ -ules of Civil Procedure" as amended" governing review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on #lections" only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. $n the basis thereof" the Court -esolved to DI$MI$$ the instant petition for certiorari for non compliance therewith" particularly for late filing of the petition and late payment of the legal fees in violation of -ule =A" 'ections ; and < 1A th par.3 and -ule A=" 'ection ; in relation to -ule <=" 'ection 5. $i.a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 <<31. May 10! #004 The 'upreme Court is vested with original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari" prohibition and mandamus against the decision of the regional trial court in the election protest case before it" regardless of whether it has appellate jurisdiction over such decision. (a"lo2 v. Angele2 B $e"apio G.R. No. 14#90<. Nove1be" #9! #000 (ERTIORARI! NOT PROPER &OR INTER*O('TOR= ORDER$ O& DI%I$ION! EM(EPTION The most recent case involving interlocutory orders of a C$%#&#C .ivision is the 566@ case of Rosal v. Commission on Elections. (n Rosal" the Court allowed the petition for certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders rendered by a C$%#&#C .ivision. (t should be emphasi!ed that the Rosal case is unusual because while the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory order of a C$%#&#C .ivision

Election Jurisprudence

Page 18

was pending before this Court" the main case which was meanwhile decided by the C$%#&#C En Banc was likewise elevated to this Court. Thus" we have a situation where the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory orders of the C$%#&#C .ivision and the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the -esolution of the C$%#&#C En Banc on the main case were consolidated. The issues raised in the petition for certiorari were also raised in the main case and therefore there was actually no need to resolve the petition assailing the interlocutory orders. $o"iano et al. v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 449 ,404! Ap"il #! #00< The general rule is that a decision or an order of a C$%#&#C .ivision cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari. Durthermore" a motion to reconsider a decision" resolution" order" or ruling of a C$%#&#C .ivision shall be elevated to the C$%#&#C En Banc. Iowever" a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of a C$%#&#C .ivision shall be resolved by the division which issued the interlocutory order" except when all the members of the division decide to refer the matter to the C$%#&#C En Banc. $o"iano et al. v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 449 ,404! Ap"il #! #00< Thus" in general" interlocutory orders of a C$%#&#C .ivision are not appealable" nor can they be proper subject of a petition for certiorari. To rule otherwise would not only delay the disposition of cases but would also unnecessarily clog the Court docket and unduly burden the Court. This does not mean that the aggrieved party is without recourse if a C$%#&#C .ivision denies the motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party can still assign as error the interlocutory order if in the course of the proceedings he decides to appeal the main case to the C$%#&#C En Banc. The exception enunciated in 2"o and Re&ol is when the interlocutory order of a C$%#&#C .ivision is a patent nullity because of absence of jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order" as where a C$%#&#C .ivision issued a temporary restraining order without a time limit" which is the Re&ol case" or where a C$%#&#C .ivision admitted an answer with counter protest which was filed beyond the reglementary period" which is the 2"o case. $o"iano et al. v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 449 ,404! Ap"il #! #00<

Election Jurisprudence

Page 19

This Court has already ruled in Re es v. R+C o$ Oriental Mindoro"that *it is the decision" order or ruling of the C$%#&#C En Banc that" in accordance with 'ection @" Art. (N A of the Constitution" may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari.+ The exception provided in 2"o and Re&ol is unavailing in this case because unlike in 2"o and Re&ol" the assailed interlocutory orders of the C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision in this case are not a patent nullity. The assailed orders in this case involve the interpretation of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure. 9either will the Rosal case apply because in that case the petition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory orders of the C$%#&#C 'econd .ivision and the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the -esolution of the C$%#&#C En Banc on the main case were already consolidated. $o"iano et al. v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 449 ,404! Ap"il #! #00< As a general rule" any decision" order or ruling of the C$%#&#C in the exercise of its quasi judicial functions may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari under -ules =A and =< of the -evised -ules of Court within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Iowever" these decisions or rulings refer to the decision or final order of the C$%#&#C en banc and not of any division thereof. A motion for reconsideration of a decision of the C$%#&#C .ivision has to be filed first" which is resolved by the C$%#&#C en banc' whose decision on the motion for reconsideration may then be the subject of a petition for certiorari with this Court. Thus" it has been held that the Constitution vests in the C$%#&#C in division" the jurisdiction to hear and decide all election cases" including pre proclamation controversies" and in the C$%#&#C en banc to resolve motions for reconsideration from decisions or rulings of the former. (n other words" the Cdecision" order" or ruling ofC the C$%#&#C which may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari refers to that of the C$%#&#C en banc. As it is" the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. %i3ente! -". v. (o1ele3 B $onJa EG.R. No. 1<0#44. -an6a"y 31! #00 F Iowever" this rule is not ironclad. (n A !"# $ roadcasting #orporation v. #%&E'E#" we stated O

Election Jurisprudence

Page 20

+"is Court' "owever' "as ruled in t"e &ast t"at t"is &rocedural requirement 3o$ $iling a motion $or reconsideration4 ma be glossed over to &revent a miscarriage o$ 5ustice' w"en t"e issue involves t"e &rinci&le o$ social 5ustice or t"e &rotection o$ labor' w"en t"e decision or resolution soug"t to be set aside is a nullit ' or w"en t"e need $or relie$ is extremel urgent and certiorari is t"e onl adequate and s&eed remed available.

The Court further pointed out in A !"# $ that an exception was warranted under the peculiar circumstances of the case since there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time for the :: %ay :>>? elections. The same can be said in -epol)s case. ,e rule that direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is justified under the circumstances obtaining in the present case. Repol v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1 1415. Ap"il #5! #004 The 'upreme Court has no power to review via certiorari" an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of the .ivision of the Commission on #lections. E2t"ella v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 144041. $epte1be" 1 ! #003@ A1bil! -". v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! 344 $(RA 345 G#000H. (t is settled that the 'upreme Court can review on certiorari the decisions" orders" and ruling of the C$%#&#C en banc. /ut what is being assailed in the instant case are the resolution and orders of the 'econd .ivision of the Commission on #lections. Petitioner admits that his motion for reconsideration of the order dated 9ovember :<" 5666 of the 'econd .ivision is still pending resolution before the C$%#&#C en banc. The present petition is thus premature. 1Ambil" Gr. v. Commission on #lections 1Dirst .ivision" Dormerly 'econd .ivision3" et al.' 8.-. 9o. :A;;>?" $ct. 5<" 56663 Bo"bon v. (o1ele3 EG.R. No. 14<#03. May 4! #001F (ERTIORARI AND INTER*O('TOR= ORDER$ This situation is precisely what we are trying to avoid by insisting on strict compliance of the rule that an interlocutory order cannot by itself be the subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari. $o"iano et al. v.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 21

(o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 449 ,404! Ap"il #! #00< (ERTIORARI! APPEA* NOT A $'B$TIT'TE &OR *O$T

,e have said time and again that the special civil action of certiorari is not a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. (anto"ia v. (o1ele3. G.R. No. 1 #034! Nov. # ! #004. (ERTIORARI! +'E$TION$ O& &A(T (n certiorari proceedings" 96e2tion2 o; ;a3t are not generally permitted" the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse o$ discretion. Iere" petitioner is questioning respondent C$%#&#C)s conclusion that there is a *tie between the two candidates.+ .efinitely" this is a factual issue. T6ga0e v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1<10 3! Ma"3/ #! #00<

(ERTIORARI! 30,DA= RE(DONING PERIOD (n sum" the ;6 day reglementary period must be reckoned from the receipt of the decision" order or resolution and not from the receipt of a dissenting opinion issued later. (n the instant case" the dissenting opinion was submitted and promulgated ;= days after the assailed joint resolution. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G. R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00

(ITI>EN$)IP! +'A*I&I(ATION (n Drivaldo v. Commission on #lections" the Court ruled that the citi!enship qualification must be construed as *applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term.+ Alta"e:o2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 3#4 . Nove1be" 10! #004

Election Jurisprudence

Page 22

(n applying election laws" it would be far better to err in favor of the popular choice than be embroiled in complex legal issues involving private international law which may well be settled before the highest court 1Cf. Drivaldo vs. Commission on #lections" 5<@ 'C-A @5@3. MER(ADO! v2. MAN>ANO an0 t/e (OMMI$$ION ON E*E(TION$! G.R. No. 134053! May # ! 1999 (ON$TIT'TIONA* I$$'E! EAR*IE$T OPPORT'NIT= TO RAI$E The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same" such that" Cif it is not raised in the pleadings" it cannot be considered at the trial" and" if not considered at the trial" it cannot be considered on appeal. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# (ORRE(TION O& MANI&E$T ERROR! -'RI$DI(TION (n this case" the petition filed by Caringal before the C$%#&#C involves a pre proclamation controversy and not an election contest. Although the petition alleged fraud" the remedy sought was merely for correction of erroneous entries in the statements of votes which were based on the election returns. A"boni0a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 <13<! Ma"3/ 14! #00< (n the aforecited provision of law" the /oard of Canvassers may correct manifest errors committed under the circumstances enumerated therein before proclamation of the winning candidate. (n this case" therefore" eit/e" t/e M6ni3ipal Boa"0 o; (anva22e"2 o; PatiI6l! $6l6 o" t/e P"ovin3ial Boa"0 o; (anva22e"2 o; $6l6 /a2 :6"i20i3tion to taIe 3ogniJan3e o; "e2pon0ent *oong?2 Petition &o" (o""e3tion o; Mani;e2t E""o". 'ince the canvassing proceedings for the subject position were already before respondent Provincial /oard of Canvassers of 'ulu and the petition for correction was filed before it" respondent Provincial /oard of Canvassers correctly took cogni!ance of the petition. Ba00i"i v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 4 <<! -6ne 5! #004.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 23

DE(I$ION! (OMP*ETENE$$ The Court rules that a resolution or decision of the C$%#&#C is considered complete and validly rendered or issued when there is 3on36""en3e by t/e "e96i"e0 1a:o"ity of the Commissioners. x x x x x Put otherwise" with the required majority vote" the majority opinion embodied in a decision or resolution duly promulgated is validly rendered and issued despite dissent or inhibition of the minority" and even if the reason for the dissent or inhibition is submitted much later than its promulgation. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00 9onetheless" it has to be made clear that 0e3i2ion2! "e2ol6tion2 o" o"0e"2 o; 3ollegiate 3o6"t2 162t /ave 2epa"ate 3on36""ing o" 0i22enting opinion2 appen0e0 to t/e 1a:o"ity opinion be;o"e t/e2e a"e p"o16lgate0. And it is the responsibility of the clerk of court to ensure that these separate opinions are submitted within the required period so that the decision" resolution or order is timely promulgated. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00

DE(I$ION! $EPARATE OPINION$ 'eparate opinions not approved by the required majority of the court members" whether they be concurring or dissenting opinions" must be distinguished from the opinion of the court. 4erily" the joint resolution is the ruling being assailed and not the dissenting opinion. (t is clear that" not being essential to the assailed joint resolution" the dissenting opinion merely serves to comply with the constitutional proviso that any member who dissented from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefore. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G. R. No2. 1 143, 4<! Nov. #0! #00

DEM'RRER TO E%IDEN(E@ E&&E(T O& DENIA*

Election Jurisprudence

Page 24

(n #lection contests" the denial of a demurrer to evidence amounts to a waiver of right to present evidence. Ge1entiJa v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"3/ ! #001! 343 $(RA <#4 DI$+'A*I&I(ATION The case for disqualification exists" and survives" the election and proclamation of the winning candidate because an outright dismissal will unduly reward the challenged candidate and may even encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the disqualification case until after he has been proclaimed. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 (n the case at bar" at the time of the proclamation of .efensor who garnered the highest number of votes" the .ivision -esolution invalidating his certificate of candidacy was not yet final" hence" he had at that point in time remained qualified. Therefore" his proclamation was valid or legal. Plana2 v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <494! Ma"3/ 10! #00 'ection 5 of C$%#&#C -esolution 9o. 56<6 is as clear as dayM the C$%#&#C is mandated to dismiss a complaint for the disqualification of a candidate who has been charged with an election offense but who has already been proclaimed as winner by the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers. C$%#&#C -esolution 9o. 56<6 specifically mandates a definite policy and procedure for disqualification casesJ hence" should be applied and given effect . AlbaKa v2. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1 330# -6ly #3! #004 N T/i2 1ay /ave been ove"t6"ne0. $ee t/e 3a2e o; *anot v. (o1ele3! 26p"a. )o.eve"! 3ont"a"y to t/e (OME*E( En Ban3?2 "elian3e on Re2ol6tion No. #040 in it2 #0 A6g62t #004 "e2ol6tion! t/e p"evailing la. on t/e 1atte" i2 $e3tion o; t/e Ele3to"al Re;o"12 *a. o; 195<. Any "6le o" a3tion by t/e (OME*E( 2/o6l0 be in a33o"0an3e .it/ t/e p"evailing la.. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00

Election Jurisprudence

Page 25

(ndeed" the electorate cannot amend or waive the qualifications prescribed by law for elective office. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003 .ue process is required. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# The jurisdiction of the C$%#&#C to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in section =? of the $mnibus #lection Code. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# Ience" when a candidate has not yet been disqualified by ;inal :60g1ent during the election day and was voted for" the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# (t is the electoral aspect that we are more concerned with" under which an erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior criminal conviction. G$6nga v2. (o1ele3! #55 $(RA < H@ Nola23o v2. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1###40 an0 Blan3o v2. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1###45! #1 -6ly 199<H DI$+'A*I&I(ATION! DEAT) $'B$TIT'TIONAINTER%ENTION O& PETITIONER!

The law and the C$%#&#C rules have clear pronouncements that the electoral aspect of a disqualification case is not rendered inutile by the death of petitioner" provided that there is a proper substitution or intervention of parties while there is a pending case. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 There is no law or jurisprudence which says that intervention or substitution may only be done prior to the proclamation of the winning candidate. A substitution is not barred by prescription because the action was filed on time by the person who died and who is being substituted. The same rationale applies to a petition in intervention.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 26

*anot v. (o1ele3 Nove1be" 1 ! #00

E62ebio!

G.R.

No.

1 4545!

DI$+'A*I&I(ATION! A$PE(T$! $e3. 5 OE(

E*E(TORA*

(RIMINA*

-elevant to this case is Codilla v. 6e #enecia " which held that t/e :6"i20i3tion o; t/e (OME*E( to 0i296ali;y 3an0i0ate2 i2 li1ite0 to t/o2e en61e"ate0 in $e3. 5 o; t/e O1nib62 Ele3tion (o0e. Blan3o v. (o1ele3 B Ala"illa! G.R. No. 1501 4! -6ne 1<! #005 (n Blanco v. COMELEC" 8.-. 9o. :555<?" the Court heldM . . . 4ote buying has its criminal and electoral aspects. (ts criminal as&ect to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be the subject of summary hearing. Iowever" its electoral aspect to ascertain whether the offender should be disqualified from office can be determined in an administrative proceeding that is summary in character. Blan3o v. (o1ele3 B Ala"illa! 1<! #005 G.R. No. 1501 4! -6ne

(ndeed" the 56 August 566A resolution of the C$%#&#C #n /anc betrayed its misunderstanding of the two aspects of a disqualification case. T/e ele3to"al a2pe3t o; a 0i296ali;i3ation 3a2e 0ete"1ine2 ./et/e" t/e o;;en0e" 2/o6l0 be 0i296ali;ie0 ;"o1 being a 3an0i0ate o" ;"o1 /ol0ing o;;i3e. P"o3ee0ing2 a"e 2611a"y in 3/a"a3te" an0 "e96i"e only 3lea" p"epon0e"an3e o; evi0en3e. An e""ing 3an0i0ate 1ay be 0i296ali;ie0 even .it/o6t p"io" 0ete"1ination o; p"obable 3a62e in a p"eli1ina"y inve2tigation. T/e ele3to"al a2pe3t 1ay p"o3ee0 in0epen0ently o; t/e 3"i1inal a2pe3t! an0 vi3e,ve"2a. The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for

Election Jurisprudence

Page 27

an election offense. The prosecutor is the C$%#&#C" through its &aw .epartment" which determines whether probable cause exists. (f there is probable cause" the C$%#&#C" through its &aw .epartment" files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender" which may even include disqualification from holding a future public office. The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or after an election. C/en t/e 0i296ali;i3ation 3a2e i2 ;ile0 be;o"e t/e ele3tion2! t/e 96e2tion o; 0i296ali;i3ation i2 "ai2e0 be;o"e t/e voting p6bli3. I; t/e 3an0i0ate i2 0i296ali;ie0 a;te" t/e ele3tion! t/o2e ./o vote0 ;o" /i1 a2261e t/e "i2I t/at t/ei" vote2 1ay be 0e3la"e0 2t"ay o" invali0. There is no such risk if the petition is filed after the elections. The C$%#&#C #n /anc erred when it ignored the electoral aspect of the disqualification case by setting aside the C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision)s resolution and referring the entire case to the C$%#&#C &aw .epartment for the criminal aspect. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 DI$+'A*I&I(ATION! $E(OND P*A(ER! EM(EPTION The disqualification of the elected candidate does not entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to occupy the office vacated because of the disqualification. 4otes cast in favor of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes" against whom a petition for disqualification was filed before the election" are presumed to have been cast in the belief that he was qualified. Dor this reason" the second placer cannot be declared elected. The eL3eption to t/i2 "6le "e2t2 on t.o a2261ption2 . Dirst" the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified. 'econd" the voters are so fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate)s disqualification to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but nonetheless the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 28

voters still cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. &anot and /enavides failed to prove that the exception applies in the present case. Thus" assuming for the sake of argument that #usebio is disqualified" the rule on succession provides that the duly elected 4ice %ayor of Pasig City shall succeed in #usebio)s place. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 DOMI(I*E -esidence not a requirement for domicile. (o v2. )RET 199 $(RA 9# Do1ino v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 134014! -6ly 19! 1994 D61pit,Mi3/elena v. Boa0o! G.R. No2. 1 3 19,#0! Nove1be" 1<! #004 DO'B*E REGI$TRATION GEle3tion O;;en2eH Baytan! et al.! vs. &eb"6a"y 4! #003F D'E PRO(E$$ (n administrative proceedings" the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard" or an opportunity to explain one)s side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal trial type hearing is not at all times and in all situations essential to due process. 4erily" *to be heard+ does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence. $ne may also be heard through pleadings and where opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded" there is no denial of due process. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00 A party cannot successfully invoke deprivation of due process if he was accorded the opportunity of a hearing" through either oral arguments or pleadings. There is no denial of due process when a party is given an opportunity through his pleadings. Ala6ya! -".! vs. (o1ele3! et al.! EG.R. No2. 14#141,4#. -an6a"y ##! #003F Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003 (o1ele3! EG.R. No. 143944.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 29

The right to due process is a cardinal and primary right which must be respected in all proceedings. (t is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play" the cornerstone of every democratic society. (n any proceeding" the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. $aya,ang v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14405< Nove1be" #5! #003 E*E(TION (n this jurisdiction" an election means *the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote+ through the use of the ballot" and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate. *An election is the embodiment of the popular will" the expression of the sovereign power of the people.+ *'pecifically" the term Pelection)" in the context of the Constitution" may refer to the conduct of the polls" including the listing of voters" the holding of the electoral campaign" and the casting and counting of votes.+ The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election. *'ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. Dor" 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. (a"lo2 v. Angele2 B $e"apio G.R. No. 14#90<. Nove1be" #9! #000 E*E(TION O&&EN$E! G'N BAN A1po v. (o6"t o; Appeal2! G. R. No. 1 9091! &eb. 1 ! #00 E*E(TION O&&EN$E! -'RI$DI(TION Thus" the C$%#&#C en banc can directly approve the recommendation of its &aw .epartment to file the criminal information for double registration against petitioners in the instant case. There is no constitutional requirement that the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 30

filing of the criminal information be first decided by any of the divisions of the C$%#&#C. Baytan! et al.! vs. (o1ele3! EG.R. No. 143944. &eb"6a"y 4! #003F The Comelec" through its authori!ed legal officers" has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses and to prosecute them . PeKa! et al. v. -60ge Ma"tiJano! A.M. No. MT-,0#,1441. May 30! #003 E*E(TION O&&EN$E! MA*A PRO)IBITA %ore importantly" C$%#&#C -esolution 9o. 5;5; is a special law and a violation of which is in the nature of a mala &ro"ibita crime. As such" regardless of petitioner)s intent" mere carrying of the gun without the necessary permit is already a violation of the C$%#&#C resolution. (t is hornbook doctrine that in mala &ro"ibita crimes" the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated. ,hen the act is illegal" the intent of the offender is immaterial. A1po v. (o6"t o; Appeal2! G. R. No. 1 9091! &eb. 1 ! #00 E*E(TION O&&EN$E! 'N*AC&'* (AMPAIGNING The essential elements for violation of 'ection ?6 of the $mnibus #lection Code areM 1:3 a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activityJ 153 the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular 3an0i0ate or candidatesJ 1;3 the act is done o6t2i0e the campaign period. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 E*E(TION PROTE$T An election contest" unlike an ordinary civil action" is clothed with a public interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. ,hat is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes" which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate. And the court has the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 31

corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the people. BARRO$O %. AMPIG! G.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000 E*E(TION PROTE$T! E%IDEN(E (n every other respect" the trial is summary and the court may consider not only what has been presented formally as evidence but also whatever may have been submitted to it by virtue of the express provision of the law. 1-eforma v. .e &una" 8.-. 9o. & :;5A5" Guly ;:" :><?3 A2i2 v. Ilao! G.R. No. *,1<441! -an. 31! 19 # E*E(TION PROTE$T! RE%I$ION (n case of protest" a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. (a"lo2 v. Angele2 B $e"apio G.R. No. 14#90<. Nove1be" #9! #000 E*E(TION PROTE$T B PRE,PRO(*AMATION (A$E ,ith respect to petitioner %ontilla" indeed" he abandoned his petition for correction of manifest errors when he filed an election protest against respondent .atu Pax '. %angudadatu. 6uma as' 7r. v. Commission on Elections so teaches. (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< ,hile the filing of a protest ex abundante ad cautela is not considered an abandonment of the petition for correction of manifest errors" this Court quotes with approval the following observations of the C$%#&#C in brushing aside as mere afterthought the claim of %ontilla in a manifestation he subsequently filed that his election protest was filed ex abundante ad cautela and that he inadvertently omitted to indicate in its caption that it was one suchM (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< The filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed" thus depriving the C$%#&#C of the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 32

authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 9evertheless" the general rule is not absolute. (t admits of certain exceptions" as whereM 1a3 the board of canvassers was improperly constitutedJ 1b3 quo warranto was not the proper remedyJ 1c3 what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamationJ 1d3 the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the pre proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelamJ and 1e3 the proclamation was null and void. D61aya2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 14194#,43! #001 Ap" #0 %oreover" not all actions seeking the annulment of proclamation suspend the running of the period for filing an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 There is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre proclamation controversies and elections protests. Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the fact that pre proclamation controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case : and the objective each seeks to achieve. %oreover" the Court" under certain circumstances" even encourages the reinforcement of a pre proclamation suit with an election protest. As we held in Matalam v. Commission on Elections. *oong v. (o1ele3 B -iIi"i! G.R. No. 1 591! Nov. #0! #00 Correlating the petitions mentioned in 'ection 5A? with the :6 day period set forth in the succeeding 'ection 5<6" a petition to suspend tolls the :6 day period for filing an election protest from running" while a petition to annul interrupts the running of the period. (n other words" in a .ection 89: &etition to suspend where the :6 day period did not start to run at all" the filing of a .ection 8); election contest after the tenth 1:6th3 day from proclamation is not late. $n the other hand" in a .ection 89: &etition to annul"
1

Bandala v. Comelec, supra note 2.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 33

the party seeking annulment must file the petition before the expiration of the :6 day period. *oong v. (o1ele3 B -iIi"i! G.R. No. 1 591! Nov. #0! #00 E*E(TON PROTE$T$! A**EGATION$ The Court" however" found the allegations embodied in the election protest to be serious enough to necessitate the opening of the ballot boxes to resolve the issue of fraud and irregularities in the election. $a96ilayan! vs. (o1ele3 an0 O23a" -a"o! G.R. No. 14<#49. Nove1be" #5! #003 E*E(TION PROTE$T$! -'RI$DI(TION #. C. Case 9o. :< 5A is not governed by the -ules of Civil Procedure. The -ules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply to election cases. They apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. #lection contests are subject to the Comelec -ules of Procedure. -ule ;< thereof governs election contests involving elective municipal officials before the -egional Trial Courts. Ba""o2o v. A1pig! et al. EG.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000F An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate. And the court has the corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the people. Ba""o2o v. A1pig! et al. EG.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000F The Constitution itself grants to the trial court exclusive original jurisdiction over contests involving elective municipal officials. Galla"0o v. Taba1o! #15 $(RA #43 G1993H

Election Jurisprudence

Page 34

E*E(TION PROTE$T! RIG)T TO PRE$ENT E%IDEN(E First" /atul)s reliance on 'ection 5" -ule :@ of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure in asserting his alleged right to present the testimonies of the <6 /#( chairpersons is not supported by 'ection 5 of -ule :@. The C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to hear all <6 /#( chairpersons" as this would not have been feasible and practical given the remaining time until the next election. Procedural rules in elections cases are designed to achieve not only a correct but also an ex&editious determination of the popular will of the electorate. .econd" a formal trial type hearing is not at all times and in all situations essential to due process. (t is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present evidence on which a fair decision can be based. Bat6l v. Bay"on! G.R. No2. 14< 5< B 145949! # &eb"6a"y #004.

E*E(TION PROTE$T! A'T)ENTI(IT= O& BA**OT$

E%IDEN(E

A*I'NDE!

,e have repeatedly ruled that the ballots are the best evidence of the objections raised and an inspection of these ballots is sufficient. %oreover" there is no better authority than the C$%#&#C itself to determine the authenticity of the ballots" having itself ordered and supervised the printing of all the official ballots. Bat6l v. Bay"on! G.R. No2. 14< 5< B 145949! # &eb"6a"y #004. E*E(TION PROTE$T! E$TOPPE*! TIE %OTE The only case where this Court has held that a party is estopped to contest the election of the winning candidate is in the case of a tie where the candidates who were declared to have obtained equal number of votes had voluntarily submitted themselves to the drawing of lots to determine the winner" as provided by law. (t was ruled by this Court that the candidate who lost in the drawing of lots is estopped from contesting the election of the one who won in

Election Jurisprudence

Page 35

the draw" because by submitting himself to the draw the defeated candidate is considered to have admitted that the announcement made by the board of canvassers regarding the tie was the result of a valid and lawful canvass. The candidate who submitted himself to the draw is considered as having deliberately induced his opponent to believe that canvass which resulted in a tie was legal and he had thereby led his opponent to act upon such belief in the validity of the canvass and the tie" so that he can not be permitted to repudiate his own acts. This court has even adopted a more liberal view on this matter when in a latter case it held that a candidate who has tied with another and who submits himself to the said drawing of lots" stating that if the result of said drawing of lots should be adverse to him" he would file a protest before a competent court" is not estopped from doing so. The view adopted by the Court in this latter case is in keeping with the doctrine that an election protest involves public interest" so that the court should allow all opportunity possible for the ascertainment of the true result of the elections. GDE (A$TRO v2. -'*IAN G. GINETE an0 'BA*DO =. AR(ANGE*! -60ge o; t/e (o6"t o; &i"2t In2tan3e o; $o"2ogon! 10t/ -60i3ial Di2t"i3t! B"an3/ I! "e2pon0ent2.! G.R. No. *,30045! 19 9 Ma" #5! En Ban3H E*E(TION RET'RN$! I& T)ERE ARE NO BA**OT$ Ma"6/o1 v. (o1ele3! GR No. 13934<! 331 $(RA 4<3@ *e"ia2 v. )RET! #0# $(RA 505 E%IDEN(E %ere allegations not evidence. *6L6"ia )o1e2 v2. (A 30# $(RA 314 Parole evidence not admitted to prove whom one voted. *o16g0ang v. -avie" #1 $(RA 40# EME('TION PENDING APPEA* To grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases" the following requisites must concurM a3 there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse partyJ b3 there must be *good reasons+ for the execution pending appealJ and c3 the order granting execution

Election Jurisprudence

Page 36

pending appeal must state *good reasons. (a"loto v. (o1ele3! G.R. No.1<4144! -an6a"y #4! #00< The trial court may only grant discretionary execution while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either of the original record or the record on appeal" as the case may be" at the time of the filing of such motion. ,hen not all of the parties have perfected their appeal and the period to appeal has yet to expire" the trial court still retains its so called *residual jurisdiction+ to order discretionary execution. >a3ate v. (o1ele3 et Bal0a0o ! G.R. No. 144 <5. Ma"3/ 1! #001 ,hile petitioner timely filed his motion for execution pending appeal" petitioner belatedly filed the motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for execution pending appeal rendering said denial final and executory . >a3ate v. (o1ele3 et Bal0a0o ! G.R. No. 144 <5. Ma"3/ 1! #001 *a6ban v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#54<3! Re2ol6tion 0ate0 A6g62t # ! 199< Poli3a"pio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 134390! Nove1be" ##! 1999 Any motion for execution pending appeal must be filed before the period for the perfection of the appeal. A21ala v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1# ##1. Ap"il #5! 1995 #xecutions pending appeal are exceptions to the rule" and" therefore" must be restrictively construed to comply with the stringent requirements of the law. The Commission looks with disfavor on orders of execution pending appeal" without clear and justifiable good reasons. Poli3a"pio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 134390. Nove1be" ##! 1999 At the outset" we note that there is no dispute with respect to the jurisdiction of the -egional Trial Courts to rule on motions for execution pending appeal filed within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Consequently" the filing of a notice of appeal within the same period does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and

Election Jurisprudence

Page 37

resolve pending incidents. (a1lian v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#41 9. Ap"il 15! 199< ,hile execution pending appeal may be allowed under the foregoing rule" the said provision must be strictly construed against the movant as it is an exception to the general rule on execution of judgments. Dollowing civil law jurisprudence" the reason allowing for immediate execution must be of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage of the losing party should it secure a reversal of the judgment on appeal. Absent any such justification" the order of execution must be struck down as flawed with grave abuse of discretion. (a1lian v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#41 9. Ap"il 15! 199< 9ot every invocation of public interest with particular reference to the will of the electorate can be appreciated as a good reason especially so if the same appears to be self serving and has not been clearly established. Public interest will be best served when the candidate voted for the position is finally proclaimed and adjudged winner in the elections. 2rgency and expediency can never be substitutes for truth and credibility. (a1lian v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#41 9. Ap"il 15! 199<

EME('TION PENDING APPEA*! GOOD REA$ON$

Ramas v. Commission on Elections held that the following constitute *good reasons+ and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to justify execution pending appealM 1:3 public interest involved or the will of the electorateJ 153 the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested officeJ and 1;3 the length of time that the election contest has been pending. (a"loto v. (o1ele3! G.R. No.1<4144! -an6a"y #4! #00<

EME('TION -'DGMENT

PENDING

APPEA*!

+'E$TIONED

,ith respect to the above contentions by petitioner" the Court agrees with the C$%#&#C that they involve an alleged error of judgment on the part of the trial court for which the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 38

proper judicial remedy is an appeal from the decision rendered by that court. (t is settled that where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision O not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision O the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. (a"loto v. (o1ele3! G.R. No.1<4144! -an6a"y #4! #00< EME('TION PENDING RE(ON$IDERATION MOTION &OR

#arly last year" the Court" through %r. Gustice Antonio T. Carpio in Batul v. Ba ron" affirmed a similar order of the C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision directing the immediate execution of its own judgment. .espite the silence of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure as to the procedure of the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal" there is no reason to dispute the C$%#&#C)s authority to do so" considering that the suppletory application of the -ules of Court is expressly authori!ed by 'ection :" -ule A: of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure which provides that absent any applicable provisions therein the pertinent provisions of the -ules of Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. Bala:on0a v. (o1ele3! &eb"6a"y #5! #004 As we have held before" only a more compelling contrary policy consideration can prevent the suppletory application of 'ection 5. The primary reason advanced by /atul O that 'ection 5 does not apply to election contests involving city" provincial and regional officials" simply because these cases are originally cogni!able by the C$%#&#C O cannot negate this public policy. 'uch a reason cannot frustrate or further delay the assumption of public office by the lawful choice of the people as determined by the C$%#&#C. /atul did not contest the good reasons cited by the C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision in granting immediate execution. Ience" we see no reason to discuss the C$%#&#C)' findings on this matter. Bat6l v. Bay"on! G.R. No2. 14< 5< B 145949! # &eb"6a"y #004. Balingit v. (o1ele3 et al! G.R. No. 1<0300! &eb. 9! #00< EMPERT OPINION

Election Jurisprudence

Page 39

#xpert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony" but are generally regarded as purely advisory in characterJ the courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it" if they find that it is consistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable. P6nJalan v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1# 9. Ap"il #<! 1995 &A(T'A* &INDING$ O& (OMMI$$ION The familiar rule is that findings of fact of the 7C$%#&#CB supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non reviewable. %illag"a3ia v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 5#9 ! -an6a"y 31! #00< The factual findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their field are generally binding and conclusive on the courts in the absence of grave abuse and none has been shown in this case. Ben.a"en v. (o1ele3 B ("i2ologo! G.R. No. 1 9393! Ap"il 15! #00 . The above factual findings of the C$%#&#C supported by evidence" are accorded" not only respect" but finality. (ayetano v. (o1ele3! B6a3 B Ba6ti2ta@ G.R. No2. 1 355 an0 1 4#! -an6a"y #3! #00 The rule that factual findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such findings should be applied with greater force when it concerns the C$%#&#C" as the framers of the Constitution intended to place the C$%#&#C created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itselfQon a level higher than statutory administrative organs. The factual finding of the C$%#&#C en banc is therefore binding on the Court. Daglo3 vs. (o1ele3! $a1a0 an0 Dilangalen! EG.R. No2. 14444#,4<. De3e1be" 10! #003F Dactual findings of the C$%#&#C" based on its own assessment and duly supported by evidence" are conclusive upon the Court" more so" in the absence of substantiated attack on the validity of the same 1Mo"ammad vs.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 40

Commission on Elections' ;56 'C-A 5<? 7:>>>B3. Bataga! $". v (o1ele3 B Tan EG.R. No2. 1409 4, . -an6a"y 14! #00#F The 'upreme Court)s function is merely to check or to ascertain where C$%#&#C might have gone far astray from parameters laid down by law but not to supplant its factual findings. 'o long as its findings are not arbitrary and unfounded" the Court is not at liberty to discard and ignore such findings $a"angani! vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2 B A0iong EG.R. No. 1444 0, #. Nove1be" 11! #003F &A(T'A* &INDING$! EM(EPTION Dactual findings of administrative bodies like the C$%#&#C are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness" or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion" fraud or error of law. Thus" when they grossly misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion" their factual findings have been reversed. (n the case at bar" we agree with petitioner that respondent C$%#&#C disregarded some glaring facts which give rise to a &rima $acie showing of irregularity in the assailed election return. Ba2a"te v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 9413! May 9! #00< &AI*'RE O& E*E(TION A scrutiny of the petitions filed before the COMELEC shows that petitioners ne er alle!ed that no otin! was held nor was otin! suspended in the subject municipalities. "either did petitioners alle!e that no one was elected. Petitioners only allege that there was a sham election and similar sham canvassing. As noted earlier# to warrant a declaration of failure of election# the alle!ed irre!ularities must be pro en to ha e pre ented or suspended the holdin! of an election# or marred fatally the preparation and transmission# custody# and can ass of the election returns. $hese essential facts should ha e been clearly alle!ed by petitioners before the COMELEC en banc# but they were not. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G. R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00 (t is the Commission 1Comelec3 sitting en banc that is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of election (a"lo2 v. Angele2 B $e"apio G.R. No. 14#90<. Nove1be" #9! #000

Election Jurisprudence

Page 41

BaKaga v2. (o1ele3! 33

$(RA! <01

Petition to declare a failure of election and petition to annul an election are one and the same thing. Typo3o v2. (o1ele3 319 $(RA 495 (a"lo2 v2. Angele2! 34 $(RA 4<1 'ection A" -ep. Act 9o. @:== provides that the C$%#&#C sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members may decide" among others" the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in 'ection = of the $mnibus #lection Code. Tan! et al.! vs. (o1ele3! -iIi"i! et al.! G.R. No2. 1454<4,< . De3e1be" 10! #003 /ut 'ection = of the $mnibus #lection Code lays down three instances where a failure of election may be declared" namely" 1:3 the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of $orce ma5eure" violence" terrorism" fraud or other analogous causesJ 153 the election in any polling place has been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of $orce ma5eure" violence" terrorism" fraud or other analogous causesJ or 1;3 after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof" such election results in a failure to elect on account of $orce ma5eure" violence" terrorism" fraud or other analogous cases. (n all instances there must have been a failure to elect. This is obvious in the first two scenarios" where the election was not held and where the election was suspended. As to the third scenario" the preparation and the transmission of the election returns" which give rise to the consequence of failure to elect" must as aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that * nobody emerged as a winner. Tan! et al.! vs. (o1ele3! -iIi"i! et al.! G.R. No2. 1454<4,< . De3e1be" 10! #003 (n the present case" the allegations bases of both the petition and &angco)s petition in intervention before the C$%#&#C are mostly grounds for an election contest" not for a declaration of failure of election. ,hile there are allegations which may be grounds for failure of election" they are supported by mere affidavits and the narrative

Election Jurisprudence

Page 42

report of the election officer. Bao vs. (o1ele3! et al.! EG.R. No. 149 . De3e1be" 19! #003F The power to declare a failure of elections should be exercised with utmost care and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt that the disregard of the law has been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful" or to arrive at any certain result whatsoeverJ or that the great body of voters have been prevented by violence" intimidation and threats from exercising their franchise. There is failure of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. (f the will of the people is determinable" the same must as far as possible be respected. Batabo" vs. (o1i22ion on Ele3tion2 et al. G.R. No. 1 04#5. -6ly #1! #004 Two 153 conditions must exist before a failure of election may be declaredM 1:3 no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to fraud" $orce ma5eure' violence or terrorismJ and 153 the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the election. The cause of such failure may arise before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election. Batabo" vs. (o1i22ion on Ele3tion2 et al. G.R. No. 1 04#5. -6ly #1! #004 /efore Comelec can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election" two 153 conditions must concurM first" no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or" even if there was voting" the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to electJ and second" the votes cast would affect the result of the election. (n Loong vs. Commission on Elections' this Court added that the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the followingM force majeure" violence" terrorism" fraud or other analogous cases. A1pat6an et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 149503! -an6a"y 31! #00# &AI*'RE O& E*E(TION NOT A PRE,PRO( An action for declaration of failure of election cannot be confused with a pre proclamation controversy. Ala6ya! -". vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! et al.! EG.R. No2. 14#141,4#. -an6a"y ##! #003F

Election Jurisprudence

Page 43

&AI*'RE TO APPEA*A&I*E (ERTIORARI (t is axiomatic that a party who does not ordinarily appeal" or as in this case file a petition for certiorari" from the orders of the C$%#&#C" is not entitled to any affirmative relief. Ala6ya! -". vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! et al.! EG.R. No2. 14#141,4#. -an6a"y ##! #003F

&EE$! MOTION &EE$! &I*ING &EE$ 9ot only was his motion filed beyond the five day reglementary period to file the same" the filing fee therefore was paid way beyond the said period. Iis motion should have been dismissed outright for failure to pay the filing fee on time. Dailure to pay filing fees will not vest the election tribunal jurisdiction over the case and such procedural lapse warrants the outright dismissal of the action. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <101! $epte1be" 1#! #00

&I*ING &EE$ The subsequent payment of the filing fee on 5? Ganuary 566; did not relieve Hamoras of his mistake. A case is not deemed duly registered and docketed until full payment of the filing fee. $therwise stated" the date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of the filing of the notice of appeal. >a1o"a2 v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145 10@ Nove1be" 1#! #004 The C$%#&#C filing fee" to distinguish from the other mandatory fees under -ule :A: of the -ules of Court" as amended" is credited to the Court)s 8eneral Dund. Nava"o2a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14<94<. $epte1be" 15! #003 $olle" v2. (o1ele3! 339 $(RA 54 %illota v2. (o1ele3! 3 # $(RA < BaKaga v. (o1ele3! 33 $(RA <01

&INA* ORDER@ EN BAN(ADI%I$ION $alva v. Ma3alintal 340 $(RA 40

Election Jurisprudence

Page 44

Ge1entiJa v. (o1ele3! 343 $(RA &OR'M $)OPPING Dorum shopping is an act of a party" against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum" of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum" other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. (t may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Repol v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1 1415. Ap"il #5! #004 Dorum shopping is a ground for the summary dismissal of a petition. $anto2 v. (o1ele3 B A2i2tio! G.R. No. 1 4439! -an6a"y #3! #00 The strict application of the non forum shopping rule in the case at bar would not work to the best interest of the parties and the electorate. An election contest" unlike an ordinary civil action" is clothed with a public interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. ,hat is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes" which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. An election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate. And the court has the corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the people. BARRO$O %. AMPIG! G.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000 GOOD REA$ON$ &OR EME('TION PENDING APPEA* $anto2 v2. (o1ele3! Ma"3/ # ! #003 &e"1o v2. (o1ele3! Ma"3/ 13! #000 Ra1a2 v2. (o1ele3! #5 $(RA 159

Election Jurisprudence

Page 45

9ot every invocation of public interest with particular reference to the will of the electorate can be appreciated as a good reason especially so if the same appears to be self serving and has not been clearly established. Public interest will be best served when the candidate voted for the position is finally proclaimed and adjudged winner in the elections. 2rgency and expediency can never be substitutes for truth and credibility. (a1lian v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#41 9. Ap"il 15! 199< $bviously" the C$%#&#C cannot refer to the proximity of the $ctober 566< elections since at the time it issued its 9ovember :5" 566< -esolution" the elections would have already passed. 9either can the C$%#&#C refer to the $ctober 566@ elections because it would not then be proximate 1or immediate3 because such elections will take place a little less than two years after the issuance of the 9ovember :5" 566< -esolution. Balingit v. (o1ele3 et al! G.R. No. 1<0300! &eb. 9! #00< GOOD REA$ON$ %$. %A*IDIT= O& DE(I$ION G6tie""eJ v2. (o1ele3! GR No. 1# #95! #4 Ma"3/ 199< GRA%E AB'$E O& DI$(RETION 8rave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. %ere abuse of discretion is not enough. (t must be grave" as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. 'uch abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Balingit v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1<0300! &eb. 9! #00< /y grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. %ere abuse of discretion is not enough. (t must be grave" as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. 'uch abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty

Election Jurisprudence

Page 46

enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (anto"ia v. (o1ele3. G.R. No. 1 #034! Nov. # ! #004. 8rave abuse of discretion exists when the questioned act of the C$%#&#C was exercised capriciously and whimsically as is equivalent to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. 'uch exercise of judgment must be done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility" and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (t is not sufficient that the C$%#&#C" in the exercise of its power" abused its discretionJ such abuse must be grave. Batabo" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 04#5. -6ly #1! #004 8rave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. %ere abuse of discretion is not enough" it must be so grave as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility" and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. $6lig6in v. (o1ele3! MBO( o; Nag3a"lan! *ag6na! G.R. No. 1 04 ! Ma"3/ #3! #00 Abb6baIa" v. )RET et al. G.R. No. 1<3 09! Ma"3/ <! #00< )ONE$T MI$TADE There is a limit to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue" in the performance of official duty. Pi1entel -". v2. (o1ele3! 3#4 $(RA 19 @ Do1alanta v2. (o1ele3! 334 $(RA 444 )RET! -'RI$DI(TION ,ith respect to petitioner Cerbo who ran for the position of congressman" the C$%#&#C indeed had no jurisdiction over his petition" his opponent respondent 'uharto T. %angudadatu having been proclaimed as such. (t is well settled that once a candidate is proclaimed as

Election Jurisprudence

Page 47

representative" the opponent)s recourse is to file an election protest with the Iouse of -epresentatives #lectoral Tribunal which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election" returns and qualifications of members of the Iouse of -epresentatives" and this holds true even if there is an allegation of nullity of proclamation. (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< The I-#T is the 2ole :60ge of all contests relating to the election" returns" and qualifications of the members of the Iouse of -epresentatives and has the power to promulgate procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it. Ro3e2 v. )RET! G.R. NO. 1 <499! $ept. 14! #004 The I-#T has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election" returns" and qualifications of members of the Iouse of -epresentatives. Thus" once a winning candidate has been proclaimed" taken his oath" and assumed office as a %ember of the Iouse of -epresentatives" C$%#&#C)s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election" returns" and qualifications ends" and the I-#T)s own jurisdiction begins. Aggabao v. Mi"an0a G.R. No. 1 3<4 -an6a"y # ! #004 The gene"al "6le is that the proclamation of a congressional candidate divests C$%#&#C of jurisdiction in favor of the I-#T. This rule" however" is not .it/o6t eL3eption. Plana2 v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <494! Ma"3/ 10! #00 The I-#T is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election" returns" and qualifications of the members of the Iouse of -epresentatives. $an -6an v. )RET B (e"ille2! G.R. No. 1 0939. -6ly ! #004 The issue of the validity of the proclamation of a member of the Iouse of -epresentatives is still within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Comelec. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# I**EGA* PRO(EEDING$ This Court is not persuaded. 9on compliance by a /$C of the prescribed canvassing procedure is not an 7illegal

Election Jurisprudence

Page 48

p"o3ee0ing8 under paragraph 1a3 of 'ection 5A; of the $mnibus #lection Code" given the 2611a"y nature of a pre proclamation controversy" consistent with the law)s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. A pre proclamation controversy is limited to an eLa1ination o; t/e ele3tion "et6"n2 on t/ei" ;a3e and the C$%#&#C as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged election irregularities. Nava""o v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 140<99! &eb"6a"y 3! #003 'ee" however! D6"e1e0e2 v. (o1ele3! 1<5 $(RA <4 ! a2 3ite0 in Agpalo! #00# e0. Page 334 N 33 Dailure of the /oard of Canvassers to canvass votes from a separate tally sheet" when the same are considered as valid amounts to an illegal proceeding. /ecause <(%*n anal sis o$ t"e $oregoing incidents s"ows t"at t"e se&arate tallies were made to remed an &re5udice t"at ma be caused b t"e inclusion o$ a &otential nuisance candidate in t"e =avotas ma oralt race. .uc" inclusion was broug"t about b tec"nicalit ' s&eci$icall Edwin Bautista>s $iling o$ a motion $or reconsideration' w"ic" &revented t"e %&ril ?;' @AA: resolution disquali$ ing "im $rom becoming $inal at t"at time.B Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 133540. Nove1be" 13! 1995 (t seems obvious to us that the votes separately tallied are not really stray votes. Then C$%#&#C Chairman /ernardo P. Pardo himself" now a respected member of the Court" in his %ay :A" :>>? %emorandum" allowed the segregation of the votes for C/autistaC" C#frenC" and C#fren /autistaC" and C#. /autistaC into a separate improvised tally" for the purpose of later counting the votes. (n fine" the C$%#&#C itself validated the separate tallies since they were meant to be used in the canvassing later on to the actual number of votes cast. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 133540. Nove1be" 13! 1995 IMP*EMENTING R'*E$ %$. E*E(TION *AC$ /eing merely an implementing rule" the same must not override" but instead remain consistent and in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out" neither to

Election Jurisprudence

Page 49

supplant nor to modify" the law. G"ego v. (o1ele3! #<4 $(RA 451 G199<H. IN(OMP*ETE (AN%A$$ An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass is not reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless the board of canvassers considers all returns and omits none. Iowever" this is true only where the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. Ba"be"2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 4 91. -6ne 14! #004 IN)IBITION Commissioner &antion)s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot be countenanced. 9owhere in the C$%#&#C -ules does it allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc proceedings when he previously inhibited himself in the .ivision is" absent any satisfactory justification" not only judicially unethical but legally improper and absurd. E2t"ella v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 04 4! Ap"il #5! #004 Accordingly" we hold that the failure of Commissioners 'adain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition from the ;6 'eptember 566< -esolution does not affect the validity of that ruling. Pe0"agoJa v. (o1ele3 B $616long! G.R. No. 1 9554 -6ly #4! #00 I$$'E NOT RAI$ED IN P*EADING The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same" such that" Cif it is not raised in the pleadings" it cannot be considered at the trial" and" if not considered at the trial" it cannot be considered on appeal. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903 ! Ap"il #! #00# I$$'E RAI$ED &IR$T TIME ON APPEA* The aforementioned issue is now raised only for the first time on appeal before this Court. 'ettled is the rule that issues not raised in the proceedings below 1C$%#&#C en

Election Jurisprudence

Page 50

banc3 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Dairness and due process dictate that evidence and issues not presented below cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G. R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00 (t is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings below" but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <101! $epte1be" 1#! #00 $ee al2o Mat6ga2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 141944! -an6a"y #0! #004! 4#0 $(RA 3 4! 3<< -'DGMENT! %A*IDIT= O& The Court agrees with private respondent. A decision becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated. Consequently" if at the time of the promulgation of a decision or resolution" a member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated his office" his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled. The -esolution" in this case" remains valid because it is still supported by a majority of the C$%#&#C en banc. Ben.a"en v. (o1ele3 B ("i2ologo! G.R. No. 1 9393! Ap"il 15! #00 . .ecision may no longer be promulgated after the ponente has vacated his office. (on2oli0ate0 BanI v. IA(! GR No. <3333,<5 Dor a judgment to be valid" it must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who signed it. People v. *abao! ##0 $(RA 100 Ma"3/ 1<! 1993 -'DGMENT O& (OME*E( /esides" it is a settled rule that the C$%#&#C)s judgment cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. A"a0ai2 v. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 14<5 3. Ap"il #5! #004

Election Jurisprudence

Page 51

-'RI$DI(TION@ E$TOPPE* ,hile it is true that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case upon complete payment of the prescribed filing fee" the rule admits of exceptions" as when a party never raised the issue of jurisdiction in the trial court. %illag"a3ia v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 5#9 ! -an6a"y 31! #00< Al0ay v. &G' In26"an3e! 340 $(RA 113 Although a party cannot waive jurisdictional issues and may raise them at any stage of the proceedings" estoppel may bar a party from raising such issues. Nava"o2a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14<94<. $epte1be" 15! #003 Petitioner is estopped from questioning the issue of jurisdiction of the C$%#&#C. 9ot only did she actively participate in the proceedings before the Dirst .ivision" but she also sought affirmative relief by filing her Answer with Counter Protest wherein she asked that *all the precincts in the ; municipalities in the Dirst .istrict be placed under protest.+ (t is certainly not right for a party taking part in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision to attack the decision later for lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the decision turned out to be adverse to him . De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003

-'RI$DI(TION O& (OME*E(! EN BAN( B DI%I$ION The consistent ruling of the Court is that" the Commission en banc does not have jurisdiction in the first instance" whether original or appellate" over election cases" pre proclamation controversies" and incidents thereof. ,hen such disputes are filed before or elevated to the Commission" they should be heard and adjudicated first at the division level. This doctrine is anchored on 'ection ;" Article (N C of the Constitution which established the two tiered organi!ational and functional structure of the C$%#&#C. The provision requires that election cases" including pre proclamation controversies" should be heard and decided first at the division level. (a1be v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005

Election Jurisprudence

Page 52

(t is important to clarify" however" that not all cases relating to election laws filed before the C$%#&#C are required to be first heard by a division. 2nder the Constitution" the C$%#&#C exercises both administrative and quasi judicial powers. The C$%#&#C en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. (t is only when the exercise of quasi judicial powers is involved that the C$%#&#C is mandated to decide cases first in division" and then" upon motion for reconsideration" en banc. (a1be v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 The Constitution clearly mandates that pre proclamation controversies must be first heard and decided by a division of the C$%#&#C" and then by the en banc if a motion for reconsideration were filed. This Court has consistently ruled that the requirement of hearing and decision of election cases" including pre proclamation controversies" at the first instance by a division of the C$%#&#C" and not by it as a whole" is mandatory and jurisdictional. The constitutional provision yields to no other interpretation other than what its plain meaning presents. A"boni0a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 <13<! Ma"3/ 14! #00< /eginning with 'armiento v. C$%#&#C and reiterated in subsequent cases" the most recent being /alindong v. C$%#&#C" the Court has upheld this constitutional mandate and consistently ruled that the C$%#&#C sitting en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission and any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. MBO( o; G*AN! et al. vs. (o1ele3 GEn Ban3H an0 BenJonan! EG.R. No. 14094 . O3tobe" #3! #003F The C$%#&#C sitting in division and not the C$%#&#C en banc has jurisdiction over petitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003 (t is the Comelec en banc which has the exclusive power to declare a failure of election. BaKaga v. (o1ele3! G. R.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 53

No. 134 9 ! -6ly 31! #000! 33 $(RA <01@ Benito v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 134913! -an6a"y 19! #001 2nder 'ection 5" Article (N C of the :>?@ Constitution" the C$%#&#C exercises both administrative and quasi judicial powers. The C$%#&#C)s administrative powers are found in 'ection 5 1:3" 1;3" 1A3" 1<3" 1=3" 1@3" 1?3" and 1>3 of Article (N C. The :>?@ Constitution does not prescribe how the C$%#&#C should exercise its administrative powers" whether en banc or in division. The Constitution merely vests the C$%#&#C)s administrative powers in the *Commission on #lections"+ while providing that the C$%#&#C *may sit en banc or in two divisions.+ Clearly" the C$%#&#C en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. (ndeed" this has been the practice of the C$%#&#C both under the :>@; and :>?@ Constitutions. Baytan! et al. v. #o(elec! G.R. No. 143944. &eb"6a"y 4! #003 The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election results andFor declare a failure of elections. A1pat6an et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 149503! -an6a"y 31! #00# The contested position in this case is that of a baranga ca&tain. The %unicipal Trial Court of Calbayog City" a court of limited jurisdiction" had the exclusive original jurisdiction over the election protest" and the C$%#&#C has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such protest. Be2o v. Aballe! G.R. No. 13493#. &eb"6a"y 15! #000 At the outset" we note that there is no dispute with respect to the jurisdiction of the -egional Trial Courts to rule on motions for execution pending appeal filed within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Consequently" the filing of a notice of appeal within the same period does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and resolve pending incidents. (a1lian v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1#41 9. Ap"il 15! 199< -'RI$DI(TION! (O%ERAGE The I-#T is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election" returns" and qualifications of the members of the Iouse of -epresentatives and has the power to promulgate procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 54

This exclusive :6"i20i3tion in3l60e2 t/e po.e" to 0ete"1ine ./et/e" it /a2 t/e a6t/o"ity to /ea" an0 0ete"1ine t/e 3ont"ove"2y p"e2ente0! an0 t/e "ig/t to 0e3i0e ./et/e" t/at 2tate o; ;a3t2 eLi2t2 ./i3/ 3on;e"2 :6"i20i3tion! a2 .ell a2 all ot/e" 1atte"2 ./i3/ a"i2e in t/e 3a2e legiti1ately be;o"e it. Accordingly" it has the power to hear and determine" or inquire into" the question of its own jurisdiction" both as to parties and as to subject matter" and to decide all questions" whether of law or fact" the decision of which is necessary to determine the question of jurisdiction. $ne of the three essential elements of jurisdiction is that proper parties must be present. Consequently" the I-#T merely exercised its exclusive jurisdiction when it ruled that %rs. Ang Ping was a proper party to contest the election of -oces. Ro3e2 v. )RET! G.R. NO. 1 <499! $ept. 14! #004 -'RI$DI(TION! RETENTION O& The exception to the rule of retention of jurisdiction after proclamation applies when the challenged candidate becomes a member of the Iouse of -epresentatives or of the 'enate" where the appropriate electoral tribunal would have jurisdiction. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nov. 1 ! #00 *A(D O& INNER PAPER $EA*$ The lack of inner paper seals in the election returns does not justify their exclusion from the canvassing. Ban0ala v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1493 9. Ma"3/ 3! #004 *A(D O& CE**,DE&INED (ON$TIT'EN(= *&ack of well defined constituenc7yB+ refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group" like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. -ather" it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the *marginali!ed or underrepresented.+ Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 14<459! -6ne # ! #001 *AP$E O& TIME@ TE()NI(A* R'*E$

Election Jurisprudence

Page 55

)o;e" v. )RET! May 1#! #004 *IBERA* INTERPRETATION O& R'*E$ %oreover" the Comelec -ules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free" orderly" honest" peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just" expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec. BARRO$O %. AMPIG! G.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000 MA*A PRO)IBITA %ore importantly" C$%#&#C -esolution 9o. 5;5; is a special law and a violation of which is in the nature of a mala prohibita crime. As such" regardless of petitioner)s intent" mere carrying of the gun without the necessary permit is already a violation of the C$%#&#C resolution. (t is hornbook doctrine that in mala prohibita crimes" the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated. ,hen the act is illegal" the intent of the offender is immaterial. AMPO v2 T)E )ONORAB*E (O'RT O& APPEA*$ an0 T)E PEOP*E O& T)E P)I*IPPINE$! G.R. No. 1 9091! #00 &eb 1 ! 12t Divi2ion MANI&E$T ERROR A petition for correction of manifest errors filed directly with the C$%#&#C should thus pertain to errors that could not have been discovered during the canvassing" despite the exercise of due diligence. Petitioner Ar!agon" however" together with the other petitioners" initially filed a petition for correction of manifest errors with the P/$C" evidently showing that the errors sought to be corrected were discovered during the canvassing. (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< A manifest clerical error is *one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector" and does not include an error which may" by evidence dehors the record be shown to have been committed. $6lig6in v.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 56

(o1ele3! MBO( o; Nag3a"lan! 1 04 ! Ma"3/ #3! #00

*ag6na!

G.R.

No.

(t found that there was manifest error in the addition of votes for /addiri resulting in the addition of 5666 votes in his favor. The Certificate of Canvass of 4otes from the %unicipality of Patikul" 'ulu" reflected A"?@; votes in favor of petitioner" but the supporting 'tatement of 4otes by Precincts showed that the correct total votes garnered by him is only 5"?@;" as admitted by the members of the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers of the said municipality . Ba00i"i v. (o1ele3 B PBO( o; $6l6! G.R. No. 1 4 <<! -6ne 5! #004 To""e2 v. (o1ele3! #<0 $(RA 453 G199<H (ndeed" even if the truly manifest errors were corrected using the data presented by petitioner herself" the proclamation of private respondent as the winning 4ice %ayoral candidate of Taytay" -i!al will still stand. Ta1ayo, Reye2 v. (o1ele3 B (abita3! G.R. No. 1<41#1! -6ne 5! #00< The correction of manifest errors has reference to errors in the election returns" in the entries in the 'tatement of 4otes 1'$43 by precinct per municipality or in the certificate of canvass. Dor errors to be manifest" they must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected" and objections thereto must have been made before the /oard of Canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings. This Court defined CmanifestC as evident to the eye and understandingJ visible to the eyeJ that which is open" palpable" and incontrovertibleJ needing no evidence to make it more clearJ not obscure or hidden. Ta1ayo,Reye2 v. (o1ele3 B (abita3! G.R. No. 1<41#1! -6ne 5! #00< MANI&E$T PRO(*AMATION ERROR! ANN'*MENT O&

,e held that" as the case involved a manifest error" although the C$%#&#C erred in annulling the proclamation of petitioner without notice and hearing" the expedient course of action was for the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers

Election Jurisprudence

Page 57

to reconvene and" after notice and hearing in accordance with -ule 5@" E@ of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure" to effect the necessary corrections on the certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidates on the basis thereof. Angelia vs. #o(elec ) Tan! G.R. No. 1344 5. May 31! #000 (n Milla v. Balmores-Laxa" 18.-. 9o. :<:5:=" Guly :?" 566;" A6: 'C-A =@>3 we sustained the power of the C$%#&#C to annul the proclamation" due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the statement of votes" of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had taken his oath and assumed office as such. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00 Thus" the Comelec was correct in annulling the proclamation of petitioner for being based on an erroneous computation of votes. As the Court declared in Es&idol v. Commission on Elections" where the proclamation is null and void" the proclaimed candidate)s assumption of office cannot deprive the Commission the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. ,e emphasi!ed that a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. $6lig6in v. (o1ele3! MBO( o; Nag3a"lan! *ag6na! G.R. No. 1 04 ! Ma"3/ #3! #00 O?)a"a v. (o1ele3! 4#5 P/il. 1041! G.R. No2. 145941, 4#Ma"3/ 1#! #00# MANI&E$T ERROR (ONTRO%ER$= I$ A PRE,PRO(*AMATION

(t should be noted that what petitioner filed was a petition for correction of manifest errors and nullification of proclamation" which is a pre proclamation controversy. A pre proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition or political parties before the board or directly with the C$%#&#C" or any matter raised under 'ections 5;;" 5;A" 5;<" and 5;= of the $mnibus #lection Code" in relation to the preparation" transmission" receipt" custody" and appreciation of the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 58

election returns. (t is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face and the C$%#&#C" as a general rule" need not go beyond the face of the returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate the alleged election irregularities. Ta1ayo, Reye2 v. (o1ele3 B (abita3! G.R. No. 1<41#1! -6ne 5! #00< Also noteworthy is that relative to the five other irregularities raised in her petition before the C$%#&#C which were deemed improper for correction of manifest errors" petitioner claimed that the election returns and the statements of votes had been tampered with and falsified. This claim would be appropriate in a pre proclamation contest proper" not in a petition for mere correction of manifest errors. Ta1ayo,Reye2 v. (o1ele3 B (abita3! G.R. No. 1<41#1! -6ne 5! #00< MANI&E$T ERROR! &A(T'A* &INDING -ather" the C$%#&#C 'econd .ivision and en banc have found that the manifest errors consisted in the tabulation of the votes from the election returns to the statement of votes. They based their findings on" among others" the admission of the election officer herself that such errors were indeed committed. This factual finding of the C$%#&#C" which is supported by substantial evidence" is binding on the Court. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <101! $epte1be" 1#! #00 MAMIM$ #quity aids the vigilant" not those who slumber on their rights. A1po v. (A B Pp! G.R. No. 1 9091! &EBR'AR= 1 ! #00 MIN'TE RE$O*'TION To be sure" minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions are the result of a thorough deliberation among the %embers of the Court although they are promulgated through the Clerk of Court. They need not be signed by the %embers of the Court who took part in the deliberations thereon" nor do they require the Certification of the Chief Gustice 1unlike decisions and signed resolutions3

Election Jurisprudence

Page 59

in order to avoid undue delay in the disposition of cases. Petitioner would prefer a resolution which spells out why and how the Court arrived at its conclusions. 'uffice it to state that minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions affirm the assailed resolutionFdecision of the lower court or tribunal. %alen3ia v. (o1ele3 B (6a! G.R. No. 1 5415! Ma"3/ #5! #00 MOOT AND A(ADEMI( ,ell entrenched is the rule that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involvedJ they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic" there is no justiciable controvery" so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled. $o3"ate2 v. =ap,)e"nan0eJ! G.R. No2. 139305,09. May 10! #004 Ga"3ia v2. (o1ele3 #45 $(RA <44 G1999H B"illante2 v2. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1 3193! -6ne 14! #004 Even i; 1oot an0 a3a0e1i3! 3o6"t2 3an "evie. 96e2tion2 i; 3apable o; "epetition yet eva0ing "evie.. ,here the issues have become moot and academic" there is no justiciable controversy" thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. 9onetheless" courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition" yet evading review. AlbaKa v2. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 1 330# -6ly #3! #004 Alta"e:o2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 3#4 . Nove1be" 10! #004 MOTION &OR RE(ON$IDERATION@ &IR$T DI%I$ION The C$%#&#C #n /anc shall decide motions for reconsideration only of decisions of a .ivision" meaning those acts of final character and not interlocutory. Ge1entiJa v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"3/ ! #001! 343 $(RA <#4 MOTION P*EADING &OR RE(ON$IDERATION! PRO)IBITED

Election Jurisprudence

Page 60

2nder 'ection 5<= of the $mnibus #lection Code 1$#C3" the trial court cannot entertain a motion for reconsideration of its decision in an election contest affecting municipal officers filed by the aggrieved party. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 MOTION O&&EN$E &OR RE(ON$IDERATION! E*E(TION

&aelna" v. People B (o1ele3! May 4! #000 MOTION &OR RE(ON$IDERATION! PRO &ORMA The motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and its filing did suspend the period for filing the petition for certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro formaJ otherwise" the movant)s remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy. /ut" as we have held in another caseM Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed" one is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper" contrary to the law or the evidenceJ and in doing so" the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. (f a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues" the consequence would be that after a decision is rendered" the losing party would be confined to filing only motions for reopening and new trial. (ndeed" in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma" the motion was so held because 1:3 it was a second motion for reconsideration" or 153 it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence" or 1;3 it failed to substantiate the alleged errors" or 1A3 it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law" or 1<3 the adverse party was not given notice thereof. The := page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the C$%#&#C en banc

Election Jurisprudence

Page 61

suffers from none of the foregoing defects" and it was error for the C$%#&#C en banc to rule that petitioner)s motion for reconsideration was pro forma because the allegations raised therein are a mere *rehash+ of his earlier pleadings or did not raise *new matters.+ Ience" the filing of the motion suspended the running of the ;6 day period to file the petition in this case" which" as earlier shown" was done within the reglementary period provided by law. (o96illa v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 141914. -6ly 31! #00# MOTION &OR RE(ON$IDERATION! RE+'IREMENT &OR (ERTIORARI! EM(EPTION$ The Court holds that direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is justified in this case since the -esolution sought to be set aside is a nullity. The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic government. 'etting aside the resolution of the issue will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections. Blan3o v. (o1ele3 B Ala"illa! G.R. No. 1501 4! -6ne 1<! #005 -ule :?" 'ection :; of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure requires that a timely motion for reconsideration of a C$%#&#C .ivision decision has to be filed with the C$%#&#C en banc before a special civil action for certiorari may be filed with this Court. Consequently" the filing of the instant petition was premature. Petitioner failed to exhaust adequate administrative remedies available before the C$%#&#C. %i3ente! :". v. (o1ele3 B $onJa EG.R. No. 1<0#44. -an6a"y 31! #00 F As a general rule" any decision" order or ruling of the C$%#&#C in the exercise of its quasi judicial functions may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari under -ules =A and =< of the -evised -ules of Court within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Iowever" these decisions or rulings refer to the decision or final order of the C$%#&#C en banc and not of any division thereof. A motion for reconsideration of a decision of the C$%#&#C .ivision has to be filed first" which is resolved by the C$%#&#C en banc' whose decision on the motion for reconsideration may then be the subject of a petition for certiorari with this Court.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 62

Thus" it has been held that the Constitution vests in the C$%#&#C in division" the jurisdiction to hear and decide all election cases" including pre proclamation controversies" and in the C$%#&#C en banc to resolve motions for reconsideration from decisions or rulings of the former. (n other words" the Cdecision" order" or ruling ofC the C$%#&#C which may be brought to the 'upreme Court on certiorari refers to that of the C$%#&#C en banc. As it is" the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. %i3ente! :". v. (o1ele3 B $onJa EG.R. No. 1<0#44. -an6a"y 31! #00 F The Court -esolved to DI$MI$$ the petition for being premature as no motion for reconsideration was filed with the Commission on #lections en banc" and there are no sufficient allegations to bring the case within the recogni!ed exceptions 1#illarama vs. =LRC' 5;= 'C-A 5?6 7:>>ABJ Lasco vs. Cnited =ations Revolving Fund $or =ational Resources Ex&loration' 5A: 'C-A =?: 7:>><BJ -"ili&&ine =ational Construction Cor&. vs. =LRC " 5A< 'C-A ==? 7:>><B3.C *il+redo ,e-es !i.a-an vs. /i( &i0ael 1. A(ador and #o((ission on Elections G.R. No. 1<0943 -an6a"y 31! #00 8enerally" a motion for reconsideration is a pre requisite to the viability of a special civil action for certiorari. Iowever" there are exceptions to the rule. The aggrieved party is not obliged to first file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before filing a petition under -ule =< of the -ules of Court" as amended where" as in this case" G1H t/e 96e2tion i2 p6"ely legal! G#H :60i3ial inte"vention i2 6"gent@ G3H it2 appli3ation 1ay 3a62e g"eat an0 i""epa"able 0a1age@ an0 G4H t/e 3ont"ove"te0 a3t2 violate 06e p"o3e22. Na1il! et al.! vs. (o1ele3 B Dapina et al.! EG.R. No. 140440. O3tobe" #5! #003F MOTION &OR RE(ON$IDERATION! $'$PEN$ION O& IMP*EMENTATION Contrary to the stance taken by petitioner Alejandro" his filing of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the C$%#&#C 'econd .ivision did not i&so $acto have the effect of suspending the execution of the latter as the same was defective. 9ot only was his motion filed beyond the five day

Election Jurisprudence

Page 63

reglementary period to file the same" the filing fee therefore was paid way beyond the said period. Iis motion should have been dismissed outright for failure to pay the filing fee on time. Dailure to pay filing fees will not vest the election tribunal jurisdiction over the case and such procedural lapse warrants the outright dismissal of the action. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1 <101! $epte1be" 1#! #00 NAT'RE O& A(TION The long standing rule is that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of the tribunal are determined by law and the allegations in the petitions regardless of whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought. Ab062aI6" M. Tan! et al! vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! -iIi"i et al.! G.R. No2. 1454<4,< . De3e1be" 10! #003 (n determining the nature of the complaint or petition" its averments" rather than its titleFcaption" are the proper gauges. De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003 The prayer in a pleading does not constitute an essential part of the allegations determinative of the jurisdiction of a court. The question of jurisdiction depends largely upon the determination of the true nature of the action filed by a party which" in turn" involves the consideration of the ultimate facts alleged as constitutive of the cause of action therein 1Bautista vs. Fernande," & 5A6=5" April ;6" :>@:3. The prayer for relief" although part of the complaint" cannot create a cause of action" hence it cannot be considered a part of the allegations on the nature of the cause of action. De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003 #lementary is the rule that the real nature of a criminal charge cannot be determined from the title of the complaintJ the designation of the offense chargedJ or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated" which are mere conclusions of law. ,hat is controlling is the description of the crime or the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. PeKa! et al. v. -60ge Ma"tiJano! A.M. No. MT-,0#,1441. May 30! #003

Election Jurisprudence

Page 64

NEIG)BOR)OOD R'*E ,e agree with the C$%#&#C En Banc. (n each of these ballots 1#xhibits *:"+ *5"+ *<+ and *=+3" the space for Punong /arangay is blank. *Tibong Co+ is written on the first line of the space for /arangay Lagawad. The votes are valid for Co under the neighborhood rule. Aba0 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 <435! -6ly #4! #00 ! 3iting &e""e" v. (o1ele3! 35 P/il. 431! G#000H

NEC MATTER$ The foregoing issue and the incidents thereunder were never raised by the petitioners during the proceedings before the -TC. 'uffice it to say that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. %atters" theories or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play" justice and due process. Di31an et al. v. (a"iKo! G.R. No. 14 449! -6ne 5! #00

NOMINATION! $'B$TIT'TION Gunaid" having been nominated by -#P$-%A only after the expiration of the period for filing of certificates of candidacy" could not be considered as officially nominated by the latter. Consequently he could not be substituted by petitioner" a nominee of -#P$-%A" since the law requires that the candidate to be substituted and the substitute should come from the same party. BA(ARAMAN %. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 145143. Nove1be" 15! #003 As the earlier quoted 'ection @@ of the $mnibus #lection Code provides" Conly a person belonging to and certified by the same political partyC may substitute the candidate who" in Gunaid0s case" died. (n petitioner0s case" he was officially nominated by CPPC -#P$-%A.C ,hile Gunaid was also CnominatedC by said party" the nomination came only on Debruary :5" 566: or after the period for filing of certificates of candidacy had expired on Ganuary :A" 566:. BA(ARAMAN %. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 145143. Nove1be" 15! #003

Election Jurisprudence

Page 65

NON,&OR'M $)OPPING (ERTI&I(ATION! &AI*'RE TO (OMP*= Applying the -ules of Civil Procedure suppletorily" the failure to comply with the non forum shopping requirements of 'ection < of -ule @ does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice as petitioner insists. The -ule states that the dismissal is without prejudice. The dismissal may be with prejudice but only upon motion and after hearing. Ba""o2o v. A1pig! et al. EG.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000F

NOTI(E! (AN%A$$ING $abeniano v. (o1ele3! 101 $(RA #59@ +6ilala v. (o1ele3! 155 $(RA 40#

N'I$AN(E (ANDIDATE$ The rationale for the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not demonstrated a bond fide intention to run for office is the 'tate0s compelling interest in ensuring that its electoral exercises are rational" objective" and orderly. (/aveJ vs. (o1ele3@ EG.R. No. 1 #<31,3#. Ap"il 13! #004F ,e have ruled that a nuisance candidate is one whose certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of names of the registered candidate or by other names which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona $ide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. 1 Fernande, vs. Fernande,' ;= 'C-A : 7:>@6B3 Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 133540. Nove1be" 13! 1995

OMNIB'$ E*E(TION (ODE %$. (OME*E( R'*E$ O& PRO(ED'RE *oong v2. (o1ele3! #1 $(RA < 0

OMNIB'$ RE$O*'TION ON PENDING (A$E$ (n the instant controversy" the case filed by petitioner

Election Jurisprudence

Page 66

involving #lection -eturn 9o. >=6:=== which the %/C found to be fraudulent" tampered" and statistically improbable" is a pre proclamation case requiring the C$%#&#C)s exercise of quasi judicial powers. The same should have been decided at the first instance by a division of the C$%#&#C" especially so that petitioner filed his appeal not with the en banc but with a division of the C$%#&#C. Dailing to comply with the constitutional and jurisprudential requirements" Re2ol6tion No. 5#1# 162t t/e"e;o"e be 0e3la"e0 voi0 in2o;a" a2 t/e in2tant 3a2e i2 3on3e"ne0 . (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 PART=,*I$T PARTI(IPANT$! G'IDE*INE$ Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 14<459! -6ne # ! #001 BA,RA<941 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1<<#<1! May 4! #00< P*EBI$(ITE The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the C$%#&#C and not the regular courts. 'uch a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the C$%#&#C. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election" &lebiscite" initiative" referendum and recall" the C$%#&#C has the indis&utable ex&ertise in the field of election and related laws.+ (ts acts" therefore" enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. (ayetano v. (o1ele3! B6a3 B Ba6ti2ta@ G.R. No2. 1 355 an0 1 4#! -an6a"y #3! #00 citing uac vs. #o((ission on Elections! G.R. No. 1444544! -an6a"y # ! #004! 4#1 $(RA 9#! 10 The C$%#&#C -esolutions are correct in limiting the plebiscite for the conversion of the %unicipality of 'ta. -osa into a component city to qualified voters of 'ta. -osa only" to the exclusion of the other votersFresidents of the Province of &aguna. %ale"a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 40< . Nove1be" ##! #004 PO*ITI(A* PART=

Election Jurisprudence

Page 67

The law defines *political party+ as *an organi!ed group of citi!ens advocating an ideology or platform" principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which" as the most immediate means of securing their adoption" regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.+ Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 14<459! -6ne # ! #001 PONENTE! MOTION &OR RE(ON$IDERATION Petitioner correctly points out that the assailed C$%#&#C en banc -esolution violates 'ection :" -ule A of the C$%#&#C -ules which states that *no %ember shall be the ponente of an en banc decisionFresolution on a motion to reconsider a decisionFresolution written by him in a .ivision.+ (n Agbayani v. (OME*E(" we held that a violation of this rule is a reason for the reversal of the acts of the C$%#&#C as C$%#&#C *should be the first to respect and obey its own rules" if only to provide the proper example to those appearing before it and to avoid all suspicion of bias or arbitrariness in its proceedings.+ Ba2a"te v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 9413! May 9! #00< POCER$ O& T)E (OMMI$$ION Comelec has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer election laws. This power includes the determination" within the parameters fixed by law" of appropriate periods for the accomplishment of certain pre election acts like filing petitions for registration under the party list system. AD*AT , A2o2a2yon Pa"a $a Da6nla"an Ng *ip6nan At A0/iIain Pa"a $a Tao! In3.! v. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 1 ##03. Ap"il 14! #004F (t bears emphasis that the C$%#&#C has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it. (n the case at bar" it was well within the C$%#&#C)s discretion to avail of the means it deemed effective" such as requiring the parties to present their side through position papers and memoranda and conducting a clarificatory

Election Jurisprudence

Page 68

hearing wherein the members of the /$C were required to shed light on the two proclamations made. /esides" it is a settled rule that the C$%#&#C)s judgment cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. A"a0ai2 vs. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! G.R. No. 14<5 3. Ap"il #5! #004 (f the C$%#&#C is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of the votes cast for the President and 4ice President" the C$%#&#C is" with more reason" prohibited from making an *unofficial+ canvass of said votes. B"illante2! -". v. -o2e (on3ep3ion! -".! -o2e 0e %ene3ia! E0ga"0o -. Anga"a! D". -ai1e >. GalveJ Tan! &"anIlin M. D"ilon! &"i23o $an -6an! No"be"to M. GonJale2! )one2to M. I2leta! an0 -o2e a. Be"na2! v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! EG.R. No. 1 3193. -6ne 14! #004F Iowever" the duties of the C$%#&#C under the Constitution" -ep. Act 9o. @:==" and other election laws are carried out" at all ti1e2! in it2 o++icial capacit-. There is no constitutional and statutory basis for the respondent C$%#&#C to undertake a separate and an *unofficial+ tabulation of results" whether manually or electronically. (ndeed" by conducting such *unofficial+ tabulation of the results of the election" the C$%#&#C descends to the level of a private organi!ation" s&ending &ublic $unds $or t"e &ur&ose. B"illante2! -". v. -o2e (on3ep3ion! -".! -o2e 0e %ene3ia! E0ga"0o -. Anga"a! D". -ai1e >. GalveJ Tan! &"anIlin M. D"ilon! &"i23o $an -6an! No"be"to M. GonJale2! )one2to M. I2leta! an0 -o2e a. Be"na2! v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! EG.R. No. 1 3193. -6ne 14! #004F As an independent Constitutional Commission" it is clothed with the three powers of government executive or administrative" legislative" and quasi judicial powers. (ip"iano v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145530! A6g62t 10! #004 Power of Comelec to promulgate rules and regulations. Galla"0o v. Taba1o! #15 $(RA #43 G1993H

Election Jurisprudence

Page 69

Power of the Commission to investigate and prosecute election offenses. Galla"0o v. Taba1o! #15 $(RA #43 G1993H /eing merely an implementing rule" the same must not override" but instead remain consistent and in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out" neither to supplant nor to modify" the law. G"ego v. (o1ele3! #<4 $(RA 451 G199<H. The Constitution has vested to the C$%#&#C broad powers" involving not only the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections" but also the resolution and determination of election controversies. (t also granted the C$%#&#C the power and authority to promulgate its rules of procedure" with the primary objective of ensuring the expeditious disposition of election cases. Concomitant to such powers is the authority of the C$%#&#C to determine the true nature of the cases filed before it. De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003 (t is the primary duty of the C$%#&#C and the courts to ascertain by all means the will of the electorate. Thus" when the C$%#&#C treated respondent)s petition as one for correction of manifest errors" it was merely complying with its duty. De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003 '21an v2. (o1ele3! 4# $(RA <

PRE*IMINAR= IN%E$TIGATION Dilo2bayan v. (o1ele3! GR No. 1#5044! O3tobe" 1 ! 199< Baytan! et al.! vs. &eb"6a"y 4! #003F (o1ele3! EG.R. No. 143944.

PRE,PRO(*AMATION (ONTRO%ER$= (t is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled on the petition for exclusion" it is duty bound to suspend the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 70

proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the board within A? hours from the suspension of the proceedings" and of an appeal with the C$%#&#C" within five days from the same suspension. Dailure to comply with these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 %oreover" the prevailing rule that as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face" the /oard of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of the votes presupposes that the returns *appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face.+ This principle does not apply in cases like the one at bar where there is a &rima $acie showing that the return is not genuine" several entries having been omitted in the assailed return. Ba2a"te v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 9413! May 9! #00< 'ection 5" -ule 5@ of the :>>; C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure provides that matters raised under 'ections 5;; 1when the election returns are delayed" lost" or destroyed3" 5;A 1when there are omissions on the election returns3" 8?) (w"en t"e election returns a&&ear to be tam&ered wit" or $alsi$ied* " and 5;= 1when there are discrepancies in the election returns3 of the $mnibus #lection Code s"all be broug"t in t"e $irst instance be$ore t"e Board o$ Canvassers onl . This provision is mandatory. Thus" petitioner)s failure to raise these matters before the %/$C of Taytay" -i!al barred her from questioning the same before the C$%#&#C. Ta1ayo, Reye2 v. (o1ele3 B (abita3! G.R. No. 1<41#1! -6ne 5! #00< 'uffice it to state that the above provision applies only where the objection deals with a pre proclamation controversy" not where" as in the present case" it raises or deals with no such controversy. Ban0ala v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1493 9. Ma"3/ 3! #004 $utright exclusion of election returns on the ground that they were fraudulently prepared by some members or non members of the /#( disenfranchises the voters. Ience" when election returns are found to be spurious or falsified"

Election Jurisprudence

Page 71

'ection 5;< of the $mnibus #lection Code provides the procedure which enables the C$%#&#C to ascertain the will of the electorate. Daglo3 v. (o1ele3! $a1a0 B Dilangalen EG.R. No2. 14444#,4<. De3e1be" 10! #003F Ba""o2o v. A1pig! Ma"3/ #5! #001! 3#5 $(RA As correctly ruled by the C$%#&#C en banc and the 'econd .ivision" the word 72i16ltaneo62+ must not be given a strict and constricting meaning. 'ubmission of the written objection .it/in #4 /o6"2 from when the oral objection was made is substantial compliance with the law. E2pi0ol v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 49##! O3tobe" 11! #004 The requirement that the board of canvassers reduce to writing its rulings is mandatory. E2pi0ol v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 49##! O3tobe" 11! #004 The ab2en3e o; t/e2e 2ignat6"e2 an0 t/61b1a"I2 rendered the said election returns materially defective and" therefore" proper subject of a pre proclamation controversy particularly falling under paragraph 1b3 of 'ection 5A; of the $#C. E2pi0ol v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 49##! O3tobe" 11! #004 Assuming that the ground of lack of inner paper seals in election returns is a proper issue in a pre proclamation controversy" the C$%#&#C cannot investigate and receive evidence to determine why those inner paper seals are missing. A pre proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face and the C$%#&#C as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged election irregularities. Ban0ala vs. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1493 9. Ma"3/ 3! #004 ,hen the exclusion or inclusion of returns will not anymore affect the results of election" proclamation can be made. Ben.a"en v. (o1ele3 B ("i2ologo! G.R. No. 1 9393! Ap"il 15! #00 .

Election Jurisprudence

Page 72

,ell settled is the rule that issues relative to the appreciation of ballots cannot be raised in a pre proclamation controversy. Appreciation of ballots is the task of the board of election inspectors" not the board of canvassers" and questions related thereto are proper only in ele3tion p"ote2t2. $in26at v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 910 ! -6ne #3! #00 Anent the allegation that the C$%#&#C abused its discretion when it excluded @5 election returns without looking at other available evidence and without strictly following the procedure laid down in 'ection 5;< of the $mnibus #lection Code" suffice it to state that resort to the Commission)s handwriting experts is not indispensable" as the Commission can undertake the examination of each and every questioned return by itself" using only common sense and perception" especially in the instant case where the irregularities are clearly discernible from the face of the documentary exhibits of record. They must be excluded for they were found by Commission to be indeed obviously manufactured and fabricated returns 1 %ratuc vs. Commission on Elections' 9os. & A>@6< 6>" Debruary ?" :>@>" ?? 'C-A 5<:" 5?:3. Bataga $". %. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 1409 4, . -an6a"y 14! #00# Clearly" Talib did what was required of him by 'ec. 56 of -.A. 9o. @:== as far as the circumstances would allow. Ie made oral objections to the inclusion of the election returns. (t was then incumbent on the %/C to immediately make a categorical ruling on the said objections" even without the benefit of additional evidence considering that Talib)s basic evidence consists of the questioned election returns themselves" as they clearly depict on their face the stark absence of the printed names and signatures of the members of the /#( in violation of 'ec. 5:5 of the $mnibus #lection Code. Res i&sa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< These actions of the %/C rendered it impossible for Talib to comply with 'ec. 56 of -.A. 9o. @:== any further. (t should be noted that the forty eight 1A?3 hour period for filing a verified notice of appeal with the %/C is reckoned from suspension of the canvass. The appeal to the C$%#&#C is

Election Jurisprudence

Page 73

also reckoned five 1<3 days from suspension of the canvass. 2nderstandably" Talib had no other recourse but to go directly to the C$%#&#C. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< Parenthetically" the absence of the required signatures and thumbmarks rendered the election returns concerned materially defective. The crucial circumstance also served as a proper subject of a pre proclamation controversy" particularly falling under paragraph 1b3 of 'ection 5A; of the $mnibus #lection Code" which the C$%#&#C resolved in the assailed issuances. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< PRE,PRO(*AMATION (ONTRO%ER$=! I$$'E$ T)AT MA= BE RAI$ED 'ection 5A; of the Code enumerates the specific issues that may be raised in a pre proclamation controversy as followsM xxx The above enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. Thus" in 'anche! vs. C$%#&#C"7;B this Court held x x x Bela3 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14450#. Ap"il 4! #001 1;<= 'C-A ;>A3 (n %atalam vs. C$%#&#C"7AB this Court held that *in a pre proclamation controversy" the C$%#&#C" as a rule" is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities. (ndeed" in the case of &oong vs. C$%#&#C"7<B the Court" through %r. Gustice -egino Iermosisima" Gr." declared that *the prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction xxx is that as long as the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face" the /oard of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of the votes.+ xxx xxx xxx (n concluding that there were serious irregularities" tampering and falsification of the questioned election returnsJ and that they were manufactured" respondent C$%#&#C looked beyond the face of the documents" hence"

Election Jurisprudence

Page 74

exceeding its authority" contrary to the mandate of &oong" reiterated in %atalam and 'ebastian. Bela3 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14450#. Ap"il 4! #001 1;<= 'C-A ;>A3 PRE,PRO(*AMATION -'RI$DI(TION EN BAN(ADI%I$ION (ONTRO%ER$=!

The consistent ruling of the Court is that" the Commission en banc does not have jurisdiction in the first instance" whether original or appellate" over election cases" pre proclamation controversies" and incidents thereof. ,hen such disputes are filed before or elevated to the Commission" they should be heard and adjudicated first at the division level. This doctrine is anchored on 'ection ;" Article (N C of the Constitution which established the two tiered organi!ational and functional structure of the C$%#&#C. The provision requires that election cases" including pre proclamation controversies" should be heard and decided first at the division level. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 PRE,PRO(*AMATION (ONTRO%ER$=! PAGE N E*E(TION RET'RN$! OMI$$ION$ MI$$ING

The aforestated restrictive doctrine on the examination of election returns presupposes that said returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face. /ut when there is a &rima $acie showing that the return is not genuine" as where several entries were omitted in the questioned election return" the doctrine does not apply. The C$%#&#C is thus not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the controverted election return. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 (n *ee v. (OME*E( which similarly involves an election return with omitted entries" we heldM %ote2 ;o" an i1po"tant po2ition 263/ a2 3ong"e221an 0o not 2i1ply vani2/ into t/in ai". T/o2e ./o a"e 1an0ate0 by la. to a33o6nt ;o" 263/ vote2! i; 1i2taIenly o1itte0! a"e at lea2t eLpe3te0 to give a ;ai"ly "ea2onable a33o6nt o; ./y an0 /o.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 75

t/en t/ey /ave been o1itte0. Ab2ent 263/ eLplanation! 0o6bt a"i2e2 a2 to t/e a6t/enti3ity o; t/e "et6"n2 an0 t/e 1anne" o; t/ei" p"epa"ation" specially in this case where a party watcher was allowed to take part in the preparation of the election return. /ut precisely" the unexplained omission appears on the face of the election return. Ba2a"te v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 9413! May 9! #00< PRE,PRO(*AMATION (ONTRO%ER$=! E*E(TION RET'RN CO'*D MATERIA**= A&&E(T E*E(TION 'ection 5A; 1d3 of the $mnibus #lection Code requires that for a pre proclamation controversy to prosper" it must be shown that the election return sought to be annulled would materially affect the results of the election . Ba2a"te v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 9413! May 9! #00< ,hen the exclusion or inclusion of returns will not anymore affect the results of election" proclamation can be made. Ben.a"en v. (o1ele3 B ("i2ologo! G.R. No. 1 9393! Ap"il 15! #00 . PRE,PRO(*AMATION! EM(E$$ %OTE$ (n the instant case" #lection -eturn 9o. >=6:=== cannot be considered as regular or authentic on its face inasmuch as the total votes cast for the vice mayoralty position" which is 5??" exceeded the total number of the voters who actually voted 15;63 and the total number of registered voters 15?<3. The C$%#&#C therefore is clothed with ample authority to ascertain under the procedure outlined in the $mnibus #lection Code 1$#C3 the merits of the petition to exclude #lection -eturn 9o. >=6:===. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 PRE,PRO(*AMATION ! $E(. #34 2tili!ing the first procedure contained in the first sentence of 'ec. 5;<" the C$%#&#C used other copies of said suspect election returns" namely the election returns submitted by

Election Jurisprudence

Page 76

Talib. ,hen this was not enough" it even resorted to an examination of the C$%#&#C copies. And when it was evident that the election returns for the nine 1>3 precincts were manufactured or fabricated because the printed names and signatures of the members of the /#( were absent" it was only then that the C$%#&#C annulled the said election returns and petitioner)s proclamation. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< PRE,PRO(*AMATION RE$O*'TION (ONTRO%ER$=! $PEED=

Pre proclamation controversies are mandated by law to be summarily disposed of. Iere" the C$%#&#C failed to comply with this mandate. &et it be reminded that pre proclamation controversies" by their very nature" are to be resolved in summary proceedings which obviously should be disposed of without any unnecessary delay. Bela3 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14450#. Ap"il 4! #001 G34 $(RA 394H PRE,PRO(*AMATION! TE()NI(A* EMAMINATION Technical examination of voting paraphernalia involving analysis and comparison of voters) signatures and thumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be expeditiously resolved without involving evidence aliunde and examination of voluminous documents which take up much time and cause delay" defeating the public policy underlying the summary nature of pre proclamation controversies. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 PRE,PRO(*AMATION (ONTRO%ER$= %. E*E(TION PROTE$TA p"ote2t a0 3a6tela1 4erily" the order of the trial court in the election protest case does not conflict with nor diminish the legal effect of the C$%#&#C en banc -esolution of :? 'eptember 566=" invalidating eight 1?3 of the nine 1>3 questioned election returns. Particularly" the order is not inconsistent with the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 77

directive of the C$%#&#C to the #lection $fficer of (ndanan to convene the /#( in the concerned precincts for a recount" after notice to the parties and after ensuring that the integrity of the ballot boxes are not compromised. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< ,ith respect to petitioner %ontilla" indeed" he abandoned his petition for correction of manifest errors when he filed an election protest against respondent .atu Pax '. %angudadatu. 6uma as' 7r. v. Commission on Elections so teaches. (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< ,hile the filing of a protest ex abundante ad cautela is not considered an abandonment of the petition for correction of manifest errors" this Court quotes with approval the following observations of the C$%#&#C in brushing aside as mere afterthought the claim of %ontilla in a manifestation he subsequently filed that his election protest was filed ex abundante ad cautela and that he inadvertently omitted to indicate in its caption that it was one suchM (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< There is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre proclamation controversies and elections protests. Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the fact that pre proclamation controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case and the objective each seeks to achieve. %oreover" the Court" under certain circumstances" even encourages the reinforcement of a pre proclamation suit with an election protest. As we held in Matalam v. Commission on Elections. *oong v. (o1ele3 B -iIi"i! G.R. No. 1 591! Nov. #0! #00 PRE,PRO(*AMATION! I**EGA* (OMPO$ITION 2nder paragraph 1b3 of 'ection < of -ule 5@ of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure" if the petition involves the illegal

Election Jurisprudence

Page 78

composition of the board of canvassers" it must be filed immediately when the board begins to act as such" or at the time of the appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such is objected to if it comes after the canvassing of the board" or immediately at the point where the proceedings are or begin to be illegal. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 PRE,PRO(*AMATION! -'RI$DI(TION O& (OME*E( The C$%#&#C has exclusive jurisdiction over pre proclamation controversies. ReO (OME*E( Re2ol6tion No. #4#1! #34 $(RA 1G1994H $ee al2o *iba"0o2 v. (a2a"! #34 $(RA 13 G1994H RT( has no authority to order by mandamus the /oard of Canvassers to proclaim a candidate. ReO (OME*E( Re2ol6tion No. #4#1! #34 $(RA 1G1994H MT( has no jurisdiction to order the suspension of the canvassing of election returns. *iba"0o2 v. (a2a"! #34 $(RA 13 G1994H PRE,PRO(*AMATION! MANDATOR= PRO%I$ION$ ,e rule that 8o)s proclamation is invalid for non compliance with the mandatory requirements of 'ection 56 of -.A. 9o. @:==. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 PRE,PRO(*AMATION! PRO(*AMATIONH PETITION GA&TER

As a general rule" the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto. This rule" however" admits of exceptions" to witM 1:3 where the board of canvassers was improperly constitutedJ 153 where quo warranto was not the proper remedyJ 1;3 where what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul the proclamationJ 1A3 where the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the pre proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelamD and 1<3 where the proclamation was

Election Jurisprudence

Page 79

null and void. *o"enJo v. (o1ele3 B Magno! G.R. No. 1453<1. De3e1be" 11! #003 The filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed" thus depriving the C$%#&#C of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 As a rule" the filing of an election protest 1:3 precludes the subsequent filing of a pre proclamation controversy or 153 amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed" thus depriving the C$%#&#C of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. $in26at v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 910 ! -6ne #3! #00 The general rule is that a pre proclamation case before the C$%#&#C is" logically" no longer viable after a proclamation has been made. Iowever" this rule admits of exceptions" as when the proclamation is null and void. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< PRE,PRO(*AMATION ANN'*MENT O& E*E(TION (ONTRO%ER$= %.

(n Loong v. Commission on Elections we ruled that *a pre proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results" or failure of elections.+ A1pat6an et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 149503! -an6a"y 31! #00# PRE$(RIPTION The liberal construction of punitive laws in relation to the prescription of offenses cannot be invoked to prejudice the interest of the 'tate to prosecute election offenses" especially those which the C$%#&#C described as *ruffling the electoral system. Reynato Baytan! et al.! v. (o1ele3! GR No. 143944! &eb"6a"y 4! #003 >al0ivia v. Reye2! GR No. 10#34#! -6ly 3! 199# PRE$'MPTION O& REG'*ARIT=

Election Jurisprudence

Page 80

As stated by I-#T" the presumption of regularity in the public official)s performance of his duty holds true only when it is not found to be inconsistent with the facts. Abb6baIa" v. )RET et al. G.R. No. 1<3 09! Ma"3/ <! #00< PROBAB*E (A'$E Probable cause is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief" and so it is enough that there exists such state of facts or entertain an honest or strong suspicion" that a thing is so. Pi1entel -". v2. (o1ele3 3#4 $(RA 19 $ee *a32on v2. Po2a0a2! <# $(RA 1 5! GA01in. Matte" No. <4! -6ly 30! 19< H A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial and is only the means to discover who may be charged with a crime" its function being merely to determine probable cause. Reynato Baytan et al. vs. #o11i22ion on Ele3tion2 G. R. No. 143944. &eb"6a"y 4! #003F PRO(ED'RA* R'*E$ Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice" namely" to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness" caprice" despotism or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive rights of the litigants. The policy of the courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive laws" as complementing each other" in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties. Balin0ong et al. v. (o6"t o; Appeal2! GR No. 1499 #! De3e1be" 1 ! #004. /ecause of the special and expeditious nature of election cases" the early resolution of the same should not be hampered by any unnecessary observance of procedural rules. Ge1entiJa v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"3/ ! #001! 343 $(RA <#4 PRO(*AMATION! -'RI$DI(TION )RETA$ET

Election Jurisprudence

Page 81

,ith respect to petitioner Cerbo who ran for the position of congressman" the C$%#&#C indeed had no jurisdiction over his petition" his opponent respondent 'uharto T. %angudadatu having been proclaimed as such. (t is well settled that once a candidate is proclaimed as representative" the opponent)s recourse is to file an election protest with the Iouse of -epresentatives #lectoral Tribunal which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election" returns and qualifications of members of the Iouse of -epresentatives" and this holds true even if there is an allegation of nullity of proclamation. (e"bo et al. v. (o1ele3 B Mang60a0at6! G.R. No. 1 5411! &eb"6a"y 14! #00< PRO(*AMATION RE(ON$IDERATION PENDING MOTION &OR

Even assuming that petitioner had availed of the proper remedy" still the proclamation of 'anche! by the %/C did not have to await the resolution of his motion for reconsideration by the Comelec en banc since it was validly made upon the authority of the order issued by the Comelec)s 'econd .ivision" ordering the %/C to reconvene and include the ;@ election returns in the canvass and thereafter" proclaim the winning candidate. (n this respect" our ruling in Casimiro vs. Comelec is squarely in point. ,e held in this case that the proclamation of the winning candidate by the board of canvassers was authori!ed by the ruling of the Comelec)s 'econd .ivision ordering the board to *reconvene" complete the canvass if not yet completed" and proclaim the winning candidatesR+ even though such proclamation was made before the filing of the motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc. (/6 v. (o1ele3! MBO( o; '2on! Ma2bate an0 $alva0o"a O. $an3/eJ EG.R. No. 1344#3. Nove1be" #9! 1999F PRO(*AMATION! (AN%A$$ER$ (O'RT %. BOARD O&

(t is the court)s decision that should prevail between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won the elections and the finding of the /oard of

Election Jurisprudence

Page 82

Canvassers as to whom to proclaim. Do:illo v. (o1ele3 B %i0al! G.R. No. 1 44#! #00 -6l #4! En Ban3H PRO(*AMATION! RETENTION O& -'RI$DI(TION The exception to the rule of retention of jurisdiction after proclamation applies when the challenged candidate becomes a member of the Iouse of -epresentatives or of the 'enate" where the appropriate electoral tribunal would have jurisdiction. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nove1be" 1 ! #00 PRO(*AMATION! $'$PEN$ION O& The C$%#&#C has the discretion to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate during the pendency of a disqualification case when evidence of his guilt is strong. Iowever" an order suspending the proclamation of a winning candidate against whom a disqualification case is filed is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted when warranted by the evidence. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nov. 1 ! #00

PRO(*AMATION! %OID (t is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled on the petition for exclusion" it is duty bound to suspend the proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the board within A? hours from the suspension of the proceedings" and of an appeal with the C$%#&#C" within five days from the same suspension. Dailure to comply with these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio. (a1be v. (o1ele3 et al.! G.R. No. 1<544 ! -an6a"y 30! #005 The proclamation of petitioner in this case is void for three 1;3 reasonsM 1:3 it was based on a canvass that should have been suspended with respect to the contested election returnsJ 153 it was done without prior C$%#&#C authori!ation which is required in view of the unresolved objections of Talib to the inclusion of certain returns in the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 83

canvassJ and 1;3 it was predicated on a canvass that included unsigned election returns involving such number of votes as will affect the outcome of the election. -ainal v. (o1ele3! Talib B A/a:an! G.R. NO. 1<4441! Ma"3/ <! #00< PROM'*GATION (n &indo v. Commission on #lections" this Court held that the < day period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date of receipt of copy of the decision. As correctly ruled by the C$%#&#CM G$A**= A. *EE v2. (OMMI$$ION ON E*E(TION$ an0 *EO%I( R. DIONEDA! ! G. R. No. 14<004! #003 -6l 4! En Ban3H PROPORTIONA* REPRE$ENTATION *Proportional representation+ here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district" because the party list election is national in scope. 9either does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. -ather" it refers to the representation of the *marginali!ed and underrepresented+ as exemplified by the enumeration in 'ection < of the lawJ namely" *labor" peasant" fisherfolk" urban poor" indigenous cultural communities" elderly" handicapped" women" youth" veterans" overseas workers" and professionals.+ Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. (o1ele3 G.R. No. 14<459! -6ne # ! #001 +'OROM To begin with" even if the votes of Commissioners 'adain and Tuason are disregarded 1for whatever reason3" a quorum still remains" with three of the then five C$%#&#C Commissioners voting to deny petitioner)s motion for reconsideration. Pe0"agoJa v. (o1ele3 B $616long! G.R. No. 1 9554 -6ly #4! #00 Iowever" unless the withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against a party is concerned" we find no reason for declaring the decision a nullity. (n the present case" with the cancellation of the votes of retired Commissioners 8orospe and 8uiani" the "e1aining vote2 a1ong t/e ;o6" in361bent 3o11i22ione"2 at t/e ti1e o; t/e "e2ol6tion?2

Election Jurisprudence

Page 84

p"o16lgation .o6l0 2till be 3 to 1 in ;avo" o; "e2pon0ent. 9oteworthy" these remaining Commissioners still constituted a quorum. (n our view" the defect cited by petitioner does not affect the substance or validity of respondent Commission)s disposition of the controversy. The nullification of the challenged resolution" in our view" would merely prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. D61aya2 v. (o1ele3 G.R. No2. 14194#,43! #001 Ap" #0 E2t"ella v. (o1ele3! Ap"il #5! #004 $e1a v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1341 3, 4! De3. 13! #000 RE(A** The specific purpose of the Preparatory -ecall Assembly was to remove Amelita '. 9avarro as the elected 4ice %ayor of 'antiago City since P-A -esolution 9o. : dated Guly :5" :>>> expressly states that CRit is hereby resolved to invoke the rescission of the electoral mandate of the incumbent City 4ice %ayor Amelita '. 9avarro for loss of confidence through a recall election to be set by the Commission on #lection as provided for under 'ection @: of the &ocal 8overnment Code of :>>:.C Iowever" the said P-A -esolution 9o. : is no longer applicable to her inasmuch as she has already vacated the office of 4ice %ayor on $ctober ::" :>>> when she assumed the position of City %ayor of 'antiago City. A;ia0o et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 141<5<. $epte1be" 15! #000 REGI$TRATION o; PART= *I$T AIbayan et al. v. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 14<0 # ! #001 REMED= (f there is a right" there must be a remedy. Ro3e2 v. )RET! G.R. NO. 1 <499! $ept. 14! #004 REMO%A* &ROM O&&I(E -emoval from office entails the ouster of an incumbent before the expiration of his term. (n 8.- 9o. :555<?" Ma"3/

Election Jurisprudence

Page 85

petitioner was 0i296ali;ie0 ;"o1 3ontin6ing a2 a 3an0i0ate for the mayoralty position in the %ay ?" :>>< elections. The suspension of his proclamation was made permanent" so petitioner never held office from which he could be removed. Blan3o v. (o1ele3 B Ala"illa! G.R. No. 1501 4! -6ne 1<! #005 REPATRIATION! RE+'I$ITE The law is clear that repatriation is effected *by taking the oath of allegiance to the -epublic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the /ureau of (mmigration.+ Ience" in addition to taking the $ath of Allegiance to the -epublic of the Philippines" the registration of the Certificate of -epatriation in the proper civil registry and the /ureau of (mmigration is a prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citi!en. Alta"e:o2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 3#4 . Nove1be" 10! #004 REP'B*I( A(T 543 The A#' provided in -ep. Act 9o. ?A;= constitutes the entire *process of voting" counting of votes and canvassingFconsolidation of results of the national and local elections+ corresponding to the Phase (" Phase (( and Phase ((( of the A#' of the C$%#&#C. T/e t/"ee p/a2e2 3annot be e;;e3te0 in0epen0ently o; ea3/ ot/e". The implementation of Phase (( of the A#' is a condition sine qua non to the implementation of Phase (((. The nullification by this Court of the contract for Phase (( of the 'ystem effectively put on hold" at least for the %ay :6" 566A elections" the implementation of Phase ((( of the A#'. B"illante2! -". v. -o2e (on3ep3ion! -".! -o2e 0e %ene3ia! E0ga"0o -. Anga"a! D". -ai1e >. GalveJ Tan! &"anIlin M. D"ilon! &"i23o $an -6an! No"be"to M. GonJale2! )one2to M. I2leta! an0 -o2e a. Be"na2! v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! EG.R. No. 1 3193. -6ne 14! #004F RE$IDEN(E $=NON=MO'$ CIT) DOMI(I*E The concept of residence in determining a candidate)s qualification is already a settled matter. Dor election purposes" residence is used synonymously with domicile.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 86

D61pit N Mi3/elena v2. Boa0o et al.! G.R. No2. 1 3 19,#0! Nove1be" 1<! #004 RE$O*'TION! &INA*IT= 'ection ;" Article (N C" in authori!ing motions for reconsideration to be heard by the C$%#&#C en banc" necessitates the conclusion that a decision by a C$%#&#C division" such as that of the Dirst .ivision in this case" is not yet final and executory unless no motion for reconsideration thereto has been filed before the C$%#&#C en banc. Ti6 v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 5<94! A6g62t #! #004 RE$O*'TION! DI%IDED PROM'*GATION! I& E+'A**=

The Court agrees with private respondent. A decision becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated. Consequently" if at the time of the promulgation of a decision or resolution" a member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated his office" his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled. The -esolution" in this case" remains valid because it is still supported by a majority of the C$%#&#C en banc. Ben.a"en v. (o1ele3 B ("i2ologo! G.R. No. 1 9393! Ap"il 15! #00 . ,e hold that the failure of Commissioners 'adain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition from the ;6 'eptember 566< -esolution does not affect the validity of that ruling. Pe0"agoJa v. (o1ele3 B $616long! G.R. No. 1 9554 -6ly #4! #00 Acting on the issue" the C$%#&#C correctly applied our ruling in Lindo v. COMELEC that the failure to give advance notice of the promulgation does not render the decision invalid. At most if at all" it is a procedural lapse that does not vitiate the validity of the decision of the trial court nor of the promulgation. Ta0ena v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 #55#. Ap"il #<! #004 (n Gamil vs. C$%#&#C"7?B this Court ruledM

Election Jurisprudence

Page 87

*x x x A decision becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated. Consequently" if at the time of the promulgation of a decision or resolution" a judge or a member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote" has vacated his office" his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled. Bela3 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14450#. Ap"il 4! #001 1;<= 'C-A ;>A3 2pon their retirement" Commissioners 8orospe and 8uiani had been stripped of all authority to participate in the promulgation of the Debruary 55" 5666 -esolution. Pursuant to 'ection = of the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure" earlier quoted" the -esolution dated Gune A" :>>? of the &i"2t Divi2ion i2 t/e"e;o"e 0ee1e0 a;;i"1e0 as the votes of Commissioners 8orospe and 8uiani are considered cancelled. Bela3 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14450#. Ap"il 4! #001 1;<= 'C-A ;>A3 RE$O*'TION NO. 4#0! 0ate0 -an6a"y ! #004

'ection ;5 thereof on billboards and campaign propaganda is valid and constitutional. (/aveJ v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 #<<<! A6g62t 31! #004

RE%IEC O& (OME*E( RE$O*'TION$ B= )RET Petitioner contends that the I-#T cannot review decisions of the C$%#&#C and that C$%#&#C decisions" orders" or rulings may be solely reviewed by the 'upreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. (t is true that generally" the method of assailing a judgment or order of the C$%#&#C is via petition for certiorari. As aforestated" however" it was petitioner who submitted these resolutions to the I-#T as proofs that %rs. Ang Ping was not a proper party. T/e2e 2a1e "e2ol6tion2 .e"e 3ollate"ally atta3Ie0 by M"2. Ang Ping be;o"e t/e )RET ./en 2/e allege0 t/at

Election Jurisprudence

Page 88

t/e2e violate0 /e" "ig/t to 06e p"o3e22. A voi0 :60g1ent o" "e2ol6tion may be impeached through 3ollate"al atta3I. A 0i"e3t atta3I on a judgment or resolution is defined as an attempt to avoid or correct it in some manner provided by law" in a proceeding instituted for that very purpose" in the same action and in the same tribunal. Conversely" a 3ollate"al atta3I is an attempt to impeach the judgment or resolution by matters dehors the record" before a tribunal other than the one in which it was rendered" in an action other than that in which it was renderedJ an atte1pt to avoi0! 0e;eat! o" eva0e it! o" 0eny it2 ;o"3e an0 e;;e3t! in 2o1e in3i0ental p"o3ee0ing not p"ovi0e0 by la. ;o" t/e eLp"e22 p6"po2e o; atta3Iing it@ any p"o3ee0ing ./i3/ i2 not in2tit6te0 ;o" t/e eLp"e22 p6"po2e o; ann6lling! 3o""e3ting! o" 1o0i;ying 263/ 0e3"ee J an objection" incidentally raised in the course of the proceeding" which presents an issue collateral to the issues made by the pleadings. The rule that a void judgment or decree is subject to collateral attack at any time is based upon a court0s inherent authority to expunge void acts from its records. Ro3e2 v. )RET! G.R. NO. 1 <499! $ept. 14! #004 R'*E$ O& (I%I* PRO(ED'RE %$. (OME*E( R'*E$ (t should be underscored that the nature of an election protests differs from an ordinary civil action. /ecause of this difference" the -ules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even *by analogy or in a suppletory character+ especially because the application of said -ules would not be * &racticable and convenient.B GEMENTI>A %. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"3/ ! #001! 343 $(RA <#4 (n view of the Flores case" jurisprudence has consistently recogni!ed that the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure are controlling in election protests heard by a regional trial court. The Court en banc has held in Rodillas vs. COMELEC that *the procedure for perfecting an appeal from the decision of the %unicipal Trial Court in a barangay election protest case is set forth in the C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure.+ Antonio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1345 9! $epte1be" ##! 1999

Election Jurisprudence

Page 89

The rules in ordinary civil procedure do not apply in election cases except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. %illa1o" v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 95 4! -6ly #1! #00 R'*E$ B REG'*ATION$ -ules on reglementary periods" perhaps" like any rule issued by judicial and quasi judicial bodies" are prescribed to ensure stability in the administration of justice" as well as to promote substantive justice. (ndeed" they should be disregarded when they pose obstruction to the attainment of such lofty ends" which" in election related cases" as here" is the determination of the popular will. *oong v. (o1ele3 B -iIi"i! G.R. No. 1 591! Nov. #0! #00 R6les and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory before the election but after the elections" they become merely directory. GonJale2 v. )RET! G.R. No. 145001. -6ne 10! #003 The C$%#&#C -ules of Procedure itself provides the rules are to be construed liberally *in order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free" orderly" honest" peaceful and credible elections and to achieve just" expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding+ Ti6 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 5<94. A6g62t #! #004 %oreover" the Comelec -ules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free" orderly" honest" peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just" expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec. BARRO$O %. AMPIG! G.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000 (t is beyond cavil that legislative enactments prevail over rules of procedure promulgated by administrative or quasi judicial bodies and that rules of procedure should be consistent with standing legislative enactments. Antonio v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1345 9! $epte1be" ##! 1999

Election Jurisprudence

Page 90

R'*E$ O& PRO(ED'RE! (OME*E( 'ections ; and A" -ule :? of C$%#&#C -ules of ProcedureM 2nconstitutional. Tan B B6"a/an v. (o1ele3 et al.! G. R. No2. 1 143,4<! Nov. #0! #00

$E(OND P*A(ER (ANNOT BE DE(*ARED CINNER! EM(EPTION (t is well settled that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. The votes intended for the disqualified candidate should not be considered null and void" as it would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. AlbaKa v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 330#! -6ly #3! #004 (t is now settled doctrine that the C$%#&#C cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is ineligible or disqualified. This rule admits an exception. /ut this exception is predicated on the concurrence of two requisites" namelyM 1:3 the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualifiedJ and 153 the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate)s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. $in26at v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 910 ! -6ne #3! #00 (t is now settled doctrine that the C$%#&#C cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is ineligible or disqualified. The eL3eption to this well settled rule was mentioned in 'a.o2 Jr. v. #o((ission on Elections and reiterated in 1rego v. #%&E'E#. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003 The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. (n every election" the people)s choice is the paramount consideration and their expressed

Election Jurisprudence

Page 91

will must at all times be given effect. ,hen the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate by giving him the highest number of votes cast in the election for the office" no one can be declared elected in his place. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# (n the recent case of T"ini0a0 v. (OME*E( this Court ruled that the effect of a judgment disqualifying a candidate" after winning the election" based on personal circumstances or section =? of the $mnibus #lection Code is the sameM the second placer could not take the place of the disqualified winner. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# $ENATE E*E(TORA* TRIB'NA* The alleged invalidity of /ia!on)s proclamation involves a dispute or contest relating to the election returns of members of the 'enate. (ndisputably" the resolution of such dispute falls within the sole jurisdiction of the '#T. Ba"be"2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 4 91. -6ne 14! #004 $EPARATE TA**= $)EET (t seems obvious to us that the votes separately tallied are not really stray votes. Then C$%#&#C Chairman /ernardo P. Pardo himself" now a respected member of the Court" in his %ay :A" :>>? %emorandum" allowed the segregation of the votes for C/autistaC" C#frenC" and C#fren /autistaC" and C#. /autistaC into a separate improvised tally" for the purpose of later counting the votes. (n fine" the C$%#&#C itself validated the separate tallies since they were meant to be used in the canvassing later on to the actual number of votes cast. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 133540. Nove1be" 13! 1995 $O%EREIGN CI** O& T)E PEOP*E 72Bpholding the sovereignty of the people is what democracy is all about. ,hen the sovereignty of the people expressed thru the ballot is at stake" it is not enough for this Court to make a statement but it should do everything to have that sovereignty obeyed by all. ,ell done is always

Election Jurisprudence

Page 92

better than well said. Corollarily" laws and statutes governing election contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. De G6J1an v. (o1ele3 B P6li0o! G.R. No. 149<13. Ma"3/ 31! #004 $TAT'$ +'O ANTE ORDER (n line with ,epol v. #o((ission on Elections " the 'tatus Kuo Ante $rder automatically ceased to have effect on :> %ay 566; since the C$%#&#C En Banc did not issue a writ of preliminary injunction. Do:illo v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 44#! -6ly #4! #00 A cursory reading of the $rder dated :5 Ganuary 566A or the so called status quo ante $rder reveals that it was actually a temporary restraining order. (t ordered -epol to cease and desist from assuming the position of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan" 'amar and directed Ceracas to assume the post in the meantime. The status quo ante $rder had a life span of more than 56 days since the directive was qualified by the phrase *until further orders from this Commission.+ This violates the rule that a temporary retraining order has an effective period of only 56 days and automatically expires upon the C$%#&#C)s denial of the preliminary injunction. Thus" the status quo ante $rder automatically ceased to have any effect after : Debruary 566A since the C$%#&#C Dirst .ivision did not issue a writ of preliminary injunction. Repol v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 1 1415. Ap"il #5! #004 $TAT'TOR= (ON$TR'(TION #lection protests are guided by an extraordinary rule of interpretation that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Ti6 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 5<94. A6g62t #! #004 The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the

Election Jurisprudence

Page 93

correct ascertainment of the results. $6lig6in v. (o1ele3! MBO( o; Nag3a"lan! *ag6na! G.R. No. 1 04 ! Ma"3/ #3! #00 Dinally" Hamoras cannot invoke the argument that courts must liberally construe technical rules of procedure to promote the ends of justice. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and a litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. (t is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if there was no appeal filed at all. >a1o"a2 v. (o1ele3! et al.! G.R. No. 145 10@ Nove1be" 1#! #004 %oreover" the Comelec -ules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free" orderly" honest" peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just" expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec. Ba""o2o v. A1pig! et al. EG.R. No. 135#15. Ma"3/ 1<! #000F $'B$TIT'TION! (O( 9ot to be overlooked is the Court)s holding in Miranda vs. %ba a' that a candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the same political party as that of the former. Ong v. Aleg"e B (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 3#94! -an6a"y #3! #00 $'B$TIT'TION! DI$+'A*I&I(ATION (A$E The law and the C$%#&#C rules have clear pronouncements that the electoral aspect of a disqualification case is not rendered inutile by the death of petitioner" provided that there is a proper substitution or intervention of parties while there is a pending case. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nov. 1 ! #00

Election Jurisprudence

Page 94

$'B$TIT'TION! Ele3tion P"ote2t Public office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. Poe v. Ma3apagal A""oyo. P.E.T. (A$E No. 00#. Ma"3/ #9! #004 ,hile the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer" an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings.7:;B Ience" we have allowed substitution and intervention but only by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment" and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Poe v. Ma3apagal A""oyo. P.E.T. (A$E No. 00#. Ma"3/ #9! #004 $'&&RAGE! RIG)T TO (n a representative democracy such as ours" the right of suffrage" although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy of rights embodied in the fundamental law" ought to be exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws skillfully enacted by the &egislature" which statutes for all intents and purposes" are crafted to effectively insulate such so cherished right from ravishment and preserve the democratic institutions our people have" for so long" guarded against the spoils of opportunism" debauchery and abuse. AIbayan et al. v. (OME*E(! G.R. No. 14<0 Ma"3/ # ! #001

$'MMAR= PRO(EEDING A summary proceeding does not mean that the C$%#&#C could do away with the requirements of notice and hearing. Ba6ti2ta v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144<9 ,9<. O3tobe" #3! #003

Election Jurisprudence

Page 95

$'R%I%A* O& A(TION! PRO(*AMATION O& CINNER The case for disqualification exists" and survives" the election and proclamation of the winning candidate because an outright dismissal will unduly reward the challenged candidate and may even encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the disqualification case until after he has been proclaimed. The exception to the rule of retention of jurisdiction after proclamation applies when the challenged candidate becomes a member of the Iouse of -epresentatives or of the 'enate" where the appropriate electoral tribunal would have jurisdiction. There is no law or jurisprudence which says that intervention or substitution may only be done prior to the proclamation of the winning candidate. A substitution is not barred by prescription because the action was filed on time by the person who died and who is being substituted. The same rationale applies to a petition in intervention. *anot v. (o1ele3 B E62ebio! G.R. No. 1 4545! Nov. 1 ! #00

$'$PEN$ION O& PRO(*AMATION ,hile we agree with the petitioner that the C$%#&#C can suspend the proclamation pending the resolution of the petition to declare a failure of election" the same order" however" is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted when the evidence so warrants. (n 9olasco v. C$%#&#C" 5@< 'C-A @=5 7:>>@B" it is said to be akin to a temporary restraining order which a court can issue ex-&arte under exigent circumstances. Tan! et al.! vs. (o1ele3! -iIi"i! et al.! G.R. No2. 1454<4,< . De3e1be" 10! #003

$'$PEN$ION O& R'*E$ -a"a1illa v. (o1ele3! #3 O3tobe" #003 (o1eta v. (A! 341 $(RA #94 The C$%#&#C thus has the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice such that even if the petition was filed :5 days after the proclamation" the C$%#&#C may" in the interest of justice" disregard the reglementary periods provided by the rules and resolve the matter filed before it. Ba"ot v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14914<. 15 -6ne #003

Election Jurisprudence

Page 96

Thus" the C$%#&#C did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained respondent)s petition by suspending its own -ules of Procedure. De la *lana v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 14#050. Nove1be" #5! #003 (ndeed" the Comelec has the discretion to liberally construe its rules and" at the same time" suspend the rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice. $6lig6in v. (o1ele3! MBO( o; Nag3a"lan! *ag6na! G.R. No. 1 04 ! Ma"3/ #3! #00 TE()NI(A* EMAMINATION O& %RR! ANN'*MENT O& E*E(TION Thus" the public respondent" in the case of actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections" may conduct a technical examination of election documents and compare and analy!e voters) signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free" honest and clean.+ Iowever" the exercise of this authority presupposes that the petition has properly been acted upon on account of the existence of any of the grounds provided under 'ection = of the $mnibus #lection Code. ,here" as in this case" elections had been held and winners had been duly proclaimed" the proper recourse of the respondents should have been to file regular election protest cases to ventilate the veracity of the alleged election fraud and irregularities of the election in the subject precincts with the consequent determination and declaration of the real winners in the elections. TAN! ABD'*CA)ID $A)ID'**A! BRA)AM B'RA)AN! vs. (OMMI$$ION ON E*E(TION$! ='$OP ). -IDIRI! ABDE* $. ANNI! DEN RA$)ER I. $A*IM! TA*IB *. )A='DINI! RI>A* TINGDA)AN! BAR*IE NA)'DAN! ABRA)AM DA'D! *'DMAN OMAR! ONNI) A)MAD an0 BA$ARON M. B'RA)AN! G.R. No2. 1454<4,< . De3e1be" 10! #003 (n Loong v. Commission on Elections we ruled that *a pre proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results" or failure of elections.+ A1pat6an et al. v. (o1ele3! G.R. No. 149503! -an6a"y 31! #00#

Election Jurisprudence

Page 97

TE()NI(A* R'*E$ %. CI** O& E*E(TORATE (n a catena of cases" we have held that one cannot put premium on technicalities over and above the noble and paramount duty of determining the will of the electorate. Ale:an0"o v. (o1ele3 B (o! G.R. No. 1 <101! -an6a"y 31! #00

TERM O& O&&I(E GT)REE TERM *IMITATIONH An elective local official" therefore" is not barred from running again in for same local government post" unless two conditions concurM :.3 that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms to the same local government post" and 5.3 that he has fully served three consecutive terms. *ata2a! vs. (o1ele3 B $6nga! EG.R. No. 1445#9! De3e1be" 10! #003F Petitioner &atasa is NOT AN=MORE eligible to run as candidate for the position of mayor of the newly created City of .igos immediately after he served for three consecutive terms as mayor of the %unicipality of .igos. *ata2a! vs. (o1ele3 B $6nga! EG.R. No. 1445#9! De3e1be" 10! #003F The first part provides that an elective local official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive ter(s count in determining the three term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntar- severance from office +or an- lengt3 o+ ti(e interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms. $o3"ate2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144053,54. Nove1be" 1#! #00# After three consecutive terms" an elective local official cannot seek i((ediate reelection for a fourth term. The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any su.se4uent election" like a recall election" is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons. $o3"ate2 v. (o1ele3! G.R. No2. 144053,54. Nove1be" 1#! #00#

Election Jurisprudence

Page 98

To recapitulate" the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the rig"t to be elected as well as t"e rig"t to serve in t"e same elective &osition . Consequently" it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office" he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. Bo":a! -". v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! #94 $(RA 14<! 1 3 G1995H This Court held that the two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concurM a3 that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and 53 that he has fully served three consecutive terms. *onJani0a v. (OME*E( 311 $(RA 0#! 11 G1999H. Patently untenable is petitioner)s contention that C$%#&#C in allowing respondent Talaga" Gr. to run in the %ay :>>? election violates Article N" 'ection ? of :>?@ Constitution. To bolster his case" respondent adverts to the comment of Dr. Goaquin /ernas" a Constitutional Commission member" stating that in interpreting said provision that *if one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term of another" that unexpired" no matter how short" will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed.+ As pointed out by the C$%#&#C en banc" Dr. /ernas) comment is pertinent only to members of the Iouse of -epresentatives. 2nlike local government officials" there is no recall election provided for members of Congress. A0o"1eo v. (OME*E( 3< $(RA 90 G#00#H. ,e hold that such assumption of office constitutes" for Drancis" *service $or t"e $ull termB" and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the three term limit prescribed by the constitutional and statutory provisions" su&ra" barring local elective officials from being elected and serving for more than three consecutive term for the same position.

Election Jurisprudence

Page 99

(t is true that the -TC .aet" Camarines 9orte ruled in #lection Protest Case 9o. =?<6"7:@B that it was Drancis) opponent 1Alegre3 who *won+ in the :>>? mayoralty race and" therefore" was the legally elected mayor of 'an 4icente. Iowever" that disposition" it must be stressed" was without practical and legal use and value" having been promulgated after the term of the contested office has expired. Petitioner Drancis) contention that he was only a presumptive winner in the :>>? mayoralty derby as his proclamation was under protest did not make him less than a duly elected mayor. Iis proclamation by the %unicipal /oard of Canvassers of 'an 4icente as the duly elected mayor in the :>>? mayoralty election coupled by his assumption of office and his continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start to finish of the term" should legally be taken as service for a full term in contemplation of the three term rule. Ong v. Aleg"e B (o1ele3! G.R. No. 1 3#94! -an6a"y #3! #00 %ERI&I(ATION! *A(D O& ,e can find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the C$%#&#C in countenancing the lack of verification of the motion for reconsideration in view of what the poll body deemed as the higher interest of justice. Ti6 v. (o1ele3! G. R. No. 1 5<94! A6g62t #! #004 %O*'NTAR= REN'N(IATION RThe second sentence of the constitutional provision under scrutiny states" *4oluntary renunciation of office $or an lengt" o$ time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which he was elected.+ The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect the people)s choice and grant their elected official full service of a term is evident in this provision. 4oluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limitJ conversely" involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. The petitioner vacated his post a few months before the next mayoral elections" not

Election Jurisprudence

Page 100

by voluntary renunciation but in compliance with the legal process of writ of execution issued by the C$%#&#C to that effect. 'uch involuntary severance from office is an interruption of continuity of service and thus" the petitioner did not fully serve the :>>< :>>? mayoral term. *onJani0a v. (OME*E( 311 $(RA 0#! 11 G1999H. %OTE$! DI$(REPAN(= B= MORE BETCEEN P)=$I(A* (O'NT B ER T)AN 40P

I-#T correctly considered the examination of ballots as the best evidence. (n this case" the ballots were available and their integrity was unquestioned. (n an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate" the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.5 (t is only when the ballots cannot be produced or are not available that recourse is made to the election returns as evidence. Abb6baIa" v. )RET et al. G.R. No. 1<3 09! Ma"3/ <! #00< %$AT 'N(ON$TIT'TIONA* As it stands" the C$%#&#C *unofficial+ quick count would be but a needless duplication of the 9A%D-#& *quick+ count" an illegal and unnecessary waste of government funds and effort. B"illante2! -". v. -o2e (on3ep3ion! -".! -o2e 0e %ene3ia! E0ga"0o -. Anga"a! D". -ai1e >. GalveJ Tan! &"anIlin M. D"ilon! &"i23o $an -6an! No"be"to M. GonJale2! )one2to M. I2leta! an0 -o2e a. Be"na2! v. (o11i22ion on Ele3tion2! EG.R. No. 1 3193. -6ne 14! #004F %OID -'DGMENT A void judgment is defined as one that" ;"o1 it2 in3eption! i2 a 3o1plete n6llity an0 .it/o6t legal e;;e3t . A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to" and is attended by none of the consequences of" a valid adjudication. (ndeed" a voi0 :60g1ent nee0 not be "e3ogniJe0 by anyone! b6t 1ay be enti"ely
2

Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 808,

Election Jurisprudence

Page 101

0i2"ega"0e0 o" 0e3la"e0 inope"ative by any t"ib6nal in ./i3/ e;;e3t i2 2o6g/t to be given to it. (t has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. (t cannot affect" impair" or create rights" nor can any rights be based on it. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid and ineffective for any purpose. 9eedless to stress" the I-#T did not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest as the C$%#&#C -esolution dated April ;6" 566A" $rder of %ay <" 566A" and -esolution 9o. =?5; were voi0 a. initio. Ro3e2 v. )RET! G.R. NO. 1 <499! $ept. 14! #004 CI** O& T)E PEOP*E Clearly" the people have expressed their will honestly and we cannot declare now the election of respondent was illegal and that he should quit the office for which he was elected" simply by reason of an alleged defect in his certificate of candidacy. To rule otherwise will result in the disenfranchisement of the electorate which is precisely what our election laws are trying to prevent. GonJale2 v. )RET! G.R. No. 145001. -6ne 10! #003 The enforcement of the sovereign will of the people is not subject to the discretion of any official of the land. (o0illa v. De %ene3ia! *o32in G.R. No. 140 04. De3e1be" 10! #00# Thus" where a candidate has received popular mandate" overwhelmingly and clearly expressed" all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate)s eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of the people. Above and beyond all" the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount. (t is their voice" not ours or of anyone else" that must prevail. This" in essence" is the democracy we continue to hold sacred. $ina3a v2. M6la an0 (o1ele3! GR No. 134 91! $ept. #<! 1999! 314 $(RA # ! #5#