ELECTION LAW

I. Significant Laws
BP 881 Omnibus Election Code
RA 6646 Electoral Reform Law of 1987
RA 7166
RA9006 Fair Election Act
RA 9189 Absentee Voters Act of 2003

II. Election Process divided into 3 stages:

(1) Pre-election
(2) During election
(3) Post Election

III. PRE-ELECTION STAGE

1. Registration of Voters - VOTERS QUALIFICATIONS

Art. V, Sec. 1 Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of
age and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
preceding the election. No literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

(1) citizens of the Philippines

(2) not otherwise disqualified by law
(3) at least 18 years of age
(4) resident of the Philippines for at least one year and of the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately p; receding the
elections
Registration Filing of COC Campaign Period
Art. V, Sec 1 Sec. 79. Definitions. - As used in this Code:
(a) The term "candidate" refers to any person Substitution of Candidates
Political Parties aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death,
Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, Par. 5 who has filed a certificate of candidacy by disqualification or withdrawal of another. - If
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political himself or through an accredited political party, after the last day for the filing of certificates of
parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in aggroupment, or coalition of parties; candidacy, an official candidate of a registered
addition to other requirements, must present or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
their platform or program of government; and Sec. 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person disqualified for any cause, only a person
accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on shall be eligible for any elective public office belonging to, and certified by, the same political
Elections. Religious denominations and sects unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy party may file a certificate of candidacy to
shall not be registered. Those which seek to within the period fixed herein. replace the candidate who died, withdrew or
achieve their goals through violence or unlawful A person who has filed a certificate of was disqualified. The substitute candidate
means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw nominated by the political party concerned may

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

Constitution, or which are supported by any
foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration.
Financial contributions from foreign
governments and their agencies to political
parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates
related to elections, constitute interference in
national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be
an additional ground for the cancellation of their
registration with the Commission, in addition to
other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
Sec. 81. Intervention of foreigners. - It shall
be unlawful for any foreigner, whether judicial or
natural person, to aid any candidate or political
party, directly or indirectly, or take part in or
influence in any manner any election, or to
contribute or make any expenditure in
connection with any election campaign or Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive
partisan political activity.
Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer
the same by submitting to the office concerned file his certificate of candidacy for the office
a written declaration under oath. affected in accordance with the preceding
No person shall be eligible for more than one sections not later than mid-day of the day of the
office to be filled in the same election, and if he election. If the death, withdrawal or
files his certificate of candidacy for more than disqualification should occur between the day
one office, he shall not be eligible for any of before the election and mid-day of election day,
them. However, before the expiration of the said certificate may be filed with any board of
period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, election inspectors in the political subdivision
the person who was filed more than one where he is a candidate, or, in the case of
certificate of candidacy may declare under oath candidates to be voted for by the entire
the office for which he desires to be eligible and electorate of the country, with the Commission.
cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other
office or offices. Miranda v Abaya
The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999
candidacy shall not affect whatever civil,
criminal or administrative liabilities which a Facts:
candidate may have incurred. Jose Pempe Miranda then incumbent
mayor of Santiago City, Isabela, filed his
certificate of candidacy for the same mayoralty
office or positions. - Any person holding a post for the synchronized May 11, 1998
public appointive office or position, including elections. Three days after, a complaint to
active members of the Armed Forces of the cancel certificate of candidacy was filed
Philippines, and officers and employees in against him by Antonio Abaya which was
government-owned or controlled corporations, granted. Shortly after the deadline for filing for
shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his candidacy, Joel Miranda filed his certificate of
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy as a substitute for Pempe Miranda.
candidacy. Of course, Abaya filed a disqualification case
against Joel Miranda for void substitution. After
Sec. 26. Sectoral representatives. - There a motion for reconsideration, COMELEC
shall be three sectors to be represented in the granted Abayas complaint. Hence, this
Batasang Pambansa, namely: (1) youth; (2) petition.
agricultural labor; (3) industrial labor whose
representatives shall be elected in the manner Issue:
herein provided. Each sector shall be entitled to 1.Whether the annulment of petitioners
four representatives, two of whom shall come substitution and proclamation was
from Luzon, one from Visayas, and one from issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave
Mindanao: Provided, That the youth sector shall abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
be entitled to two additional sectoral jurisdiction; and
representatives who shall be elected from any 2.Whether the order of the Comelec directing
part of the country. the proclamation of the private respondent was
Marcial-2J
 issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Held:
A disqualified candidate may only be
substituted if he had a valid certificate of
candidacy in the first place because, if the
disqualified candidate did not have a valid and
seasonably filed certificate of candidacy, he is
and was not a candidate at all. If a person was
not a candidate, he cannot be substituted
under Section 77 of the Code. Besides, if we
were to allow the so-called substitute to file
a new and original certificate of
candidacy beyond the period for the filing
thereof, it would be a crystalline case of
unequal protection of the law, an act abhorred
by our Constitution.

Disqualification Cases
Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate
who, in an action or protest in which he is a
party is declared by final decision of a
competent court guilty of, or found by the
Commission of having (a) given money or other
material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing
electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in
his election campaign an amount in excess of
that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received
or made any contribution prohibited under
Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated
any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261,
paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6,
shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from
holding the office. Any person who is a
permanent resident of or an immigrant to a
foreign country shall not be qualified to run for

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

 any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.

Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. - The

Commission may motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party, refuse to
give due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has
been filed to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of the names
of the registered candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
fide 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.

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or

cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified
petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel
a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the
person exclusively on the ground that any
material representation contained therein as
required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than
twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided,
after due notice and hearing, not later than
fifteen days before the election.

Q: Is there an exception to the residence qualification?

A: Yes. RA 9189 (Absentee Voters Act of 2003)
MACALINTAL V. COMELEC

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

FACTS:
Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the
validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others:
1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he
executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a
resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the
election;
2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of
votes and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it
is Congress which is empowered to do so.

HELD:
There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for
non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a resident of
his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant
who executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for purposes of being
qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee
voter.
The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the
winners in the vice-presidential and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its
power. The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way
transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
Under the ABSENTEE VOTERS ACT OF 2003, overseas absentee voters are allowed to vote for President, Vice-President, Senators and
Party- List representatives. This is a clear intent to enfranchise Filipinos abroad, to allow them to have a voice in the selection of our
leaders. This refers to IMMIGRANTS and those who acquire the right to reside therein. It does not pertain to NATURALIZED CITIZENS.
However, there must be an affidavit executed by these Filipinos abroad that they will return and resume residence in the Philippines within
3 years.
This is an exception to residence qualification
For purposes of election law, ones domicile is that to which the
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence.

Failure of Elections
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling
place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended
before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the
voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election
returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of
election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on
ART. VII, Sec 4, Par 7
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
ART. IX(C), Sec 2, Par 2
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

the basis of a verified petition by any interested party and after due
notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the
cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the
election or failure to elect.
Pre-Proclamation
Sec. 241. Definition. - 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 of political parties before the board or directly
with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235
and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns.
Sec. 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-
proclamation controversies. - The Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It may motu proprio or
upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial
or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the
evidence shall warrant in accordance with the succeeding sections.
Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation
controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be raised
in a pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies
in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion,
or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.
Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction,
or involving elective barangay officials decidednby trial courts of limited
jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall
be final, executory, and not appealable.
Election Protest/Counter Protest
KHO v. COMELEC
Facts: On May 30, 1995, petitioner Kho, a losing candidate in the 1995
gubernatorial elections in Masbate, filed an election protest1 against
private respondent Espinosa to set aside the proclamation of the latter
as the Provincial Governor of Masbate and to declare him instead the
winner in the elections. Private respondent Espinosa, on the other
hand, argued that the five (5) day period of filing an answer is not
jurisdictional because the answer in not an initiatory pleading and the
time of its filing can be extended either through motion or motu propio.
He added that the COMELEC, in admitting the answer with counter-
protest, committed no error as it is allowed to suspend its rules in the
interest of justice and speedy disposition of matters before it. According
to him, the order of the COMELEC dated July 26, 1995 admitting his
counter-protest is not subjected to a timely motion for reconsideration
by petitioner Kho, thus it became final and executory and can no longer
be disturb.
Held: We find the petition meritorius.
It is clear from the records that private respondent Espinosa filed his
answer with counter protest way beyond the reglementary period of five
(5) days provided for by law. It must be pointed out that Espinosa
received the COMELEC summons and the Pettition of Protest of Kho
on June 6, 1995. Under Section 1, Rule 10 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, the answer must be filed within five (5) days from service of
summons and a copy of the petition. Private respondent Espinosa,
therefore, had until June 11, 1995 within which to file his answer. In
violation however of the aforesaid rules, Espinosa filed his answer with
counter-protest only on June 15, 1995, obviously beyond the five (5)
mandatory period. It should be stressed that under the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, the protestee may incorporate in his answer a
Marcial-2J

Effects of Disqualification
GUERRERO v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000
FACTS:
Guillermo Ruiz file a petition to disqualify respondent Rodolfo Farias
as a candidate for the position of Congressman in the First District of
Ilocos Norte. Ruiz alleged that Farias had been campaigning as a
candidate for Congressman in the May 11, 1998 polls, despite his
failure to file a certificate of candidacy for said office. On May 8, 1998 or
3 days before the election, Farinas filed his certificate of candidacy
substituting candidate Chevylle Farinas who withdrew on April 3, 1998. Effect of Death
On May 10, 1998, the COMELEC dismissed the petition of Ruiz.
After the election, Farinas was duly proclaimed winner. Ruiz filed a
motion for reconsideration, contending that Farinas could not validly
substitute for Chevylle Farinas, since the latter was not the official
candidate of LAMMP, but was an independent candidate. On June 3,
1988, Farinas took his oath of office as a member of the House of
Representatives. Comelec dismissed the MR on the ground that the
matter is now within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of
Representative Electoral Tribunal.
ISSUES:
Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the
determination of the validity of the certificate of candidacy of
respondent Farias is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives?
HELD:
There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC
when it held that its jurisdiction over the case had ceased with the
assumption of office of respondent Farinas as Representative for the
first district of Ilocos Norte. While COMELEC is vested with the power
Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer
counterprotest. It has been said that a counter-protest is tantamount to
a counterclaim in a civil action and may be presented as a part of the
answer within the time he is required to answer the protest, unless a
motion for extension is granted, in which it must be filed before the
expiration of the extended time. Apparently, the counter-protest of
Espinosa was incorporated in his answer. And as what was revealed,
this answer with counter-protest was filed only on June 15, 1995, which
was obviously late for four (4) days. It appears that Espinosa did not file
a motion for extension of time within which to file his answer with
counter-protest. In the absence thereof, there is no basis then for the
COMELEC First Division to admit the belatedly filed answer with
counter-protest.
De Castro v. COMELEC
In 1995, Jimmy De Castro was proclaimed as the mayor of Gloria,
Oriental Mindoro. Amando Medrano was declared as the vice mayor.
Later, an election protest was filed against De Castro by his rival
candidate, Nicolas Jamilla. While the case was pending, Jamilla died.
The trial court then dismissed the election protest on the ground that
the death of Jamilla has extinguished the case because the action is
personal in nature.
Medrano filed a motion to intervene with reconsideration. The court
denied his motion. He then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus
with the Commission on Elections which granted his petition. De Castro
opposed the petition as he argues that the action is personal to Jamilla
and that Medrano is not a proper party.
ISSUE: Whether or not the election protest case was distinguished
when Jamilla, the primary contestant thereto, died.
HELD: No. It is true that a public office is personal to the public officer
and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death. Thus,
applying the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona, upon the
death of the incumbent, no heir of his may be allowed to continue
holding his office in his place. But nevertheless, an election contest
involves both the private interests of the rival candidates and the public
interest in the final determination of the real choice of the electorate,
and for this reason, an election contest necessarily survives the death
Marcial-2J
 to declare valid or invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to
exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption of the
position by Farinas is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries
separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the
Constitution, the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of members
of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of
the House of Representatives, COMELECs jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the
HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELECs decision to
discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in
deference to the HRETs own jurisdiction and functions.
of the protestant or the protestee. There is a paramount need to
remove the cloud and the uncertainty as to the real choice of the
electorate, and this cannot be resolved if the election protest is
dismissed simply because a party thereto died.
As regards the issue of whether or Medrano is a proper party, a vice
mayor elect has the status of a real party in interest in the continuation
of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene therein. For if the protest
succeeds and the Protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor succeeds to
the office of Mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot
assume the post.

In an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a

winning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his
post as Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the
HRET. The reason for this ruling is self-evident, for it avoids duplicity of
proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitutional bodies,
with due regard to the peoples mandate.

LOONG vs. COMELEC

216 SCRA 760, 1992

Facts: On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed with respondent

Commission his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-
Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region in the election held on
17 February 1990. On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election),
respondent Ututalum filed before the respondent Commission a petition
seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-Governor,
on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his
certificate of candidacy as to his age.

Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that
the respondent COMELEC has no jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss
was denied by the COMELEC in a resolution which is the subject of this
petition.

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

 Petitioner Loong contends that SPA No. 90-006 (a petition to cancel the
certificate of candidacy of petitioner Loong) was filed out of time
because it was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code.

Issue: Whether or not SPA No. 90-006 was filed within the period
prescribed by law.

Held: No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the
respondent COMELEC to disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that
the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as
to his age, clearly does not fall under the grounds of disqualification as
provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of
candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of the
petition at any time after the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, is merely a
procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which, although a
constitutional body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it can not
supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which is a
legislative enactment.

Tecson v. Comelec

Facts:
Petitioners sought for respondent Poes disqualification in the
presidential elections for having allegedly misrepresented material facts
in his (Poes) certificate of candidacy by claiming that he is a natural
Filipino citizen despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec
dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a Filipino Citizen.
Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, contending that only
the Supreme Court may resolve the basic issue on the case under
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had jurisdiction.
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in holding
that Poe was a Filipino citizen.
Ruling:
[if !supportLists]1.) [endif]The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

 questions regarding qualification of a candidate for the presidency or
vice-presidency before the elections are held.
"Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal" in connection with Section
4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, refers to contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-
President", of the Philippines which the Supreme Court may take
cognizance, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-President
before the elections.
[if !supportLists]2.) [endif]Comelec committed no grave abuse of
discretion in holding Poe as a Filipino Citizen.

The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing fundamental law

on respondents birth, provided that among the citizens of the
Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines."

Tracing respondents paternal lineage, his grandfather Lorenzo, as

evidenced by the latters death certificate was identified as a Filipino
Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn from the presumption that
having died in 1954 at the age of 84, Lorenzo would have been born in
1870. In the absence of any other evidence, Lorenzos place of
residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to be the place of
residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited
from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in
1902. Being so, Lorenzos citizenship would have extended to his son,
Allan---respondents father.

Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allans son to Bessie,

though an American citizen, was a Filipino citizen by virtue of paternal
filiation as evidenced by the respondents birth certificate. The 1935
Constitution on citizenship did not make a distinction on the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of the child, thus, the allegation of bigamous marriage
and the allegation that respondent was born only before the assailed
marriage had no bearing on respondents citizenship in view of the
established paternal filiation evidenced by the public documents
presented.

But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that
respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the
evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

 that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section
78, in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

2. Election and Campaign Period

Congressm
Criteria Pres VP Senator an
Citizenship Natural-Born Citizen
Literacy Able to read and write
Suffrage Registered Voter
Age 40 yrs old 35 yrs old 25 yrs old
at the day of election
Residence 10 yrs 2 yrs 1 yr
Within the Philippines in district
at the day of election

Art. IX-C, Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of
election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

Campaign Period: General Rule: Begins after the period for filing of Certificate of Candidacy until the day of election.

Sec. 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or
candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign
period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the
commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
Sec. 3. Election and campaign periods. - Unless otherwise fixed in special cases by the Commission on Elections, which hereinafter shall be
referred to as the Commission, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of the election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

The period of campaign shall be as follows:

1. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election - 90 days;
2. Election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and Local Election - 45 days; and
3. Barangay Election - 15 days.
The campaign periods shall not include the day before and the day of the election. However, in case of special elections under Article VIII, Section
5, Subsection (2) of the Constitution, the campaign period shall be forty-five days.

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

Art. V, Sec. 2 The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by
qualified Filipinos abroad xxx Provides for: (1) A system for securing the security and sanctity of ballots (2) A system for absentee voting

IV. EXIT POLLS

The reason for securing the sanctity/secrecy of ballots is to avoid vote buying through voter identification. What is forbidden is the association of
voters with their respective votes for the purpose of assuring that votes have been cast in accordance with the instruction of a third party. Exit polls
conducted by ABS-CBN does not violate the sanctity of ballots. The contents of the ballots are not exposed. The revelation is not compulsory but
voluntary. Also, voters are not required to reveal their names. (ABS-CBN v. COMELEC)

Q: Even if you possess all qualifications and none of the disqualifications. If you fail to register you will not be able/ allowed to vote. Is registration
then an additional qualification of a voter?
A: No. It is merely a condition precedent for the exercise of the right of suffrage. Registration laws are police power measures designed to ensure
that only those who possess qualifications and none of the disqualifications can be allowed to exercise the right of suffrage. They are for the
purpose of conducting an honest and free election.

V. REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Q: Who has the power to register political parties?
A: COMELEC in accordance with Article IX-C, Sec. 2(5). It is the registration with COMELEC that vests personality to an organization as a political
party.

Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5) ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAY NOT BE REGISTERED

AS POLITICAL PARTIES
(1) religious denominations and sects
(2) those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means
(3) those which refuse to uphold the Constitution
(4) those which are supported by any foreign government

Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5) Par. 2 Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organization, coalitions, or
candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of
their registration with the Commission, in addition to their penalties that may be prescribed by law.

This constitute an election offense in accordance to Section 81, Omnibus election Code Intervention of foreigners- it shall be unlawful for any
foreigners, whether judicial (juridical) or natural person, to aid any candidate or political party, directly or indirectly, or to take part in or influence in
any manner any election, or to contribute or make any expenditure in connection with any election campaign or partisan political activity.

VI. MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM

We are supposed to have a multi-party system as provided under Art. IX-C, Sec. 6 A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve
according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.

VII. ELECTION PERIOD

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

Q: What is the election period?
A: Art. IX-C, Sec. 9 provides that unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence 90 days before
the day of election and shall end 30 days thereafter.

VIII. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES DURING ELECTION PERIOD

(1) construction of public highways/ public works
(2) public employment, appointment

IX. CAMPAIGN PERIOD

- duration usually shorter
- depends on the office aspired for
-usually starts after the last day of filing of the certificate of candidacy and ends one day before elections.

X. ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Election Campaign and partisan political activity are the same. They are used interchangeably.
Under Sec. 79 (b) Omnibus Election Code, it refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to
a public office xxx Section 80, Omnibus Election Code ELECTION CAMPAIGN OR PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE
CAMPAIGN PERIOD It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage
in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: PROVIDED, that political parties may hold political
conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within 30 days before the commencement of the campaign period and 45 days for
Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.

GENERAL RULE: It is unlawful for any person to engage in an election campaign except during the campaign period. Otherwise, it will be an
election offense.

EXCEPTION: Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their candidates within 30 days before the commencement of the
campaign period within 45 days for President and Vice-President elections. CANDIDATE

Sec. 79(a) Omnibus Election Code the term CANDIDATE refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a
certificate of candidacy by himself of through an accredited political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties.

Q: Does Pichays as itanim sa senado even before the elections and campaign period violate Sec. 80 of the OEC?
A: No. At that time, Pichay has not yet filed his certificate of candidacy. He is not yet a candidate within the meaning of the law. Therefore, it cannot
be considered as an election campaign.

XI. FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

Sec.76. Omnibus Election Code Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt The Commission, provincial election supervisor,
election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial
duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

It is a ministerial duty on the part of the election official to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. The question of whether
or not a person is disqualified belongs to another tribunal in an appropriate disqualification case.

Q: Ka Roger went to Laguna to file COC. The election officer refused because he seeks to achieve goals through violence. Valid?
A: No. It is the ministerial duty on the part of the election official to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. The question of
whether or not a person is disqualified belongs to another tribunal in an appropriate disqualification case.

PERIOD
Sec. 73, 1st sentence, OEC No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the
period fixed herein xxx
The certificate of candidacy must be filed within the period prescribed by law. Late filing not allowed

Sec. 73, 3rd sentence, OEC No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of
candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them xxx

The certificate of candidacy must be filed for only one office in an election. If a candidate files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office,
he shall not be eligible for any of them.

XII. WITHDRAWAL
Q: Can you withdraw the certificate of candidacy?
A: Yes. A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written
declaration under oath. (Sec. 73, 2nd sentence, OEC)

>>MONSALE v. NICO<<
On the last day of filing of certificate of candidacy. March 31, Jose Monsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy. April 1, campaign started. On April
2, he wanted to run again so he filed a written declaration withdrawing his withdrawal.

HELD: The withdrawal of the withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy made after the last day of filing is considered as filing of a new certificate of
candidacy. Hence, it was not allowed since it was filed out of time.

XIII. EFFECT OF FILING OF A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

Appointive Officials
Sec. 66. OEC Candidates holding appointive office or position Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in the government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

Q: X, a municipal treasurer filed a certificate of candidacy for governor. What is the effect?
A: He is considered ipso facto resigned.
Q: Is there a need to resign?
A: NO! The appointive official is ipso facto resigned. Ipso facto means no need to resign.
Q: What if after filing, the appointive official withdrew his certificate of candidacy. Can he be reinstated to his former position?

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

A: No! What matters is the moment of filing.
>>PNOC-EDC v. NLRC<<
HELD: The OEC does not distinguish between employees of GOCCs which have original charters and those that do not have one.

Elective Officials
Sec. 67, OEC Candidates holding elective office xxx has already been repealed by the Repealing Clause of the Fair Election Act under Sec. 14,
RA 9006 Repealing Clause. Sec 67 and 85 0f the EOC xxx are hereby repealed.

Q: What governs now?

A: Secton 38, COMELEC Resolution 7767 (30 Nov 2006), Implementing Rules of the Fair Election Act Effect of Filing Certificate of Candidacy of
Elective Officials Any elective official, whether national or local, who has filed a certificate of candidacy for the same or other office shall not be
considered resigned from his office.

>>FARIAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY<<

HELD: The provision of the Fair Election Act (RA 9006) to the extent that it repealed Sec.67 of OEC is constitutional.

Q: Vice-governor filed a certificate of candidacy for governor. What is the effect?

A: He is NOT ipso facto considered resigned. Sec. 67 OEC has been repealed by the FAIR ELECTION ACT (RA 9006). Any elective official, national
or local shall not be considered as resigned from their elective office.

XIV. SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES

Q: What are the GROUNDS for substitution of candidates?
A: Sec.77, OEC enumerates 3Grounds:
(1) Death
(2) Disqualification
(3) Withdrawal of another

Section 77. OEC Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. - If after the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging
to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The
substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the
preceding sections not later than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before
the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a
candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.

Q: When may substitution take place?

A: Substitution can only take place on the first day of campaign period until NOT later than mid-day of election day.
Q: Martin de Guzman, a candidate for mayor, died 3 days before the election. Can his wife substitute him?
A: It depends. Under Sec. 77, only a candidate belonging to the same political party may be substituted. By implication, an independent or those
who do not belong to any political party may not be validly substituted because nobody will qualify.
Q: What are the requirements for substitution?

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

A: (1) nominated by the political party concerned
(2) certified by the political party concerned
Q: Martin de Guzman died while campaigning. His son substituted him. Voters on the day of the election wrote Martin de Guzman instead of casting
the same in the name of his son, Joel de Guzman. Should the votes be counted in favor of Joel?
A: Yes! As a general rule, under RA 9006, Sec. 12, the same will be considered as stray votes but will not invalidate the whole ballot. Exception is
when the substitute carries the same family name, the said provision will not apply.
Section 12. RA 9006 Substitution of Candidates. In case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the
substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide
spaces where the voters may write the name of the substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter: Provided, however, That if the substitute
candidate of the same family name, this provision shall not apply.

>>MIRANDA v. ABAYA<<
FACTS: In the 1998 election, mayor Miranda of Isabela, already served 8 consecutive terms, yet he still filed a certificate of candidacy. As a result,
Abaya filed a disqualification case. COMELEC then disqualified Miranda and cancelled his certificate of candidacy. The son of Miranda, Joel, upon
nomination of their political party, filed a certificate as a substitute. Joel Miranda won.
HELD: There was no valid substitution. COMELEC did not only disqualify Miranda but also cancelled his certificate of candidacy. Therefore, he
cannot be validly substituted. It is as if he was not a candidate. Even on the most basic and fundamental principles, it is already understood that the
concept of a substitute presupposes the existence of the person to be substituted, for how can a person take the place of somebody who does not
exist or who never was. The court has no other choice but to rule that in all instances enumerated in Sec.77 of the OEC, the existence of a valid
certificate of candidacy seasonably filed is a requisite sine quo non. All told, a disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid
certificate of candidacy in the first place because if the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably filed COC, he is and was not a
candidate at all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted under Sec. 77 of the OEC. The purpose of the law in requiring the filing of
the COC and in fixing the time limit therefore are: (a) To enable the voters to know at least 60 days before the regular election, the candidates
among whom they are to make the choice and (b) To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast.

Q: Considering that Joel possesses all the qualifications, can he be considered as a candidate in his own right?
A: No. The certificate of candidacy was filed long after the last day of filing (Sec. 73, OEC) The existence of a certificate of candidacy is a condition
sine qua non under Section 77.
Q: Since there was no valid substitution, should the candidate who obtained the second highest vote be proclaimed?
A: No. Under the doctrine on the rejection of second placer, the second placer is just like that second placer. He was not the choice of the
electorate. The wreath (crown) of victory cannot be transferred to the repudiated loser. (Cayat v. COMELEC citing Butch Aquino v. COMELEC and
Sunga v. COMELEC)
Q: Who will now assume the position of mayorship?
A: Following the rule on succession, it is the Vice-Mayor.

>>LABO DOCTRINE<<
The thrust is what to do with the votes cast for a disqualified candidate. Should they be considered as stray votes?

SC: No! That would disenfranchise the majority. The votes cast for the disqualified are not stray votes they are valid votes only that the candidate
was later on found to be disqualified. It would have been different if his disqualification was so apparent, so notorious, so much so that the people,
notwithstanding that they knew him to be disqualified, they still voted for him in which case the votes cast for him shall be considered as protest

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

votes. Protest votes are considered as stray votes. But not in this case, where the people of Baguio voted for Labo only to find out that he is
disqualified. You cannot apply Labo Doctrine in Party-List because of Section 10, RA 7941

>>CAYAT v. COMELEC<<
FACTS: Rev. Fr. Nardo Cayat ran for Mayor. Palileng, his opponent, found out that Cayat, before the elections, was previously convicted of acts of
lasciviousness although he was granted probation. His candidacy was then questioned in a disqualification case invoking Section 40 pf the LGC.
(Disqualification The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within (2) years after serving sentence ; xxx)
COMELEC disqualified Cayat on the ground of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. However, Cayat alleged that he did not receive a
copy of the judgment. That decision disqualifying Cayat became final even 2 weeks before the election. Still, Cayat won in the election. Palileng
claimed that since Cayat is disqualified, he should be the one proclaimed.

HELD: The Court agreed and did not apply the doctrine of the rejection of the second placer. The one who obtained the second highest number of
votes was the one actually proclaimed. This is very peculiar because here, there is only one candidate. Since Cayat was disqualified, it is as if he is
not a candidate. Hence, there is no second placer here. The doctrine of the rejection of second placer is not applicable because of Sec.6 of RA
6646 Also, under Section 6, RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987 Effect of disqualification) which contemplates of 2 situations, it is the 1st
sentence which applies to Cayat. He was declared by final judgment, to be disqualified because the decision attained finality even 2 weeks before
the election. He shall therefore not be voted for and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. The second sentence contemplates that there was a
disqualification case filed before the COMELEC but for whatever reason, COMELEC was not able to render a decision before the election and such
candidate won in the election, in which case, the court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the election, inquiry or protest.

XV. DISQUALIFICATIONS/REMEDIES BEFORE ELECTION

Any disqualification filed before the election, whether pursuant to Sections 68, 69 and 78 of OEC, the jurisdiction is with the COMELEC
(1) Section 68, OEC Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a
competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having: (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the
voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign
an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office.

Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws. Violation of election laws is without prejudice to the filing of criminal action.

(2) Section 69, OEC Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give
due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if the candidate is a nuisance candidate.
Q: Who is NUISANCE CANDIDATE?
A: A nuisance candidate is a candidate who has no bona fide intention to run, his purpose is merely to put the election process in mockery or
disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts
intended to prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. (Bautista v. COMELEC)

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

Period to file a petition
Within five (5) days from the last day of filing of the certificate of candidacy assuming that COMELEC did not act motu proprio.

(3) Section 78, OEC Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required
under Section 74 hereof is false. Xxx

Period to file a petition

Within twenty-five (25) days from the time the candidate filed his certificate of candidacy/ from the date the candidate alleged to have made
misrepresentation in the COC filed.

>>LOONG v. COMELEC<<
FACTS: Loong was a candidate for Vice-Governor in ARMM. There was an election held but there was yet no proclamation. Eventually, it was found
out that Loong was still underage. Can the petition to disqualify Loong on the ground of material misrepresentation prosper?
HELD: No. The petition was filed out of time. The disqualification case under Sec. 78 should be filed within 25 days from the date the candidate who
made the misrepresentation filed his certificate of candidacy, not on the date of discovery. The 25-day period is mandatory.
Q: What then is the remedy?
A: There is a GAP in the law, which must be addressed by Congress.

>>SALCEDO v. COMLELEC<<
HELD: Material misrepresentation refers to the QUALIFICATIONS of the elective official for the elective office and NOT to any innocuous mistake.
There must be a deliberate intent to deceive the people to ones qualification for public office.

>>TECSON v. COMELEC<<
FACTS: A disqualification case was filed against FPJ in accordance with Sec. 78 on the ground of material representation as to the citizenship.

HELD: There was no material misrepresentation. The misrepresentation must not only be material. There must also be a deliberate intent to mislead
or deceive as to ones qualification to public office.

XVI. EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES

Section 6. RA 6646 Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted
for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

>>ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC<<
There was yet no proclamation, hence not yet a member of the HOR. COMELEC still has jurisdictom

>>GUERRERO v. COMELEC<<
Farias was elected, proclaimed and took his oath. The COMELEC ousted itself of jurisdiction. SC upheld COMELEC. It was recognition of the

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

power of the HRET and the constitutional boundaries.

Election 7am 3pm, then counting, members of Board of Canvassers

Return usually 7 copies:
(1)COMELEC
(2)Treasurer
(3)Municipal Judge

The idea is that in case of lost return, they can refer to the other copies.
Number of votes written in words and number

XVII. POST ELECTION

PRE-PROCLAMATION CASE
Q: After election, but before proclamation, what is the remedy?
A: Pre-proclamation case. But this presupposes that there was election
Q: After proclamation, what is the remedy?
A: (1) Election Protest (2) Quo Warranto
- In pre-proclamation cases, the governing provisions are Section 241, 242,
243 OEC.

Section 241, OEC Definition. - 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 of political parties before the board or directly with
the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns.

Section 242, OEC Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all preproclamation controversies. - The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of
all pre-proclamation controversies. It may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total
suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall
warrant in accordance with the succeeding sections.

Section 243,OEC Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the
same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the
aggrieved candidate or candidates.

Section 243, OEC refers to issues that may ne raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. There are four (4) grounds, which can be summarized into
two (2):

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

(1) illegality in the composition of proceedings of the BOC (a)
(2) illegality in the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, or appreciation of election returns (b, c,d)
Eg. Ballot box switching not proper for pre-proclamation case; does not fall under any of the instances under Art. 243 of OEC.
Once a candidate has been proclaimed, the pending pre-proclamation case should be dismissed. After all, the issues pending in the pre-
proclamation case will also be raised in the subsequent Election Protest or Quo Warranto case filed.

XVIII. DOCTRINE OF STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY LAGUMBAY

DONCTRINE
Where there exist similarities in the tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party, and results in the blanking out of the opposing candidates,
the election returns are obviously manufactured on the basis of the doctrine of statistical improbability. As watcher, object to the inclusion of the
canvass of the particular return on the ground that the election returns are obviously manufactured on the basis of the doctrine of statistical
improbability. If still included, it can result to a pre-proclamation controversy.

Pre-proclamation cases is NOT allowed in barangay elections.

Section 15, RA 7166 Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of
Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President, Vice- President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no
preproclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns
or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or
upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.

Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in
accordance with Section 19 hereof. Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the municipal
certificates of canvass before the provincial board of canvassers or district boards of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noticed
in the minutes of their respective proceedings.

For purposes of election of

(1) President
(2) Vice-President
(3) Senators
(4) House of Representatives
There can be no pre-proclamation case on matters relating to transmission, custody of election returns; the only issue that can be raised illegality
of the composition or proceeding of the Board of Canvassers
Therefore, there can only be a pre-proclamation case on the following:
(1) Municipal officials
(2) City officials
(3) Provincial officials
Autonomous officials

XIX. FAILURE OF ELECTION

Section 6, OEC Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect,
and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.

GROUNDS FOR FAILURE OF ELECTION

(1) Force majeure
(2) Violence
(3) Terrorism
(4) Fraud
(5) Analogous Causes

SITUATIONS
(1) No election The election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of FVTFA
(2) Election is suspended The election in any polling place has been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account
of FVTFA
(3) There is a failure to elect After the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or to the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of FVTFA; nobody emerged as winner
Q: What are the two (2) conditions that must concur before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election?
A: (1) no voting took place in the precinct
(2) on the date fixed by law or even if there was voting, the election resulted in a failure to elect.

Q: Where to file a petition to declare a failure of election?

A: COMELEC EN BANC. The majority of the Commission may grant the petition and schedule special election in areas affected.
(Section 4, RA 7166 Postponement, Failure of election and special Elections The postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling
of special elections as provided in Sec. 5, 6, and 7 of the OEC shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its
Members. The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after the casting of votes or n the day of the election xxx)

>>BANAGA v. COMELEC<<
Failure of election is the same with petition to annul election returns
General Rule: xxx All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commision en banc. (Art IX-C, Section 3)

Exception: A petition to declare a failure of election shall be heard by the COMELEC en banc.

PRE-PROCLAMATION v. FAILURE OF ELECTION

- In pre-proclamation, there is actually an election that took place
- In failure of election, there was no election at all or it was suspended or there was a failure to elect.

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

>>MITMUG v. COMELEC<<
There were 3 candidates for mayor. The total registered voters is 10, 000. Only 3,000 voted. There was a low turn out of voters. A petition was filed
to declare a failure of election

HELD: The petition cannot be granted. There was an election that took place. The law does not require the majority of voters to cast their votes.
There can only be a failure of election if the will of the people is defiled and cannot be determined.

XX. PROCLAMATION
Q: Who proclaims the winner?
A: (1) Board of Canvassers
(2) President, Vice-President Elections: Congress acting as Board of Canvassers
(3) Senators: COMELEC
(4) Congressman
(a) Lone Congressional district Provincial BOC
(b) Several districts District BOC
It is the ministerial duty of the BOC to proclaim the winning candidate. It has no discretion whether to proclaim or not. After the last official act, which
is the proclamation, the BOC becomes functus officio and may not validly reconvene motu proprio. However, when the COMELEC ordered the
reconveyance of the BOC, it may.

XXI. POST-ELECTION REMEDIES

Election Protest
- who really won in the election?, determination of real choice of
electorate
- only the candidate running for the same can file
- if the protestant wins, he shall be proclaimed and shall replace the
previously proclaimed winner.
- eg. coercion, terrorism, ballot box switching, vote buying.
Quo Warranto
- whether the winning candidate is qualified, eligibility or lack of
qualifications of the candidate
- If the winning candidate is disqualified, he shall be removed and
automatic succession shall apply unless what is removed is not a local
elective official, in which case, the position shall be declared vacant, until
there is a special election to fill the vacancy.
-eg. Citizenship, residence, disloyalty to Republic of the Philippines

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

 Election Protest Quo Warranto
Substance The real winner of election. Qualifications of the member
within 10 days from
proclamation exception; lack
Time withn 15 days from Proclamation of citizenship

President & Vice President: Supreme Court En Banc The Supreme Court, sitting en banc,
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Jurisdiction

Congress: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by
the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.

(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective
municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.

>>DUMAYAS v. COMELEC<<
Election Protest is a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and counting of the
ballots or in the preparation of returns. It resolves the question of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to
hold the office. Quo warranto raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place.
JURISDICTION

1. President/VP - SC en banc , acting as Presidential Electoral - EP 30 days from proclamation

Tribunal - QW 10 days from proclamation
(Art. VII, Sec. 4[7]) sole judge
2. Members of the Congress -Senate Electoral Tribunal -EP or QW
Senator -HR Electoral Tribunal (Art. VI, Sec. 17) - 15 days after proclamation
House of Representatives No appeal Or Rule 65 (Special Civil Action on - 10 days after proclamation
Certiorari)
3. Governor/Vice-Governor -COMELEC (Original) -10 days from proclamation
(Art. IX-C, Sec. 2[2])
-SC (Appellate)
4. Regional/Provincial/City -COMELEC (Original)
-SC (Appellate)
5. Elective Municipal Official -RTC (Original) (trial courts of general
jurisdiction)
-COMELEC (Appellate)
(Art. IX-C, Sec. 2[2])
6. Elective Barangay Official -MTC (Original) (trial courts of limited
jurisdiction)
-COMELEC (Appellate)

>>REYES v. RTC OF ORIENTAL MINDORO<<

From the decision of the COMELEC, file first a motion for reconsideration. It is only the decision of COMELEC EN BANC that is reviewable by the
SC.

>>TECSON v. COMELEC<<
Before the election, a petition was filed on the ground of material misrepresentation. COMELEC dismissed the petition. TECSON et. al. argued tha
the jurisdiction with the SC.

HELD: Contest refers to post-election scenario and not pre-election scenario. It shall consist of either an election protest or quo warranto which
are two (2) distinct remedies but with one objective, to unseat winning candidate. SC has jurisdiction over election contests of President/Vice-
President and NOT candidates. It does NOT include a petition qualifying a candidate for President/Vice-President. Sc is the sole judge for
President/Vice-President and NOT over candidates for President/Vice- President. Hence, the action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
prematurity.

election returns refers to election protest

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

qualification refers to quo warranto

>>GALIDO v. COMELEC<<
Notwithstanding the finality of COMELECs decision, the parties are NOT precluded from filing a petition for certiorari with the SC.

>>FRIVALD0 v. COMELEC ; LOONG v. COMELEC<<

If the ground relied upon is lack of citizenship or disloyalty to the Republic, the period must be extended.

XXII. EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY

Q: What is the effect of death of a party in an election protest? Should it warrant the dismissal of the protest?
A: The death of the protestant neither constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest not ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the
election contest. An election protest involves both the private interests of the rival candidates and the public interest in the final determination of the
real choice of the electorate, and for this reason, an election contest necessarily survives the death of the protestant or the protestee. But while the
right to public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an election protest ins not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to
the protestee such that after the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings. An election contest, after
all, involves not merely conflicting private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests. (DE CASTRO v. COMELEC)

COUNTER-PROTEST available to a winning candidate if his election is protested. A remedy available to a duly proclaimed winner in order to
protect ones lead. Allege also the precinct where your opponent cheated.

>>KHO v. COMELEC<<
Counter protest must be filed within 5 days from receipt of the copy of the protest. The period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. It
partakes the nature of a counterclaim. So that the court is ousted of jurisdiction to entertain a counter protest belatedly filed. If a counter protest was
belatedly filed, but was erroneously admitted, the remedy is to file a motion to expunge the counter protest from the records. If not expunged from
the record, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

XXIII. ELECTION OFFENSE

Q: Who has jurisdiction over election offenses?
A: RTC, except in cases where there is failure to register to vote which shall be under the MTC.
Section 268, OEC Jurisdiction of courts. - The regional trial court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action
or proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases.
Q: Who shall prosecute election offenses?
A: COMELEC not the fiscal unless the latter is deputized by the COMELEC
Q: In case of public official, should COMELEC still prosecute?
A: COMELEC can still prosecute. It is not the personality of the accused but the nature of the offense.
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS
- within the jurisdiction of MTC appealable to RTC
-RTC decision is not appealable
WHEN ELECTION PROTEST BECOMES MOOT

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J

Defensor Santiago filed an Election Protest. Subsequently, she ran for Senator and won. She abandoned her protest when she ran for an office
different frim that of the President.
RULES ON APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
(1) GENERAL RULE After the elections, the liberal interpretation rule shall be applied. IN CASE OF DOUBT, the rule in favor of the vote being
valid as to give effect to the will of the electorate shall be followed.
(2) EQUITY OF INCUMBENT RULE 2 or more candidates running for the same office, they bear the same first name, surname or both and the
voter in his ballot wrote only either of the 2, the vote shall be appreciated in favor of the incumbent. If neither of them is incumbent, the votes shall
be considered stray votes.
(3) IDEM SONANS RULE or SAME SOUNDS RULE If the name of the candidate is misspelled by the voter, for as long as when it is pronounced,
it sounds like the name of the candidate, the vote is counted in the latters favor UNLESS it can be considered as marking, in which case the entire
ballot is invalid.

(4) DESCRIPTIO PERSONAE rule is the same in idem sonans rule.

Sandoval Notes 2015-2016 Election Law Reviewer Marcial-2J